In­ter­na­tional Claims Con­ven­tion 2012:

Claims Chal­lenges

Insurance - - EVENT REVIEW -

AThe in­surance in­dus­try had dealt with a string of dis­as­ters in 2011. It was hit by Ja­pan and New Zealand earth­quakes as well as Aus­tralia and Thai­land’s dev­as­tat­ing floods which have sig­nif­i­cantly im­pacted the P&C and Life seg­ments.

ccord­ing to a report by the Asia In­surance Re­view, 2011 recorded the high­est ever to­tal eco­nomic losses to both the in­sured and unin­sured, which is es­ti­mated at about US$350 bil­lion, an in­crease of about 55% from the 2010 record. In­sur­ers are very anx­ious about 2012 which they an­tic­i­pate could be far more dis­as­trous. Th­ese cat­a­strophic events raised the per­ti­nent ques­tions as to whether in­sur­ers are ready to con­front the chal­lenges that await them? Cli­mate changes, tech­nol­ogy, reg­u­la­tions, lit­i­ga­tions, eco­nomic un­cer­tainty, frauds and sup­ply chain are among a slew of con­cerns in claims man­age­ment. Other con­cerns in­clude how best to deal with th­ese chal­lenges, risks and changes? Against this back­drop, this year’s In­ter­na­tional Claims Con­ven­tion, or­gan­ised by the Malaysian In­surance In­sti­tute was themed “Claims Chal­lenges” to ad­dress the chal­lenges and strate­gies the in­dus­try has in re­spond­ing to such is­sues and to en­sure that the in­surance in­dus­try re­mains ro­bust and re­silient.

Stage Ac­ci­dents on the Rise

The Aus­tralasian Branch Pres­i­dent of the In­ter­na­tional As­so­ci­a­tion of Auto Theft In­ves­ti­ga­tors (IAATI), Mark Bennedick, high­lighted that staged ac­ci­dents are on the rise in the United States (US), United King­dom (UK) and Aus­tralia. Ac­cord­ing to the es­ti­mates by the In­surance Fraud Bureau in the UK, the in­surance in­dus­try looses $20 bil­lion a year from staged ac­ci­dents. Ap­par­ently, this is a 70% in­crease in the last three years. The mo­ti­va­tion for such acts is driven by fi­nan­cial ben­e­fit from in­sur­ers and the per­pe­tra­tors have been iden­ti­fied as or­gan­ised crime groups, in­di­vid­u­als work­ing alone, in­di­vid­u­als re­cruit­ing T/P, and med­i­cal and le­gal providers, re­pair­ers and re­cov­ery agents.

The IAATI sug­gests that the in­surance in­dus­try ap­ply both short-and long-term strate­gies to mit­i­gate th­ese crimes. The short-term strate­gies are to pro­vide high qual­ity train­ing for staff who will be able to iden­tify gen­uine cases from staged cases, for spe­cial­ist in­ves­ti­ga­tors to col­lect qual­ity data, to use foren­sic spe­cial­ists and to cre­ate strate­gic part­ner­ships with law en­force­ment. While the long-term strate­gies in­clude in­sur­ers to share in­for­ma­tion, in­tel­li­gence-led in­ves­ti­ga­tions, cre­ate pub­lic aware­ness and ed­u­cate the pub­lic about staged ac­ci­dents and lobby for leg­isla­tive changes for the ben­e­fit of ci­ti­zens. David Pick­ing, Tech­ni­cal Di­rec­tor – Mo­tor (Asia Pa­cific) Man­age­ment Ser­vices Pte Ltd, Sin­ga­pore, shared case stud­ies of fraud­u­lent mo­tor claims. He high­lighted some red flags that in­sur­ers should watch out for in mo­tor in­surance claims such as the time of ac­ci­dent, sin­gle ve­hi­cle ac­ci­dents, dam­age that is not con­sis­tent with the ac­ci­dent de­scrip­tion, driver’s age, un­usual ac­ci­dent de­scrip­tion, se­ri­ous ve­hi­cle dam­age, the ve­hi­cle type, pol­icy re­stric­tions, in­jury to the in­sured or third-party claimants, con­flict­ing third-party ver­sions with the in­sured ver­sion, drink-driv­ing and pre­vi­ous claims his­tory. Pick­ing ad­vo­cated some so­lu­tions to th­ese red flags, which can be di­vided into three cat­e­gories:

(1) Own Dam­age Claims In­sur­ers are en­cour­aged to con­duct random vis­its to work­shop pan­els be­fore a ve­hi­cle is re­leased to the cus­tomer to en­sure that re­pairs match the in­voice charged. Use soft­ware such as Au­da­tex or Es­tim­age to track charges by work­shop or ve­hi­cle type.

