xt79s46h4b7m https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt79s46h4b7m/data/mets.xml Kentucky. Department of Education. Kentucky Kentucky. Department of Education. 1958-03 bulletins English Frankford, Ky. : Dept. of Education This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.) Education -- Kentucky Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "Planning for School Plan Insurance Maintenance and Operation", vol. XXVI, no. 3, March 1958 text
volumes: illustrations 23-28 cm. call numbers 17-ED83 2 and L152 .B35. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "Planning for School Plan Insurance Maintenance and Operation", vol. XXVI, no. 3, March 1958 1958 1958-03 2022 true xt79s46h4b7m section xt79s46h4b7m

0 Commonwealth of KeIIIi-UCI‘Y no

EDUCAT'WAI- BOLLETIN

PLANNING FOR SGNOOL PLANT INSURANCE
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION

A REPORT OF
A CONFERENCE HELD DECEMBER 12-14, 1957
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

Published by
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
' ROBERT E. MARTIN

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Frankfort, Kentucky

—

ISSUED MONTHLY

Entered as second-class matter March 21, 1933, at the post office at
Frankfort, Kentucky, under the Act of August 24, 1912.

VOL. XXVI MARCH, I958 NO. 3

mini
Com
13 31
ing ‘
tena
proc

stsc
and
0011
to 1V
ant
sure

in ]
ade‘
I ings
ope
sch<

tha
ten

FOREWORD

The annual meeting of the Kentucky Association of School Ad-
ministrators and the Second Annual Conference of the Advisory
Council 011 Public Education in Kentucky was held 011 December 12,
13 and 14 at the Sheraton-Seelbach Hotel in Louisville. The joint meet-
ing was devoted to a confe1ence 011 school insu1a11ce, school plant main—
tenance and operation. This bulletin is a rep01t of the conference
proceedings.

We were indeed fortunate to secure the services of Dr. N. E. Viles,
Associate Chief, School Housing Section, U. S. Office of Education,
and Dr. Henry H. Linn, Professor of Education, Teachers College,
Columbia University, as conference consultants. We are also grateful
to Mr CadP Thurman Commissioner, and M1. H. L. Trimble, Assist-
ant Commissioner of the Department of Insurance and to the in-
surance underwriters who aided in the program.

In the last two years many new classrooms have been constructed
in Kentucky, and it is highly important that school districts have
adequate insurance programs to protect the investment in these build-
mgs. Of equal importance is the development of maintenance and

Operation procedures that will increase the life and utility of our
schools.

The Department of Education publishes this bulletin in the hope
that it will serve as a basic guide 1n developing good insurance, main-
tenance and operational policies.

Robert R. Martin
Superintendent of Public Instruction

the s
peopl
prote
insur
insur
chase
cove)
as pr
varic
boam
reple
is WI
onﬁs
of p'
SCIlt

miss
inde
to a
rece
1min?
are

sch(
datz
by :

Out

may
Thi
pro

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM OF
SCHOOL PLANT INSURANCE

(Lecture by Dr. N. E. Viles, Associate Chief, School
Housing Section, U. S. Office of Education, before the
Kentucky School Insurance, Maintenance and Operation
Conference, December 12-14, 1957, Sheraton-Seelbach
Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky.)

School plant insurance is not new. School boards as trustees of
the school property feel obligated to protect the interests of the
people. They feel justified in spending public money to buy insurance
protection on such property. There was a time when school fire
insurance with perhaps some tornado coverage was about all the
insurance the schools purchased. These coverages were usually pur-
chased from some local citizen who had authority to sell insurance
coverage. This was before the time when insurance was looked upon
as profitable business by agents and insuring companies and before
various types of coverage had been proposed for and sold to school
boards. School property insurance is one of the means of providing
replacement funds for property that might be destroyed. As such it
IS ivritten primarily to protect against calamity loss. However, econ-
omists and in many cases court decisions have indicated that the use
Of public funds to purchase school property insurance may repre—
sent a prudential use of district funds.

