- 26 -
addition to Tillinghast’s point estimates of unpaid
losses. Gleeson offered no independent estimates of petitioner’s
unpaid losses for either year in issue.
Robert Sanders
Sanders opined that the unpaid claim liabilities that
petitioner established for the years in issue were “reasonably
stated based on facts known at the time.” He opined that
Tillinghast used appropriate methodologies and that its point
estimates of petitioner’s unpaid losses for the years in issue
were “reasonable estimates.”
Sanders opined that it was reasonable for petitioner to
estimate its unpaid losses at amounts almost 10 percent above
Tillinghast’s point estimates because he believed it was
reasonable to imply a range around the Tillinghast point estimate
of plus or minus 10 percent. In support of this conclusion,
Sanders cited various factors, including: (1) The historically
volatile nature of the medical malpractice insurance industry,
leading to inherent uncertainty in estimates for this line of
business; (2) petitioner’s “relative immaturity”; and
(3) “growing evidence” of a “deteriorating claims environment”.
His report also lists various “relevant factors that could impact
* * * [petitioner’s] exposure to loss that were not explicitly
recognized in Tillinghast’s actuarial methods”, including, inter
alia, the size of the company, the lack of geographic spread of
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011