Insurance Cost & Risk Optimisation · Data Sheet
Insurance Cost & Risk Financial Results
Quantified result architecture for a concluded insurance review, with quoted, negotiated, modelled and conditional outcomes separated by label.
8 · Status legend
Read this before any percentage below
Scroll table sideways →
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Achieved | A completed outcome, already realised. |
| Negotiated / quoted | A commercial result obtained, subject to implementation or placement where applicable. |
| Identified | A substantiated issue or opportunity requiring decision or implementation. |
| Modelled | A calculated result based on evidenced inputs and stated assumptions. |
| Modelled / conditional | A calculated result whose value changes if a stated trigger or threshold is breached. |
1 · Result classification
Every result, with its status and its interpretation
Scroll table sideways →
| Area | Status | Result | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portable electronic equipment, rate | Negotiated | 57.4% lower | Direct rate comparison, after the scope of movable-equipment cover was challenged and clarified. |
| Portable electronic equipment, annual premium | Negotiated / quoted | 56.7% lower | Annualised comparison. The alternative also included an additional compatibility-cover amount at no extra premium. |
| Motor and fleet, conventional annual premium | Quoted | 21.8% lower | Like-for-like annual-premium comparison, before any deposit mechanism. |
| Incumbent fleet deposit scenario | Modelled / conditional | Up to 30.0% lower | The maximum applies only where annual claims stay below the relevant threshold. |
| Alternative fleet deposit scenario | Modelled / conditional | 36.1% lower | Historical-claims model under the alternative 80% deposit structure. |
| Motor + electronics, conventional | Modelled | 31.4% lower | Combined effect of the conventional motor quote and the negotiated electronics premium. |
| Motor + electronics, deposit | Modelled / conditional | 41.8% lower | The higher combined result, dependent on claims behaviour under the deposit structure. |
2 · Deposit mechanics
Four structures, and what each one actually is
Scroll table sideways →
| Scenario | Premium structure | Claims trigger | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incumbent, existing placement | 100% annual premium | None | Baseline |
| Incumbent, 70/30 deposit | 70% initial deposit; the remaining 30% becomes payable if the claims threshold is exceeded | Threshold based on the deposit structure | Conditional — no saving in a higher-claims year, up to 30.0% in a lower-claims year |
| Alternative, conventional | A lower fixed annual premium | None | Quoted; 21.8% below the incumbent annual premium |
| Alternative, 80/20 deposit | 80% deposit against the negotiated fleet premium; balance depends on the claims threshold | The remaining 20% is conditional | Modelled / conditional; 36.1% below baseline in the tested scenario |
The analysis did not treat every lower cash outflow as the same kind of saving. A deposit model changes the timing and conditionality of the premium rather than substituting one fixed annual price for another.
3 · The two claims years
What the testing actually showed
Scroll table sideways →
| Evidence point | What it showed | Why it mattered |
|---|---|---|
| Higher-claims year | Vehicle claims exceeded the incumbent fleet threshold. | The remaining premium became payable. The deposit mechanism produced no net annual saving. |
| Lower-claims year | Vehicle claims stayed below the threshold. | The unpaid balance remained a saving — which is precisely why deposit results must be labelled conditional. |
| Alternative deposit test | A lower negotiated premium with an 80/20 mechanism. | The model generated a larger potential saving, but only if the claims outcome stays within the structure. |
6 · Claims performance
Service evidence, and the limits of the comparison
Scroll table sideways →
| Sample | Observed range | Represented |
|---|---|---|
| Comparable NPO 1 | Single-digit days to several weeks in the records supplied | Collision, own damage, windscreens and laptop theft. |
| Comparable NPO 2 | Same-day and very short matters through to 96 days | Theft, attempted theft, material damage, laptops, windscreens, lightning and own damage. |
Longer cases were not treated as poor performance: claim type, documentation, investigation and third-party involvement all materially influence completion time. The incumbent report gave loss type and financial history but not equivalent end-to-end timestamps, so the comparison is not symmetrical.
7 · Non-price findings
Structural issues raised by the review
Scroll table sideways →
| Issue | Finding | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Five-policy programme | Separate general liability, professional liability, excess-layer, special-risk and business-package placements in force. | Created a need to map overlap, limits, policy interaction and administrative duplication. |
| Liability structure | Public-liability cover questioned as possibly duplicated across parts of the programme. | Potential unnecessary cost or complexity, requiring policy-level verification before change. |
| Solar and fixed assets | Some solar assets appeared restricted to fire-peril protection. | A cover-breadth issue rather than a price issue. |
| Cyber insurance | No cyber placement was evident in the reviewed programme. | Identified for management consideration. Not represented as an achieved saving. |
| Broker and insurer chain | Concern raised about multiple parties between insured and insurer on the asset placement. | Potential administration, claims-handling and cost implications requiring scrutiny. |
| References and complaints | Three references obtained for the prospective broker; online complaint material investigated for both. | Service due diligence formed part of supplier evaluation alongside price. |
On the combined percentages
Motor and portable electronics were the two strongest quantified levers, and combining them usefully shows the scale of the intervention.
The combined percentages do not represent a reduction across every policy in the programme, and should not be read that way.