. in the long run premiums—covering indemnities, agent’s com-
inissmns,administrative and adjustment costs—must exceed the loss
indemnities paid. School administrators are interested in holding
‘50 3.111111111111111 the spread between premiums paid and indemnities
received. They also wish to know that premium rates are held to a
minimum consistent with sound business, and that rate schedules
are as fair for schools as for other insurers. As an aid in evaluating
school insurance costs the U. S. Office of Education has assembled

d . 1 . u r '
bata on school flle insurance premium costs, losses, and loss ratios
y States for a five-year period.

Outlining The Program

In setting up a new
may 1)
This s

. program or in revising an old program it
e des1rable to start with a comprehensive insurance survey.
pro urvey Should provide for local officials a summary of the total
gram. It should list coverages of all types and show cost of each

155

and totals. It should show such cost for each unit to be protected.
If data are available it might be desirable to show loss experiences
by types. The available rating schedules and/0r rating sheets on
each risk should be eXamined to determine what hazards or dangers
may be eliminated and the rates reduced. A study of the types of
coverage, of the loss experiences, and the potential risks should indi-
cate whether coverages are adequate or whether they provide over-
protection in the various areas of either extensive or limited risks.
it is desirable that the coverage. protect at the point of existing or
potential risk, but that the school not pay for over—coverage.

On the basis of the survey it may be possible to set up immediate
and long-range programs. Most schools cannot afford to justify com-
plete coverage of all risks and may wish to set up a selective coverage
schedule with complete or partial coverage in the areas of greatest
existing or potential risk. The program should be planned for
adaptability to changing conditions. The planning Should be SO
scheduled as to concentrate maturities and renewals at one date of
the year. This would simplify handling. Equalized annual maturities
and payments facilitate budgeting. Term policies, co—insuranee, and
other rate or exclusion concessions should be considered as possible
economies.

Administering The Building Insurance Program
Few schools have adequate insurance records. It is desirable to
maintain a. simple but comprehensive school insurance record system.
Records should provide such inf<,>rmation as:
Agency information, allocation, maturities, amounts
Coverage, costs, loss records for each unit or activ1ty
Rating data, source, date of rating
School system loss history, by types of coverage
Values of physical properties to be protected .
Special data on unusual or special risks such as liabllltYy
dent, workmen’s compensation. or explosion

Coverage—Coverage schedules should be planned. Occasionall.V
some special coverage may be needed but most property coverages
can be included in the general pattern. Each item of coverage Should
be justified on the basis of need or potential risk. The amouﬂt 0
coverage that the district should carry on each item can be Wt
determined by local officials. Many school boards feel an obllgi‘lm11
to carry as much as 80 percent of the value of the building in Pl‘o’
tection, and if they do so find it economical to make use of the 00‘”
suranee reduction in rates. In some States coverage of at least7
percent is required.

acci-

156

S.
carry
quires
which
withm
surani

P
some 1
a Man
policy
of the
sible
policy
each]
fire, t
burgl.
unde1
the ri
To th
cover
of co‘
does :
of ris
on a]
at all

seho<
have
have
valm
smal‘
can i

950 -
mem
the 1
later
insu'
poii<
tabu

roteeted.
>erienees
beets on
dangers
types of
uld indi-
.de over-
ed risks.
isting or
age.
mediate
:ify com-
coverage
greatest
med for
.d be so
a date of
iaturities
me, and
. possible

;irable t0
i system.

.ity, acci‘

zasionalll’
coveI‘izlges
ge Should
mount 0f
1 be best
obligation
g in pm-
the com-
-, least 75

Some school boards do not attempt to purchase insurance but
carry self—insurance. We should point out here that self—insurance re-
quires the building of replacement reserves. Some school districts
which do not purchase insurance have the district assume the risk
without setting up any cash reserves. This’of course—is not in-
surance. It is a district-assumed risk.

Policy Patterns—are generally quite similar in basic content. In
some States schools write specific policies on each risk. In other cases
a blanket policy for the whole district may be written. A common
policy for today is the specific schedule policy which combines some
of the characteristics of each of the others and which makes it pos—
sible to combine coverage on a group of buildings into a common
policy pattern computing from the total an average rate and writing
each participating policy at this average rate. This usually applies to
fire, tornado, or extended coverage but has been used for explosion,
burglary, fidelity, or other coverage. Boards of education should
understand that a basic feature in insurance is that of distributing
the risk. That is one of the reasons school boards purchase insurance.
To this end it is usually felt desirable for school districts to distribute
coverage among the various agencies and companies. Placing blocks
of coverage with individuals or companies expecting them to reinsure
does not relieve the board from the obligation to obtain the protection
of risk distribution or the obligation to be assured that ample coverage

on all properties they wish covered is properly placed and in force
at all times.

