The name is absent



rent provides “hold up” power to the policyholder. Suppose a non-verifiable loss occurs. The size of the
loss is L, but the policyholder believes (for reasons we will examine presently) it would be appropriate for
the insurer to make a non-contractual payment of b to the policyholder. Would the insurer be willing to
make a non-contractual payment for this non-verifiable loss in order to retain the customer and secure these
future rents?

We start by assuming that the policyholder has a prior expectation that the insurer will indeed make
a payment of b for a non-verifiable loss. At inception, the policyholder has the same prior for any insurer
from whom it might write the contract, but the policyholder selects one, the incumbent. All insurers charge
the same premium. If a non-verifiable loss arises and the insurer makes a payment, the policyholder’s
prior for such payment in the future from this insurer is revised upwards. Thus, the posterior that the
generous incumbent will make such settlements in the future is higher than for potential rivals. Given that
all insurers charge the same premium going forward, the policyholder chooses to renew the policy with the
incumbent. However, if the insurer does not pay the non-verifiable loss, the policyholder revises the prior
downwards. Thus, the posterior for the incumbent is below the prior for rivals and, given the same premium,
the policyholder will switch to a rival.

Any possible subgame perfect equilibrium to this game must involve either

1. insurers charge a premium in excess of the expected value of verifiable losses, P>pqc, and will choose
to make a payment, b, should a non-verifiable loss occur. To ensure that expectations are met in
equilibrium, the prior that such payment will be made is one; or

2. insurers charge a premium which just covers the expected value of the verifiable loss, P = pqc. For
these insurers, the prior is zero.

Consider now a steady state in which, in any future year, policyholders might have an expectation that
a payment of b will be made against the unverifiable loss. In this case, future rents are reduced by the
expectations of future “type-b” payment. Thus, assuming b to be constant over time, the insurer will make
the payment, b,onlyifb is less than future rents discounted at the interest rate r, i.e. if

b


P - pqc - p (1 - q) b


If the policyholder has all the bargaining power, then the premium P which includes future “type-b”

11



More intriguing information

1. The changing face of Chicago: demographic trends in the 1990s
2. The name is absent
3. Philosophical Perspectives on Trustworthiness and Open-mindedness as Professional Virtues for the Practice of Nursing: Implications for he Moral Education of Nurses
4. The name is absent
5. New issues in Indian macro policy.
6. Labour Market Institutions and the Personal Distribution of Income in the OECD
7. The Impact of Individual Investment Behavior for Retirement Welfare: Evidence from the United States and Germany
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Developmental changes in the theta response system: a single sweep analysis
11. Gender and headship in the twenty-first century
12. Momentum in Australian Stock Returns: An Update
13. The name is absent
14. GENE EXPRESSION AND ITS DISCONTENTS Developmental disorders as dysfunctions of epigenetic cognition
15. The name is absent
16. Learning and Endogenous Business Cycles in a Standard Growth Model
17. The name is absent
18. The name is absent
19. Distribution of aggregate income in Portugal from 1995 to 2000 within a SAM (Social Accounting Matrix) framework. Modeling the household sector
20. The name is absent