(2) Third-Party Prop­erty Claims Again to use soft­ware to track charges by work­shop or ve­hi­cle type or claimants.

(3) Third-Party Body In­jury Claims Set up a shared data­base so claims his­tory can be tracked

Track claims by clin­ics or doc­tors or work­shops

Deal­ing with Nat­u­ral Catas­tro­phes

Ac­cord­ing to Claude Seigne, in­sured claims from nat­u­ral catas­tro­phes are in­creas­ing yearly and this can be at­trib­uted to eco­nomic growth and cli­mate change which have in­tro­duced new chal­lenges for in­sur­ers. Seigne then shared the ad­van­tage of us­ing Catas­tro­phe Mod­el­ling as an ap­proach to as­sess losses. Seigne also shared AXA find­ings from the re­cent Bangkok flood that took place late July 2011. Ac­cord­ing to AXA statis­tics, macro es­ti­mates on dam­aged res­i­den­tial houses were 1 mil­lion while 1,000 large fac­to­ries in seven ma­jor in­dus­trial es­tates and 15,000 smaller plants were af­fected. The worst af­fected in­dus­tries were car and elec­tronic man­u­fac­tur­ers. Non-life in­surance pre­mi­ums were US$3.4 bil­lion as a re­sult of lim­ited pub­lic aware­ness of the need for in­surance, 1% of Thai res­i­dences are cov­ered for flood. The in­dus­trial and com­mer­cial busi­ness sec­tors rep­re­sent over 85% of the prop­erty pre­mium. Less than one out of two in­sured took up a busi­ness in­ter­rup­tion in­surance pol­icy. Seigne said, “Haz­ards can be con­sid­ered as Acts of God but dis­as­ters are al­ways man-made. The ma­jor­ity of dis­as­ters are pre­dictable and can ei­ther be avoided or prop­erly planned for. The Thai­land catas­tro­phe ap­pears to be an ex­am­ple of poor site se­lec­tion and poor dis­as­ter plan­ning and prepa­ra­tion.” De­vel­op­ing economies such as Thai­land and In­done­sia are very vul­ner­a­ble to the ef­fects of cli­mate change.

That is why he ad­vo­cates adopt­ing mod­el­ling tech­niques to help mit­i­gate and bet­ter plan for such dis­as­ters although they may not be com­pletely avoid­able. Ad­di­tion­ally, rein­sur­ance also plays an im­por­tant role in aid­ing those af­fected by nat­u­ral dis­as­ters, ad­vis­ing on pre­pared­ness, preven­tion and risk anal­y­sis. The nitty-gritty de­tails of in­surance claims in the af­ter math of a catas­tro­phe can be gru­elling in terms of the way the pol­icy clauses are de­rived. Re­becca Hop­kirk, Part­ner of Hol­man Fren­wick Wil­lan LLP, Sin­ga­pore, dis­cussed the im­pact of nat­u­ral catas­tro­phes on the sup­ply chain and busi­ness in­ter­rup­tion ex­po­sures. Linda Sim, Man­ager of RGL Foren­sics Sin­ga­pore, talked about con­tin­gent busi­ness in­ter­rup­tions and min­ing losses.