School Property Insurance for City “X”

In order to show a logical procedure we are developing a sample
school building insurance program analysis for town “X.” We
have set up arbitrary estimates of building values, and of rates but
have applied normal procedures to working out costs, etc. The
value of these buildings may be slightly above those for some
small towns. However, when we look at building costs of today we
can feel the need for a re-examination of our school plant coverage.
950 :hfoglgihical town “X’hwould have an enrollment of about
mentar 7 (an the Junior-senior high school, 1,650 to 1,700 in ele-
the D01: 1gra es 1-6, and about 300 elementary and secondary in
later thitals SGlIIIoOl—total about 2,950 to 3,000 pupils. You will note
insurance 01:1: 1s set-up the property fire and extended coverage
policies unds s “Lould be about $2.76 per pupil per year on one-year
tabulat' er t e epverage and plan outlined. In the following

1011s town X is looked upon as a city classified as about 6

157

or 7 under the Dean Analytic Scale of rating for fire insurance.
This means that the higher co-insurance credits are allowable. It will
be noted that three of the buildings are classified as “1A” for 00-
insurance rating which is one indication that they are of fire re-
sistive construction. They qualify for a similar rating for tornado
or extended coverage which allows for the greater credit.

In order to plan a program it is generally necessary to deter
mine the estimated replacement costs of the buildings if they were
erected now under similar design. From this we deduct deprecia-
tion for the past life of the building to arrive at an estimate of its
present worth. From the present worth we deduct for certain pos-
sible exclusions including excavations, footings, architect’s fees, etc,
which may not have to be replaced if the building is erected as is.
This provides the current insurable value. From this insurable value
we determine the coverage the board may wish to carry—and the
minimum recommended coverage under the co-insurance clause.
Table No. 1 shows the school building property value for city “X.”
(Note, these building values do not include sites.) Table No. 2 Shows
the current published fire and extended coverage rates 011 the
buildings. Table No. 3 shows the estimated coverage and costs.

158

iurance.
. It will
for 00-
fire re-
tornado
0 deter-
” we.” TABLE NO. 1
eprecla-
;e of its CITY “X”
am pos- School Property Values
30s, etc, rd
'd as is 'U u T! m g E egg
'0 value E 11 52181
M E 30 éﬁ‘a §§§ £2253 53235:
a“, e S ‘6 3% ae was $583";
0 ause. m
t “X”
-Yh ' )1 irrshr. 1941 $2,100,000 $1,600,000 $1,450,000 $1,200,000
2 s ows 1g SC 001 1954
on the Douglas grade &
t hlgh school 1956 400,000 400,000 370,000 300,000
:os s.

1921
Elementary N0. 1 1953 700,000 300,000 250,000 220,000

Elementary No. 2 1921 350,000 150,000 125,000 110,000

Elementary No. 3 1948 225,000 185,000 168,000 170,000

Elementary No. 4 1957 300,000 300,000 270,000 220,000
Contents “X”

high school
Contents of

180,000 150,000

Douglas
Estimated con—
tents elementary
schools 120,000
TOTALS $2,490,000

159

l
:

TABLE N0. 2

CITY “X”

School Building (Published) Insurance Rates

80% co—insurance
co—insurance
Building fire extended co—insurance rates
coverage class Extended
Fire coverage
“X” Jr.-Sr.
high school $ .40 $ .18 1 A .12 .032
Douglas grade and
high school .45 .18 l A .135 .032
Elementary No. l 1.20 .28 3A .90 .096
Elementary No. 2 1.40 .28 3 A 1.05 .096
Elementary No. 3 .30 .18 1 A .09 .032
Elementary No. 4 .60 .28 3 A .45 .096
Contents “X”
high school .60 .18 .30 .032
Contents of
Douglas .60 .18 .30 -032
Contents of other
elementary schools

