Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 34




                                       - 34 -                                         
          estimates to be significantly overstated.  Petitioner’s rebuttal            
          expert, Hurley, concurred with key aspects of Kilbourne’s and               
          Otto’s criticisms of the AMI analysis and opined that if the AMI            
          analysis were adjusted to reflect certain of their criticisms,              
          the AMI point estimate for 1993 unpaid losses would be reduced to           
          $71,915,000–-an amount slightly below Tillinghast’s 1993 point              
          estimate.21  In light of Hurley’s conclusions, the AMI report               
          does not support petitioner’s add-ons to Tillinghast’s 1993 and             
          1994 point estimates.                                                       
               Coopers never expressly opined that petitioner’s unpaid loss           
          estimates were reasonable.  To the contrary, for each of the                
          years in issue, Coopers concluded that petitioner’s estimates of            
          its unpaid losses fell outside a reasonable range suggested by              
          Coopers’s in-house guidelines.  Ultimately, Coopers decided to              


               21 To be more precise, James Hurley (Hurley) agreed with               
          Frederick Kilbourne (Kilbourne) and David Otto (Otto) that the              
          AMI report contained certain errors, the adjustment of which                
          would reduce the AMI point estimate by $4,875,000 to $82,544,000.           
          Hurley noted that if the AMI analysis were adjusted to account              
          for certain other of Kilbourne’s and Otto’s criticisms, which               
          Hurley opined involved “matters of actuarial judgment”, the AMI             
          point estimate should be reduced by $15,504,000 to $71,915,000.             
          Hurley did not expressly align himself with the actuarial                   
          judgment of either AMI or Kilbourne and Otto.  We note, however,            
          that Hurley computed the effect of a corresponding adjustment for           
          this issue, while declining to offer a corresponding adjustment             
          for another of Kilbourne’s and Otto’s criticisms of the AMI                 
          analysis, which Hurley characterized as involving “purely                   
          actuarial judgment”.  We infer that Hurley recognized merit in              
          those criticisms raised by Kilbourne and Otto for which he                  
          computed corresponding adjustments.  Accordingly, to that extent,           
          we construe Hurley’s report as corroborating Kilbourne’s and                
          Otto’s criticisms of the AMI analysis.                                      





Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011