- 29 - mentioned issue, AMI’s point estimate of petitioner’s 1993 unpaid losses should be reduced to $71,915,000. Hurley concluded that the third-mentioned criticism “involves purely actuarial judgment” and offered no conclusion as to how adjusting for this issue might affect the AMI point estimates. Analysis On the basis of all the evidence in the record, we conclude that petitioner has failed to establish that it made fair and reasonable estimates of its actual unpaid losses for the years in issue. In particular, petitioner has failed to establish that its add-ons of almost 10 percent to Tillinghast’s point estimates were reasonable or appropriate. On brief, petitioner argues that its management’s decisions to increase Tillinghast’s point estimate were “not actuarial in nature” but instead were based on certain “qualitative concerns”, particularly regarding “the basic actuarial assumption that past experience will replicate itself in the future.” Consequently, petitioner argues, the 10-percent add-ons resulted in “an appropriate expression of conservatism based on the implied range around Tillinghast’s unchanged point estimate.” Petitioner offered no evidence to show how it arrived at the precise amounts of its add-ons to Tillinghast’s pointPage: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011