160

___#
mce

xtended
overage

.032

.032
.096
.096
.032
.096

.032

TABLE NO. 3
CITY “X”

Insurance Costs Per Building and Total
for the Proposed Program

Coverage, rates, and costs with ”80%” «co-insurance

an E E 'U A) 4% m ’53 Eu 5 w
.3 59’ we 7:932 $45593 $3159 $39535
3 5:1 ass see»: 3922 W..- 7.0936
3
“X”. J r.-Sr.
h1gh school $1,200,000 $ .12 $1,440.00 $ .032 $ 384.00 $1,824.00
Douglas grade
& high school 300,000 .135 405.00 .032 96.00 501.00
Elementary
No.1 220,000 .90 1,980.00 .096 211.20 2,191.20
Elementary
No.2 110,000 1.05 1,155.00 .096 105.60 1,260.60
Elementary
No. 3 170,000 .09 153.00 .032 54.40 207.40
Elementary
No. 4 220,000 .45 990.00 .096 211.20 1,201.20
Contents “X”
high school 150,000 .30 450.00 .032 48.00 498.00
Contents of
Douglas .30 90.00 .032 9.60 99.60
Contents
elementary
schools (est) 120,000 400.00 100.00 500.00
TOTALS $2,490,000 $7,063.00 $1,220.00 $8,283.00
\

These totals are
W111 be reduced
average rate w

us each age

for lfyear term policies and the average annual cost
by ertlng 3 or 5-year policies. As they now stand, the
ould be 8283/2,490,000 or $03326 per $100 of coverage.

' - nt Writing a $10,000 policy (sharing in the total) would
Wme It for a Premium of about $33.26 if on a one-year term policy.

161

As was shown following table 3 the average rate for each agent
writing participating coverage out of this total is determined by
deriving a new rate obtained by dividing the total average annual
cost by the total coverage. In practice school boards usually write the
coverage in 3 or 5 parts. In this case they would take the proposed
coverage of $2,490,000 and divide it into 3 or 5 parts, determined by
whether 3 or 5-year policies are written. In initiating the program
they probably would write 1/ 3 of the coverage for one year, 1/3 for
2 years, and 1/3 for 3 years (or 1/5 each year if 5-year policies are
written). At the end of the first year the expiring part would be
written for a 3—year term. The above recommendations are based on
specific schedule policies 3 or 5—year terms with 80 percent co-in-
surance. There are advantages and some disadvantages in policies of
this type. The board has at all times a schedule picture of the amount
of coverage on each building. They know the amount of expiration and
the probable cost per year. Since each agent writes a participating
policy at a common average rate it is easy to check the rates and no
agent limits his coverage to favored risks. One of the disadvantages
is that with changing building values the amounts of coverage may
need to be adjusted periodically. This would also be true of specific
policies. Some school boards avoid some bookkeeping and collection
problems by arranging for slightly more coverage for some one agent
with the understanding that he will serve in a liaison capacity between
the board and other agents in assembling checks for minor 1055
indemnities.

The above discussions and illustrations relate almost wholly to

fire and tornado or extended coverage 011 school buildings. This
discussion does not touch upon burglary insurance, boiler insurance,
vandalism, and various other property protection measures. T1195e
paragraphs do not cover various other problems which apply to loose
properties, to liability, employee fidelity, and various other types
which are purchased by some schools. These will be outlined in anothel‘
discussion.
In establishing a program of school property insurance lofal
school officials need to determine: the current values of the pI‘Opel'lleS
to be protected; the percentage of risk the district can afford ’60 311d
should assume; and the distribution of this coverage among agenmes
and companies. They will also need to: analyze the rate struCtllTe on
each property and to arrange to reduce rates to reasonable minimum;
and to effect a plan for transposing old programs to desired new
patterns.