Mit­i­gat­ing & Com­bat­ing In­surance Fraud

Aruno Ra­jarat­nam, Head, Fi­nan­cial Lines Prac­tice Asia, Ince & Co Sin­ga­pore LLP, high­lighted some emerg­ing claims bat­tles in the D&O li­a­bil­ity arena. She said, “The D&O pol­icy has evolved over the past 20 years in Asia from a vir­tu­ally un­known and rare in­surance prod­uct to an es­sen­tial and highly vis­i­ble pol­icy. It is a dy­namic in­surance prod­uct and has be­come an es­sen­tial in­surance re­quire­ment in a com­pany’s port­fo­lio.” The D&O li­a­bil­ity pol­icy is im­pacted by a myr­iad of is­sues in­volv­ing cor­po­rate gov­er­nance, merg­ers and ac­qui­si­tions, com­pany law and in­dem­ni­fi­ca­tion, bank­ruptcy, fidu­ciary, em­ploy­ment prac­tices, se­cu­ri­ties, reg­u­la­tory ac­tions and crim­i­nal law. Ac­cord­ing to Aruno, “To­day is a ‘buy­ers’ mar­ket with many D&O play­ers.” She added that the fight against cor­rup­tion has gone global. Out of the 10 largest For­eign Cor­rupt Prac­tices Act (FCPA) re­lated set­tle­ments, eight were with multi­na­tional com­pa­nies based out­side the US. The OECD and Trans­parency In­ter­na­tional are the main push-and-pres­sure for coun­tries to leg­is­late and put in place en­force­ments. The UK and China are two re­cent coun­tries with sim­i­lar leg­is­la­tion while In­dia and In­done­sia are in the draft stage. Aruno said, “There is also other im­pe­tus that sup­ports such leg­is­la­tions like the new Dodd-Frank Act, which en­cour­ages a whilstle­blower to come for­ward on Se­cu­ri­ties Law vi­o­la­tions. An­other im­pe­tus is the UK Bribery Act 2010 (which took ef­fect from 1 July 2011) that has broad ex­tra ter­ri­to­rial reach. Re­gard­less of where the ac­tiv­ity took place, the Act has strict li­a­bil­ity for fail­ure to pre­vent a bribe. In fact, this Act is also broader than the FCPA.” Other salient points that Aruno high­lighted are: (1) the na­ture of the D&O li­a­bil­ity pol­icy is such that it is not a com­mod­ity and it is con­sid­ered to be a multi-mil­lion dol­lar as­set. It pro­tects the per­sonal as­sets of the direc­tors and of­fi­cers and the com­pany’s rev­enue; (2) there is a sever­ity is­sue in D&O claims and not nec­es­sar­ily a fre­quency; and (3) most D&O claims have been ac­ri­mo­nious as a re­sult of word­ing is­sues.

Fraud: Korean Case Stud­ies & Lessons Jae Hoon Kim, man­ag­ing di­rec­tor of Korea Life In­surance As­so­ci­a­tion, shared some in­ter­est­ing case stud­ies about in­surance fraud in Korea. The cases var­ied from fam­ily homi­cide, re­port­ing forged deaths overseas, self-in­jury to fraud com­mit­ted by med­i­cal providers. In­surance fraud to­talled 3.4 tril­lion KRW a year (US$2.7 bil­lion). As of 2011, 72,333 peo­ple were in­volved with in­surance fraud amount­ing to 423.7 bil­lion KRW (US$353 mil­lion). Only 12.5% of the yearly to­tal in­surance fraud were un­cov­ered. An­nu­ally, Korean house­holds are bur­dened with ad­di­tional pre­mi­ums of 200,000 KRW (US$167) by in­surance fraud. The Korean government and in­surance in­dus­try have pulled their re­sources to­gether to pre­vent in­surance fraud. The government has set up a joint task force to tackle the in­creas­ing in­surance fraud and co­or­di­nates ef­forts made by in­di­vid­ual or­gan­i­sa­tions. The team also rep­re­sents the government’s strong will to wipe out in­surance crimes. The task force mem­bers in­clude the pros­e­cu­tor’s of­fice, the po­lice, the Fi­nan­cial Su­per­vi­sory Ser­vice (FSS), the Health In­surance Re­view & As­sess­ment Ser­vice (HIRA), the Korea Life In­surance As­so­ci­a­tion (KLIA) and the Gen­eral In­surance As­so­ci­a­tion of Korea (GIAK). So far, the task force has de­tected 264 frauds, which have been re­ferred to the po­lice for in­ves­ti­ga­tion. A to­tal of 1,317 per­sons were in­volved in frauds that to­talled 51.3 bil­lion KRW (US$42 mil­lion).

