Single-Site Auto Component Unit: Underinsurance and Risk Treatment
Shree Ganesh Auto Components is a single-location press shop in Noida with turnover of ₹4 crore, 40 workers, one 1,200-tonne press, and one key customer that contributes 60% of sales. The owner, Mahesh, has a ₹1.5 crore fire policy because the bank demanded insurance; the reinstatement value of building, plant, and stock is ₹2.5 crore. He has no group health or personal accident cover for workers, no business interruption cover, and stores finished goods in an open yard during the monsoon. A fire last year caused ₹8 lakh damage; he paid it from cash flow and did not claim because he feared premium loading. His agent now offers a cheaper policy with a ₹1 lakh deductible and no reinstatement clause. Mahesh asks whether he should buy it and whether his current sum insured is enough.
1. Identify the main risks facing Mahesh’s unit and classify them as pure or speculative, insurable or non-insurable. Recommend a treatment for each significant risk with reasons.
Read the worked answer
Pure risks include fire damage to building, plant and stock; machinery breakdown; theft; liability to workers and visitors; monsoon damage to finished goods; and business interruption after a fire. These are fortuitous, measurable and insurable where insurable interest exists. Speculative risks include expansion, customer concentration and price competition; these are commercial risks and generally not insured.
Recommended treatment: transfer fire and special perils with a sum insured based on reinstatement value; add machinery breakdown and business interruption; transfer worker liability through a group personal accident and employees’ compensation policy; reduce monsoon damage by moving finished goods to a covered, elevated store; retain small frequent losses through a deductible only if cash reserves can absorb them. The key point is that risk treatment must follow the severity and frequency of each exposure, not merely the cheapest premium.
2. Using the average clause, calculate the claim payable for a ₹50 lakh fire loss under the current policy, assuming a ₹1 lakh deductible. Compare it with the position if the sum insured were ₹2.5 crore, and comment on the agent’s cheaper proposal.
Read the worked answer
Under the average clause, claim = loss × sum insured ÷ reinstatement value = ₹50,00,000 × ₹1.5 crore ÷ ₹2.5 crore = ₹30,00,000. After the ₹1 lakh deductible, the payable amount is ₹29,00,000. If the sum insured were ₹2.5 crore, the loss of ₹50 lakh would be fully admissible, less deductible, subject to policy conditions.
The cheaper proposal with a ₹1 lakh deductible transfers less risk back to Mahesh. A deductible is suitable only when the insured has a cash buffer and the premium saving is worth the retained loss. For a unit with a history of an ₹8 lakh loss, a ₹1 lakh retention may be tolerable, but the absence of a reinstatement clause means depreciation can further reduce the claim. The real issue is underinsurance: saving premium on a ₹1.5 crore sum insured creates a 40% shortfall on every partial loss.
3. Advise Mahesh on business interruption and workers’ cover, and evaluate whether avoiding last year’s ₹8 lakh fire claim was a sound risk-management decision.
Read the worked answer
Business interruption cover is important because one key customer contributes 60% of sales; a fire could stop production and cause loss of gross profit for months. The sum insured should be based on gross profit plus continuing fixed costs, with an indemnity period matching the time needed to rebuild or re-source production. Workers’ cover is both a legal and humanitarian exposure: a group personal accident policy and employees’ compensation cover address death, disability and medical costs, while group health improves retention.
Avoiding the ₹8 lakh claim may have preserved a no-claim discount, but it consumed cash flow and masked a serious fire exposure. Claim history is only one rating factor; repeated retention of medium losses is not a substitute for risk reduction and correct sum insured. A better approach is to claim where the loss is insured, fix the cause, and negotiate the renewal with full disclosure rather than buying inadequate cover.