162

of all
deter
risk:
Brief
fer p
I
by (I
eral
surai
the 1
to tb

ana
rem
ins1
rati
ext!

out
and
mi)
cov

1 agent
1ed by
annual
rite the
TOPOSGd
.ned by
rogram
1/3 for
ice are
)uld be
ased on
t co-in-
.icies of
amount
ion and
zipating
and 110
'antages
.ge may
specific
)llection
1e agent
between
10r loss

holly t0
gs, T1113
surance;
;. These
to loose
3r types
another

we local
roperties
d to and
agencies
,cture 011
nimumS;
red 119‘“

The time and space available will not permit complete handling
of all of these points here. Hence, the first three, establishing values,
determining the risk the board should assume, and distributing the
risk among agencies and companies will be discussed in a later report.
Brief attention will be given here to rate structures, and to the trans-
fer procedures in setting up a new program.

School Building Insurance Rates—are, in most States, established
by “Rating Bureaus” independent of but operating under the gen-
eral profit and loss and control pattern approved by the State In-
surance Department. The following is a partial summary of some of
the rating procedures. The summaries which follow refer primarily
to the “Dean Analytic” rating system.

1. The town class is determined on the basis of fire protection

facilities. Classes of 1 to 8 give better ratings than do
ratings of 9 or 10.

2. The type of structure and class of each building is deter-
mined. The type of building, its use, and the town class
(protection) determine the base fire rate 011 the building.

3. Rate penalties for such features as: defective walls, large
areas not separated by fire walls, floor openings, etc., are
added.

4. Occupancy penalties may be added for such things as: de—
fective heating facilities, open vents, laboratories, cooking
units, shops, use of blow torches, paint shops, or stage
hazards. (Under the “Dean” system these penalties are
quoted as percentages of the base rates.)

5. Rate credits may be allowed for superior construction or for

certain protective features such as fire extinguishing
fac111t1es.

6. Aftercharges (on a straight cents basis) may be applied for.
such things as: defective or overloaded wiring, poor protec-
tion for heating units, broken windows, the presence of rub-
bish or trash, poor housekeeping, etc.

analiztmf bureaus will generally provide local school officials
remgm; 0 £th rating sheets of their buildings. School officials should
iﬁsuran? at hazard elimination and rate reductions do not effect
I'atin :E?Vlngs until reflected in revised rating sheets. Other
extengd e131 0 ems relating to co-insurance credits, and to tornado or

coverage merit attention but will not be discussed here now.

out diffitfletwmg 750 a N ew Program-fear usually be effected with-

and then t )1 One plan is to wait until each existing policy expires

mixing the0 11:115er its coverage to a new program. This involves

covera ‘ 0 and new programs—often with different types of
ge and many bookkeeping problems.

163

Many boards prefer to make a clean break—cancel existing
policies and write new coverages as per the plan set up by the
board (presumably after a survey of need). Companies are nearly
always willing to cancel existing coverages pro rata (without short-
rating) when the company knows that it is to share in the new pro-
gram. The new program is then set up—with equalized maturities—
3 or 5 depending on the program—each expiring and renewable
on a certain designated date of each year.

Most local school administrators have not. had——nor have time
to obtainrspecific training in insurance. They should be able to
call on the State Department of Education for assistance. A State
Department comprehensive advisory or consultative insurance service
could be both profitable and beneficial to the schools of the State.

164

sehot
folio

esse
todz
disc
be 1
of i
if t
tod:
as:
or t
are
adn

Pro

bee
hax
pro
ma
eas

existing
by the
nearly
t short-
ew pro-
trities—
newable

.ve time
able to
A State
a service
.e State.

SCHOOL INSURANCE

(Miscellaneous Coverages and Problems)

In June 1957 we had a general discussion on certain phases of
school insurance. This discussion was devoted primarily to the
following points:

1. The scope of insurance as a business

2. Insurance coverage types on buildings
3. School insurance rating (a) Principles (b) Practices
4. Amount of property coverage to carry
'5. Setting up a school building insurance program
(a) A planned program (b) Analyze present program
é. Comsurance coverage (a) How to compute (b) How to write
I. Fire loss ratios
8. State insurance programs

Areas and Applications Covered in This Discussion

The discussion points outlined in our June meeting do provide
essential background material for the areas we expect to cover
today. However, we are assuming that many of you heard the
discussions, and that a repetition of that June discussion would
be tiring. For those who did not hear the background discussion
Pf b'as1c principles we will be glad to arrange a discussion period
If time is available. \Ve propose to give most of our attention
today to several miscellaneous insurance areas and problems such
35‘ Protection purposes—calamity vs. minor coverages; packaged
or unit risk insurance; liability vs. casualty—accident; various minor
“Hts .Of coverage; and some of the problems in developing and
adnnmstering a comprehensive local school insurance program.

