- 31 -
Tillinghast had already considered in its actuarial analyses.18
To the contrary, Maurer testified that “many of these items were
discussed with Tillinghast at one time or another.” Maurer
testified that Tillinghast “did know, in general terms, about
some of the factors we were considering” in arriving at their
increments to Tillinghast’s point estimates. Maurer testified
that although he looked at the Tillinghast reports, “I did not
look specifically at their methodologies or their selections”.
In his testimony, Maurer was unable to confirm that Tillinghast
ever checked to see whether the “qualitative factors” might have
already been factored into the Tillinghast point estimates.
In its representation letters to Tillinghast, petitioner
represented that it had disclosed to Tillinghast all factors that
would materially affect loss reserves. Kurt Reichle (Reichle),
Tillinghast’s appointed actuary for petitioner during the years
in issue, testified that Tillinghast relied on these letters to
be accurate and complete and stated that he could not recall that
18 Moreover, if we were to assume, for the sake of argument,
that Tillinghast declined to consider some of these factors in
its actuarial analyses, petitioner has failed to show that
Tillinghast acted improperly in this regard. We are unpersuaded
that all of these “qualitative factors” should have been
considered in estimating petitioner’s unpaid losses for the years
in issue. For instance, because petitioner did business only in
Wisconsin during the years in issue, it is unclear why
uncertainty regarding business in “new states” should enter into
the estimation of unpaid losses for the years in issue.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011