Food Distributor's Deductible Decision
Harvest Lane Distribution is a regional food distributor with $45 million in revenue, a 120,000-square-foot warehouse, and a fleet of 14 refrigerated trucks. Its five-year liability and property loss history includes 12 theft claims totaling $96,000, two water-damage claims of $60,000 and $140,000, and one forklift injury claim of $85,000. The current deductible is $5,000. The insurer offers a $25,000 deductible with a $38,000 annual premium credit. The CFO likes the credit because the company holds $300,000 in cash, but the loan covenant requires at least $150,000 in unrestricted cash at all times. The risk manager notes that theft has been declining since new camera coverage was installed, the two water claims came from different causes, and the forklift injury involved a temporary worker. The company has no formal claim-reporting procedure and no reserve analysis.
1. Calculate the expected annual loss and the incremental retention from moving to a $25,000 deductible. Based only on expected values, is the premium credit attractive? What other factors should drive the decision?
Read the worked answer
Gross losses over five years = $96,000 theft + $60,000 + $140,000 water + $85,000 injury = $381,000, or $76,200 per year. The incremental retention from a $25,000 versus $5,000 deductible depends on claim size: additional retained = min(loss, $25,000) − min(loss, $5,000). Using the averages and assuming each theft claim exceeds $5,000: theft adds about $3,000 × 12 = $36,000, or $7,200/year; the two water claims add $20,000 each = $40,000, or $8,000/year; the injury adds $20,000, or $4,000/year. Total incremental retention ≈ $19,200/year. The $38,000 credit exceeds that by about $18,800/year, so on expected value alone the $25,000 deductible is attractive. But expected value is not the only test. The firm must survive a bad year: if both water claims and several theft claims hit in one year, incremental retention could exceed $50,000, and the $150,000 covenant cushion could tighten. Data are thin, theft is trending down, and the two water claims have different causes. Recommend proceeding only with an aggregate stop-loss or deductible buy-back, a cash-flow stress test, and written claim-reporting and reserve procedures.
2. The risk manager is worried about data quality. Identify at least three limitations in the loss data and explain how each could distort the deductible analysis. What additional analysis would you request?
Read the worked answer
Limitations include: (1) small sample-19 claims over five years is not credible for estimating a $25,000 deductible; one large claim dominates. (2) Cause mix-theft is declining after cameras, so averaging all five years overstates future theft. (3) Different water-damage causes-one may be a burst pipe, the other a roof leak; aggregating them hides separate controls and recurrence. (4) The forklift injury involved a temporary worker, so staffing changes affect future frequency. (5) No exposure bases-sales, payroll, square footage, and truck miles are missing, so frequency cannot be trended. (6) No claim-size distribution or reserve development-large claims may still develop. These distortions can make the deductible look cheaper or riskier than it is. Additional analysis: separate frequency and severity by cause; adjust for exposure growth; build a loss distribution and simulate aggregate annual retention; stress-test a bad year against the covenant; review open reserves; benchmark against similar distributors; and track leading indicators such as theft incidents, water-detection alarms, and forklift near misses. Then set the deductible with an aggregate cap.