Protection Purposes

becoicehzol‘ officials need to realize that school insurance has
have 25 OSlzeable business. As Will be outlined later, some schools
Problem ar :10: types of. coverage. Bookkeeping has become a
many se’hon1 bt e distribution of coverage among agents plagues
Cases 0 cards. School insurance costs have climbed. In some
eXtBIIded coverage is costing more than fire protection.

165

;
l
t
l

It seems essential for school officials to give immediate atten-
tion to their whole insurance programs and particularly to the
scope and relative risks they are covering. As was indicated in
June, insurance is big business. Many agents are encouraged and
urged to sell coverages of various types; and sometimes try to
sell all the traffic will stand. \Ve will touch upon this later. As
indicated, it seems desirable for school officials to give serious
attention to revising the administration pattern of their school
insurance programs. This revision might be based on three or
four principles.

1. Schools buy insurance primarily to avoid calamity loss.

2. School insurance should be commensurate with the risk in—

vo vec.

3. There should be some way of assembling a lot of the mis-
cellaneous school insurance coverages into an overall policy.

4. The whole program, and particularly the record system,
should be as simple as feasable.

In some schools various Inland Marine type of floater policies
(to be discussed later) are used for multiple types of risks. In many
cases the loss in each of these areas might be slight and the company,S
cost of reporting and recording the claim may be more than the 1055
indemnity. It seems desirable that the schools consider the use of
certain deductible types of coverage. The cost of overhead handling
should be less and the district could still be protected in cases 0f
calamity or major losses.

Deductibles might apply item by item, or by class, or might be
an aggregate deduction for a whole area. Applying the deductible
item by item would involve item designations and identifications in
an inventory. Thus each table, typewriter, or band instrument would
be identified by a designated mark or number with value recorded.
Applying deductibles by a class might call for similar record keep—
ing unless the class was large. For instance, coverage might apply
to 50 band uniforms. However, having one policy or a set of policies
for 50 band uniforms, another for drum corps uniforms, and another
for football uniforms might call for the use of many policies and 111'
crease the bookkeeping problem. This coverage is more complicated
when applied to such things as school television parts and setS, and

particularly to warehouse stocks of such parts. It may prove desir-

able ‘50 apply some tYpe of overall coverage to a class of similar
objects or properties using a common deductible for the whole class.

However, another approach might attempt to group a nllmbi
of classes into a schedule type policy. This could best be 3917th1

166

the c
claSs.

]
ing c
cove]
calar
for e

Pack

of p:
man;
To 0
tecti

‘Y

>193

inv
pro

bas
ins
tra

atten-
to the
ted in
:d and
try to
er. As
serious
school
ree or

ss.
'isk in-

ie mis-
policy.
iystem,

policies
1 many
ipaiiy’s
2he loss
use of
andliug
ases 0f

,ight be
luctible
tions in
t would
corded.
(1 keep-
t appll7
policies
another
and in-
plicated
ets, and
e desir-
similar
1e class.
number

the classes were similar. In such cases the deductible could be by
classes or it could be an aggregate of the total of the schedule policy.

It might also be possible to apply the deductible factor to build-
ing coverages. After all, the board of education wants economical
coverage and probably is more interested in protecting against
calamity or major losses rather than in the collection of indemnities
for each minor loss.