The Korean in­surance in­dus­try has also set up var­i­ous pre­ven­tive mea­sures to fight such crimes. A force called the Spe­cial In­ves­ti­ga­tion Unit (SIU) that has 16 life in­surer par­tic­i­pants op­er­ates a co­op­er­a­tive body named In­surance Crime In­ves­ti­ga­tion Coun­cil through which they ex­change in­for­ma­tion on in­surance crimes and dis­cuss cases for joint in­ves­ti­ga­tion. The in­dus­try as­so­ci­a­tions also pro­vide cour­ses on in­surance fraud preven­tion and cam­paigns on crime preven­tion to ed­u­cate the pub­lic and in­dus­try pro­fes­sion­als in mit­i­gat­ing in­surance fraud. Hyunmi Park, Un­der­writ­ing and Claims Man­ager, and Simon Pep­per, Head of Un­der­writ­ing and Claims, from Pa­cific Life Re Lim­ited Sin­ga­pore ad­dressed the ques­tion of why peo­ple com­mit fraud. Park shared some tech­ni­cal anal­y­sis on fraud­u­lent claims based on hos­pi­tal­i­sa­tion claims from both sick­ness and ac­ci­dents in South West Korea. The anal­y­sis was pre­pared by a spe­cial task force set up in 2012 by Pa­cific Life and other in­sur­ers to in­ves­ti­gate the “hard” fraud in this re­gion. The task force found that some hos­pi­tals were abet­ting fraud for com­mer­cial mo­tives by al­low­ing claimants un­nec­es­sary longer du­ra­tion of hos­pi­tal­i­sa­tion. There were in­stances of claimants pur­chas­ing mul­ti­ple poli­cies through lower in­come sta­tus; claimant pro­files were typ­i­cally un­em­ployed or house­wives, desk work­ers and the aged. The task force also un­cov­ered fraud­u­lent claimants who vis­ited var­i­ous hos­pi­tals ev­ery one to two weeks – some hos­pi­tals co-worked to switch pa­tients; fam­i­lies or friends aid­ing each other for col­lec­tive frauds. There was a strong link be­tween repet­i­tive and long-stay hos­pi­tal­i­sa­tion claims and mo­ral haz­ardous sales forces or bro­kers. Pep­per pointed out that “fraud is al­ways easy to spot on hind­sight” and of­fered a holis­tic ap­proach to mit­i­gat­ing fraud. He said the Pa­cific Life Re ap­proach com­prises five com­po­nents in its Fraud Risk Strat­egy: as­sess­ment, i.e con­trol, mon­i­tor­ing, de­tec­tion and de­ter­rence in deal­ing with fraud.

Ways to Com­bat­ing In­surance Fraud Pa­tri­cia Mack, vice pres­i­dent of the Claims, Ac­count­ing & Li­a­bil­ity Man­age­ment Di­vi­sion, Swiss Rein­sur­ance Com­pany Ltd Sin­ga­pore, re­in­forced the idea of com­bat­ing fraud through col­lab­o­ra­tion. Col­lab­o­ra­tion yields enor­mous ag­gre­gate ben­e­fits to the in­dus­try. The key tech­niques for de­tect­ing and prevent­ing fraud are:

• Iden­tify spe­cific pat­terns and high­light ac­tiv­i­ties that look sus­pi­cious Pool data with other data­bases to broaden claims in­ves­ti­ga­tions So­cial net­work­ing anal­y­sis is be­com­ing more pop­u­lar for in­surance in­ves­ti­ga­tions

Iden­tify stress lev­els in claimant in­ter­views. Mack en­cour­aged the in­surance com­mu­nity to ex­plore the fea­si­bil­ity of a uni­fied ap­proach that looks at in­ter­nal sys­tems and pro­cesses and for the in­surance com­mu­nity as a whole.

