Assaf, S A-E (1982) A systematic approach to the selection of a risk retention level for construction insurance. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Abstract
This thesis presents a systematic approach for selecting the appropriate deductible level for construction insurance. A consistent criterion is developed for each alternative insurance program, ranging from full risk retention (i.e. , no insurance), and various deductible levels (i.e. , partial transfer of risk), to full transfer. An approach is presented for forecasting future losses based on previous loss experience and accounting for discounting of delayed payout of retained risk, taxes, future liabilities of past exposures, administrative costs, changes in environment, company growth and inflation. The criterion also incorporates the financial capacity of the firm to absorb retained risk as a basis for the nonlinear risk aversion of the contractor. An example is given which shows the step-by-step process of arriving at the selected insurance alternative. A computer program is presented which simplifies the calculation presented in the thesis.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | insurance; forecasting; inflation |
| Index terms: | exposure, accounting, risk retention, program, inflation, liability, computer program, insurance, forecasting |
| Subjects: | prediction and forecasting, economic analysis, financial risk, software systems, public and environmental health, liability law |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here