Packaged vs. Unit Risk Protection

We really can’t make an overall recommendation on the amount
of packaging that schools should accept on insurance purchases. In
many respects packaging has meritﬂparticularly on home coverage.
To open this subject, let us look at a list of certain insurance pro-
tections some schools buy—

Some types of school insurance
1. Building, fire—and Wind or 8. Transportation liability
extended coverage 9. General liability
2. Contents, fire—and wind or 10. Employee liability

extended coverage 11. Nuisance suit protection
3. Other property, fire — and 12. Insurance on unearned
wind or extended coverage premiums
4- Special property coverage on 13. Steam boiler coverage
floaters— 14. Aircraft loss
a. uniforms 15. Workmen’s compensatiOn
b. T.V. equipment 16. Driver training coverage
c. Audio—visual 17. General employee fidelity
d. Library special 18. Casualty accident
e. Musical equipment 19. Special athletic coverage
f ROTC equipment 20. Performance bonds
_ g. Other 21. Special, bonds, documents
:- Burglary 22. Builder’s risk
P' Ant0;f1re-theft 23. Breakage . . . and others
1. Auto, liability 24. Vandalism

inveilgitmifght be divided into'sev'eral categories to cover property
Propert . — ire, Wind, theft, fidelity, etc.; liability—personal and
etc. Y, casualty and acCident—personal; compensation, specials,
baSiclgririd'eIi t0 analyZe the packaged deal we need to review some
iHSuranCec;p ets. First, the packaged deal may lend. itself to negotiated
tracts b on ractg. We are not here adv1s1ng against negotiated con-

ut feel It des1rab1e t0 pomt out that a good many policies

167

have been written on a “subject to rate” basis—and so continued
for some time. (This implies a negotiated deal without using pub-
lished rates).

Insurance rating—on school property, fire, wind, and/0r ex-
tended coverage has been done for many years, and the rates are
supposed to be scientifically developed on the basis of loss experi-
ences by types of risks. Some of the newer types of coverage have not
had as long a history of loss experience records. Hence, the packag—
ing of several of these into one package might make it difficult to de-
termine the equity of the various rates. It seems desirable to point
out certain criteria which have been accepted as standards by many
rating bureaus and State insurance departments. Under the Fire
Rating Act in some Statesv—“No agent or broker can write a fire i11-
surance policy at any other than the then published rate.” The term
“subject to rate” not to be used.

Also, “valued policy” not fair and not permitted in some States.
Sometimes applied 011 coinsurance. \Vhen agents agree—may eVEll
write letter, statingwthat a certain coverage would satisfy 00-
insurance contract—they imply company negotiations establishing
insurable values, which is contrary to above principle.

Note—the agreement in coinsurance clause says “. . . a conditiOI1
of this contract that the insured shall . . . maintain contributing in-
surance on . . . property insured to the extent of at least . . 5/0 0f
the actual cash value at the time of the loss, and that failing to do
so, the insured shall t0 the extent of such deficit bear—his-her-OT
their#proportion of the loss.” This places the Obligation for estab-
lishing current values on the insured.

As previously indicated we once had risks specifically definet1
and rates applied for fire and other property losses, by a rating
bureau of trained people. This still is done. However, insurance 15
a highly competitive field, agents have need to produce. It is some-
times like selling cars. The package must be wrapped in an attraC'
tive styling pattern. The purchaser is urged to look at the 0011‘
venience rather than to analyze the individual costs.

It is not our purpose to comment on the validity of packaged
insurance for home and other private owners. We have a feeling that
school officials responsible for use of school district funds have'aﬂ
obligation to know what they are buying. They have an obligatlon
to analyze each part of that purchase. They are delegated by the
people to be responsible for the school’s business. The indiViduf11
may assign his income to various agencies Who will look after1115

168

welf

crop
year
ﬁnd
age

prov
area

];ial

hopi
it is
side
tric
a a
enti
baci
not
this
of t

has
fell
to 4
atti
req
pat
eve
att
def
h01
cm
ott

the
pei

act
is

£10
ha
dis

itinued
Lg pub-

/ or ex-
.tes are
experi-
ave not
packag—
.t to de-
.0 point
y many
he Fire
fire in‘
he term

States.
1y even
.sfy co-
blishing

)ndition
iting in-
, ,% of
lg to do
is—her—or
.r estab-

defined
1 rating
rance iS
is some-
1 attrac—
the con-

lackaged
ling that
have all
aligation
1 by the
annual
after his

welfare—schools boards cannot do so. They are not like the share—
cropper who turns over his crop in exchange for a living until next
year. Hence, if Schools do purchase on a packaged plan, they may
find it obligatory to have a detailed analysis of each item of cover-
age together with rates and a clear delineation of the protection