She said, “The first line of de­fence is the re­silience of the in­di­vid­ual com­pany, its sys­tems, pro­cesses, checks and vig­i­lance of its staff in scru­ti­n­is­ing poli­cies and claims. There should be a zero tol­er­ance ap­proach to fraud ver­sus re­duc­ing fraud to zero.” She stressed the sig­nif­i­cance of staff train­ing and adopt­ing pos­i­tive at­ti­tudes, which are es­sen­tial to equip claims per­son­nel with the proper skills to spot fraud­u­lent claims and raise red flags as early as pos­si­ble. The staff should be pre­pared to go all the way in elim­i­nat­ing fraud while man­age­ment sup­port is also crit­i­cal. She urged the in­surance com­mu­nity to de­velop a col­lab­o­ra­tive cross-sec­tor ap­proach through com­mon al­liances where in­sur­ers can share data in fo­rums, com­mon qual­ity data­base for analy­ses and data min­ing to com­bat in­surance fraud. Giv­ing an over­view of the im­pact of pop­u­la­tion growth on the in­surance in­dus­try, Pro­fes­sor Al­lan Man­ning of the LMI Group and pres­i­dent of the In­ter­na­tional In­sti­tute of Claims Pre­par­ers, dis­cussed the tech­ni­cal de­tails in his pre­sen­ta­tion on Gen­eral Area Dam­age – What Should be Brought into Ac­count? He said that over the years, given the in­creased pop­u­la­tion and re­sult­ing in­crease in den­sity, city coun­cils and de­vel­op­ers have al­lowed or en­cour­aged higher den­sity us­age of land, both com­mer­cial and res­i­den­tial. Pro­fes­sor Man­ning made a com­par­i­son of Aus­tralian flood­ing in­ci­dences in 1974 and 2011. What would have been the out­come had the 1974 flood gone to the same level as 2011? Then, 7,900 build­ings would have been af­fected. In the 2011 Bris­bane flood, 14,790 build­ings were af­fected, which ac­counts for a 89.5% in­crease over 37 years. As a re­sult, Zurich (com­mer­cial) and Sun­corp (domestic) Flood cover was much more read­ily avail­able at the be­gin­ning of 2011 than back in 1974. Pro­fes­sor Man­ning said that any se­vere storm can cause lo­calised flood­ing. As such, it is im­por­tant to un­der­stand flood busi­ness pack and domestic cov­ers as there are three places where ex­clu­sions can ap­pear, namely, Gen­eral Ex­clu­sion across the en­tire pol­icy, Pol­icy Sec­tion Ex­clu­sion and Per­ils Ex­clu­sion. Orig­i­nally, un­der a Fire and Per­ils Pol­icy, flood was con­sid­ered un­der Per­ils Ex­clu­sion. Flood is con­sid­ered a trig­ger for in­ter­rup­tion claims. The af­fected com­po­nents such as high rise com­mer­cial ten­ants, cus­tomers and sup­pli­ers from other states, and pub­lic util­i­ties will make such claims. The com­mu­nity, there­fore, also needs to un­der­stand the ISR Pol­icy, which pro­vides a Stan­dard that the Limit of Li­a­bil­ity or Sub­Limit is avail­able for any one loss at any one lo­ca­tion. Pro­fes­sor Man­ning shared the lessons learnt from the Bris­bane Flood­ing in­ci­dent:

• Each and ev­ery Sub-Limit must be ad­e­quate to cover the risk fac­ing the in­sured sub­ject al­ways to their risk ap­petite A bro­ker, risk man­ager or in­sured who takes away cover from the Pol­icy does so at his peril Un­der­writ­ers, devel­op­ment man­agers, bro­kers or claims of­fi­cers need to doc­u­ment ALL dis­cus­sions in de­tail.

Cli­mate Change Af­fect­ing Mar­itime In­surance

The in­ter­na­tional reg­u­la­tion regimes – Safety Of Life At Sea (SO­LAS) Con­ven­tion and Marine Pol­lu­tion Con­ven­tion (MAR­POL 73/78) – for op­er­at­ing of ves­sels un­der the IMO has been highly con­cerned about pro­tect­ing the en­vi­ron­ment since the 1960s. They are the two solid pil­lars that sup­port the mar­itime in­dus­try in pro­tect­ing the most im­por­tant is­sues, i.e. safety of hu­man life and mar­itime pol­lu­tion preven­tion. The af­fects of water, wind, cur­rent/tidal sys­tem, wave, day­light/dark­ness and vis­i­bil­ity in the seas are mat­ters that greatly con­cern sea­far­ers as th­ese im­pact their liveli­hood. Cap­tain Khoo Boo Hock, CEO of Maphilin­doIn­sight Sdn Bhd., ex­plained the ef­fect of global warm­ing or cli­mate change on the mar­itime sec­tor. Bad weather will af­fect most small ves­sels at sea, such as caus­ing de­lays, ex­tra bunker be­ing con­sumed, struc­tural dam­age/de­fects, cargo dam­age/loss, un­com­fort­able en­vi­ron­ment to the sea­men, fa­tigue to crew mem­bers and it will ex­pose lives, prop­erty and car­gos to ad­di­tional risk.

He ex­pressed that in­sur­ers should be aware that the claim amount on H/M dam­age/loss has in­creased com­pared to the past. He at­trib­uted this to in­fla­tion, high ma­te­rial cost, vari­ance of ex­change rate for parts, high labour cost due to a more af­flu­ent so­ci­ety in tan­dem with a na­tion’s devel­op­ment, high trans­port cost due to fuel price hike, chang­ing trends where ship­yards pre­fer to build new ves­sels rather than un­der­take re­pair work, lim­ited ship­yards, high cap­i­tal in­vest­ment for ship­yard/re­pair, and strin­gent rules im­posed by var­i­ous au­thor­i­ties.

