Agent Premium Remittance Gap During a System Migration
An analyst in an insurer's SIU is asked to review an agency after a customer complaint. The agency management system shows 240 policies sold by one agent in 2023. For 31 policies, the customer paid premium, with receipts totaling $86,400, but the commission and premium remittance records show no matching payment to the insurer. The agency owner says a January system migration dropped payment mappings. Twelve of the 31 missing remittances have payment dates between January 3 and February 14, the migration window; the other 19 are spread across the year. The agent is the agency's top producer with 18 years of service and $4.1 million in premium. The business owner wants to terminate the agent today. Legal counsel says do not contact the agent or customers until the data is verified. The analyst must brief both.
1. Outline a findings memo that separates observed facts, data limitations, and inferences. Include the confidence language you would use.
Read the worked answer
I would write a memo with five headings: purpose and scope, sources reviewed, observations, limitations, and recommended next steps. Observations should be factual: 'For 31 of 240 policies, a customer receipt exists in the agency system, but no matching remittance appears in the insurer remittance table as of the review date.' State the dollar total and the 12-versus-19 split by migration window. Limitations should say the remittance table may be incomplete, policy identifiers may not match, and the agency system is not a bank record. Inferences should be labeled: the pattern is consistent with unremitted premium, but intent is not established. Use confidence language: high confidence that a data discrepancy exists; low confidence about misappropriation until bank deposits and commission statements are reconciled. Do not name the agent as a fraudster in an internal memo that may be discoverable.
2. How would you handle the conflict between the business owner's demand for immediate termination and legal's instruction for no contact?
Read the worked answer
I would separate risk mitigation from discipline. Legal's no-contact instruction protects the investigation and the company; the owner's termination demand is an employment decision that requires HR and legal, not an analyst. I would propose interim controls that do not accuse: preserve all agency and email records, place the agent on a temporary review of new submissions, require dual approval for premium handling, and reconcile the next commission cycle. I would give the owner a decision memo with options and consequences, and ask legal to approve any contact. I would not tell customers anything until the data is verified. The analyst's job is to make the evidence clear enough for others to decide, not to force a premature outcome.
3. What three data checks would most change your conclusion, and why?
Read the worked answer
Three checks could change the conclusion. First, reconcile agency bank deposits to insurer remittances by policy number, date, and amount; if the money reached the insurer under a different identifier, the discrepancy may be a mapping error. Second, obtain the migration mapping logs and test whether the 19 policies outside the window also have identifier changes; if they do, the migration explanation weakens. Third, compare agency-generated receipts with the customers' own payment records, such as canceled checks or card statements; if customers paid the agency and the agency did not remit, the case is stronger. I would also check whether the 31 policies cluster by product, effective date, or down-payment method. Each check has a different implication, so I would run them before forming a conclusion.