In a small field beneath the reserve section, a claim file displays a reinsurance indicator. The indicator activates automatically once projected exposure surpasses a predefined attachment threshold stored in system configuration tables. The threshold value carries its own effective date, logged during prior treaty updates. Once triggered, the file routes into a dedicated monitoring queue assigned to the reinsurance unit.
Authority bands intersect with this routing. An adjuster attempting to increase reserves above an internal ceiling encounters a system prompt requiring supervisory approval. If the revised reserve approaches treaty attachment, the approval queue includes an additional reviewer assigned under reinsurance oversight. The escalation log records each routing action with timestamps and user credentials.
Documentation expands as treaty reporting requirements apply. Standard claim notes are supplemented by a structured reinsurance summary form embedded in the system. The form captures policy number, loss description, reserve breakdown, and projected recovery percentage. Submission of the form creates an entry in a treaty reporting dashboard maintained separately from the main claims queue.
Compliance dashboards track open files flagged for reinsurance notification. Aging metrics appear alongside treaty identifiers. Files nearing reporting deadlines are shaded within the dashboard, referencing notification intervals defined in versioned policy memos that correspond to treaty agreements. These memos include effective dates and revision numbers stored in a compliance repository.
Audit selection incorporates reinsurance-triggered files as a distinct sampling category. Closed claims exceeding attachment points enter a sampling pool for review by internal audit teams. An audit flag appears in the claim header visible only to reviewers. Worksheets created during audit review reference both claim identifiers and treaty codes.
Fraud flags operate independently yet intersect with reinsurance oversight. A claim flagged for suspected misrepresentation retains its reinsurance indicator. Investigative documentation attaches under restricted access permissions. The reinsurance unit’s dashboard reflects the fraud status without displaying underlying investigative materials.
Escalation logs document reserve adjustments that affect treaty exposure. Each reserve increase above configured percentages generates a log entry noting the change and routing outcome. The log displays chronological entries tracing interactions between claims handling, supervisory approval, and reinsurance review.
Versioned policy memos govern treaty notification protocols. Updates to reporting templates are stored as new documents within a compliance library. Claims opened after a memo’s effective date follow revised reporting formats. Older files maintain prior template versions in their documentation history.
Approval queues adjust in response to aggregate exposure metrics. A system-generated alert appears if cumulative losses within a treaty year approach predefined capacity thresholds. Claims contributing to that aggregate appear in a monitoring panel listing claim number, reserve amount, and last activity date. Supervisory review tasks may be generated for files within this category.
Regulatory reporting modules intersect with treaty obligations. Certain jurisdictions require disclosure of reinsurance participation in significant losses. Fields within the claim screen capture disclosure status and submission dates. Confirmation numbers from regulatory portals are stored in designated data fields alongside treaty identifiers.
Documentation growth intensifies in catastrophic events. Multiple claims within the same geographic region trigger aggregate tracking dashboards. Each file carries a catastrophe code linked to a treaty program. External engineering reports, municipal damage assessments, and contractor estimates attach sequentially, expanding digital folders across the portfolio.
Audit worksheets for treaty claims reference reserve history and communication logs. Reviewers compare reporting dates against treaty notification timelines stored in configuration settings. Observations are recorded in structured fields within the audit application, linked to claim numbers but housed outside the primary claims system.
Authority recalibration events propagate through user profiles with logged effective dates. Changes in settlement ceilings affect files within treaty thresholds. Historical approvals retain references to authority levels active at the time of action, preserved within audit trails.
Fraud investigation outcomes sometimes alter projected recoveries. Updated recovery expectations are entered into the reinsurance summary form. The change generates an automatic notification to the treaty reporting dashboard and an entry in the escalation log.
Compliance reviews periodically extract data from claims marked with treaty indicators. Reports list open files by attachment tier, reserve size, and reporting status. Each extract references effective dates of applicable treaty agreements.
Accounting interfaces reconcile reinsurance recoverables separately from gross claim payments. When a payment exceeding attachment is issued, a corresponding recoverable entry posts to a reinsurance ledger. The ledger assigns its own transaction ID linked to the original claim number. Reconciliation notes referencing these entries appear in finance modules distinct from claims handling screens.
Quality assurance teams conduct targeted reviews of treaty claims. Their review dashboards categorize files by attachment level and reporting timeliness. Completion of a quality review generates an entry in a centralized tracking database and a note appended to the claim file.
System configuration logs record updates to attachment thresholds and reporting intervals. Each modification includes user identification, timestamp, and a brief description of the change. Historical configurations remain archived for reference during audits.
Bordereaux reporting extracts treaty-relevant claims into structured summary files transmitted to reinsurers at defined intervals. The extract references claim number, policy identifier, loss date, paid amounts, case reserves, and projected recovery percentages. Each transmission generates a bordereaux reference code stored in the reinsurance reporting module. Source claims retain a cross-reference to the extract batch number without replicating the full summary content within the primary file.
Actuarial aggregation modules incorporate treaty-tagged claims into exposure modeling datasets. Data fields from underwriting and claims systems feed into projection tables calculating aggregate attachment proximity. Historical reserve development patterns remain associated with treaty identifiers across policy years. Projection outputs are stored in analytical repositories separate from transactional claim records.
Capital management systems integrate treaty recoverable estimates into solvency calculations. When projected losses approach treaty layers, recoverable assumptions populate financial modeling templates. These assumptions reference attachment thresholds and participation percentages recorded in treaty configuration files. The financial model maintains its own timestamped scenario records independent of claim-level routing logs.
Data retention schedules apply distinct archival rules to treaty documentation. Reporting forms, notification confirmations, and bordereaux extracts are stored in repositories governed by retention parameters aligned with treaty terms. Archived records preserve original submission timestamps and transmission identifiers even after operational claims close.
Portfolio monitoring tools track cumulative exposure across treaty programs spanning multiple jurisdictions. Claims sharing catastrophe codes or exposure tiers aggregate within monitoring panels that display attachment utilization percentages and remaining capacity figures. Individual claim files retain their unique identifiers while contributing structured data to aggregated treaty views maintained in separate analytical tables.
The claim file within the catastrophe portfolio retains a reserve adjustment entry, a supervisory authorization record, a reinsurance notification timestamp, and an audit indicator within its header fields. The file remains indexed under both high-exposure and treaty-reporting status codes within corresponding monitoring tables.Sequential routing entries continue to accumulate under the claim’s unique identifier, while attachment thresholds and reporting intervals remain governed by configuration parameters stored in versioned system logs.