Loss Ad­just­ing Chal­lenges & Rel­e­vance

Thev Kan­dasamy, Asia Op­er­a­tions Claims, FM Global Sin­ga­pore, de­fined a loss ad­juster as “one who re­ports the cir­cum­stances and ex­tent of the loss to the in­surer, as­sists to mit­i­gate the loss for in­surer and in­sured, ex­plains the ex­pressed terms and con­di­tions of the pol­icy to the in­sured, and eval­u­ates the loss for both in­sured and in­surer to reach a fair and rea­son­able set­tle­ment in an ex­pe­dited man­ner.”

He fur­ther ex­panded his def­i­ni­tion as fol­lows:

• Re­ports the cir­cum­stances and ex­tent of loss – eyes and ears of the in­surer As­sists to mit­i­gate the loss – putting the in­sured back in op­er­a­tion as soon as pos­si­ble and op­ti­mis­ing the cost in­curred Ex­plains the ex­pressed terms and con­di­tions – mak­ing the in­sured un­der­stand what they are cov­ered for

Eval­u­ates the loss – mea­sure the loss. Kan­dasamy ex­plained that a loss ad­juster is like a ref­eree be­tween the in­surer and the in­sured. Broadly, there are two types of loss ad­justers: in-house loss ad­juster and pub­lic loss ad­juster. Re­gard­less of whether a loss ad­juster is an in-house in­cum­bent or an in­de­pen­dent pub­lic loss ad­juster, both op­er­ate at the high­est level of pro­fes­sional ethics. Based on the re­sults of a sur­vey by FM Global, it seems an in­house loss ad­juster is the pre­ferred choice for in­sured and in­surer when assess­ing dam­ages or losses. How­ever, reg­u­la­tory and re­source con­straints may change this pref­er­ence. There are in­stances where in­sur­ers may need as­sis­tance from in­de­pen­dent loss ad­justers in cer­tain cir­cum­stances. Joash Tan, man­ag­ing di­rec­tor of Mes­tari Ad­justers Sdn Bhd, pro­vides a loss ad­juster’s per­spec­tive on the changes and chal­lenges of the pro­fes­sion. The Malaysian in­surance land­scape has re­cently seen a slew of merg­ers and ac­qui­si­tions that has in­creased the size of in­sur­ers cou­pled with a new spring of taka­ful li­cences, which re­sulted in a re­duc­tion in the client base for some in­sur­ers. Against this back­drop, loss ad­jus­tors face chang­ing pan­el­ship and nom­i­na­tion ar­range­ments, cen­tral­i­sa­tion of claims han­dling by in­sur­ers, em­pha­sis on cost con­trol, fast track­ing of re­port­ing and desk­top­ping, in­tro­duc­tion of agreed feed struc­ture, em­pha­sis on per­for­mance of ser­vice de­liv­ery, em­pha­sis of claims leak­age and var­i­ous con­sumerism rights. Cur­rently, there are 35 ad­just­ing com­pa­nies in the in­dus­try. In 2000, the num­ber of cases han­dled by Malaysian li­censed ad­justers amounted to 224,403 cases, out of which 83% were mo­tor and 17% were non-mo­tor re­lated cases. In 2011, ad­justers han­dled 371,995 cases com­pris­ing 85% mo­tor and 15% non­mo­tor re­lated cases. Their op­er­at­ing re­sults in­creased from RM123 mil­lion in 1999 to RM202.6 mil­lion in 2011. As loss ad­justers are in­de­pen­dent pro­fes­sion­als who are ap­pointed by the in­sur­ers, they em­ploy their own re­sources and their con­tri­bu­tion to the in­dus­try is in cat­a­strophic events. An oft-asked ques­tion is whether the loss ad­just­ing pro­fes­sion is a sun­set ca­reer? In Joash Tan’s opin­ion, this pro­fes­sion is evolv­ing in its role. The value-add that the pro­fes­sion of­fers is in con­tin­u­ous ed­u­ca­tion and train­ing of its peo­ple. What re­mains un­changed for this pro­fes­sion is stay­ing rel­e­vant. i

Thev Kan­dasamy

Linda Sim

Joash Tan

Simon Pep­per

Prof Al­lan Man­ning

David Pick­ing

Pa­tri­cia Mack

Re­becca Ho­prick

Jae Hoon Kim

Claude Seigne

Hyunmi Park

Aruno Ra­jarat­nam (Left)

Mark Bennedick (Left)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malaysia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.