In a specific field, a claim file shows a reinsurance indicator. This indicator turns on when the expected risk goes over a set limit stored in the system’s settings. This limit has a starting date, which is noted during treaty updates. Once the indicator is on, the file goes to a monitoring list for the reinsurance team.
The attachment limit doesn’t change the reserve itself, but it does put the claim into a secondary review process. The settings keep old attachment values linked to past treaty years. If a loss happens near a treaty renewal, the limit that was active when the loss happened is used, not the one shown on the current settings screens.
Authority levels affect this routing. If a claims adjuster tries to raise reserves above an internal cap, the system will ask for a supervisor’s approval. If the changed reserve is close to the treaty attachment, the approval list will also include a reviewer from reinsurance oversight. The escalation log keeps track of each routing action, with timestamps and user information.
Reserve variance limits and attachment limits work at the same time. One controls internal settlement authority, and the other manages external risk transfer involvement. When both are crossed closely together, routing expands to include more departments.
When treaty reporting rules apply, more files are added. Regular claim notes are supported by a reinsurance summary form in the system. The form records the policy number, loss details, reserve breakdown, and expected recovery percentage. When the form is sent, it creates an entry in a treaty reporting dashboard that is separate from the main claims list.
The summary form adds recovery predictions into the record. The system saves expected recovery percentages with gross reserve values, creating two sets of financial info in the same file. When either number is updated, new entries with timestamps are made, but old predictions are not deleted.
Compliance dashboards watch files that are marked for reinsurance notification. They appear with treaty identifiers. Files that are close to reporting deadlines are marked in the dashboard, based on notification times in policy memos that match treaty agreements. These memos include starting dates and revision numbers stored in a compliance area.
Notification times follow specific treaty rules. Some agreements need reporting within a set number of days after crossing attachment, while others use calendar-based cycles. The compliance dashboard matches claim-level timestamps with treaty-defined times.
Audit selection uses reinsurance-triggered files as a separate sampling group. Closed claims that go above attachment points are put into a sampling pool for review by internal audit teams. An audit flag shows up in the claim header. Worksheets made during audit review show both claim identifiers and treaty codes.
Sampling rules may treat treaty claims differently from non-treaty files. Audit worksheets compare reporting dates, reserve growth patterns, and recovery postings against treaty settings stored in version logs.
Fraud flags work on their own but still relate to reinsurance oversight. A claim marked for fraud keeps its reinsurance indicator. Investigative files are attached with limited access. The reinsurance unit’s dashboard shows the fraud status without showing investigative materials.
The treaty monitoring interface shows that a fraud review is happening through status codes, but investigative notes stay in separate modules.
Escalation logs show reserve changes that affect treaty risk. Every reserve increase above set percentages makes a log entry noting the change and routing result. The log shows entries in order, tracing events between claims handling, supervisory approval, and reinsurance review.
The order of entries makes a timeline: reserve entry, supervisory approval, treaty notification, and possible recovery change. Each event uses the settings that were active at the time.
Policy memos control treaty notification processes. When reporting templates are updated, they are stored as new files in a compliance library. Claims opened after a memo’s starting date use revised reporting formats. Older files keep old template versions in their file history.
Template changes show treaty renegotiations or agreement. Past submissions keep the structure needed when reporting.
Approval lists can change based on total risk numbers. If total losses within a treaty year get close to set capacity limits, the system sends an alert. Claims that add to that total appear in a monitoring area listing the claim number, reserve amount, and last activity date. Supervisory review tasks may be made for files in this group.
Total capacity limits work separately from single-claim attachment. A file may stay below attachment but still add to total risk nearing treaty limits. Monitoring areas calculate usage percentages using data fields from multiple claims.
Rules need reporting of reinsurance involvement in big losses. Fields in the claim screen capture reporting status and submission dates. Confirmation numbers from regulatory portals are stored in data fields with treaty identifiers.
Rules introduce obligations separate from treaty notification times. A claim may meet treaty reporting rules but still be waiting in regulatory status until confirmations are recorded.
More files are created in big events. Multiple claims in the same area start total tracking dashboards. Each file has a code linked to a treaty program. Engineering reports, damage assessments, and contractor estimates attach, growing folders across the portfolio.
Catastrophe codes make links across the portfolio. Files keep identifiers while adding to total attachment usage shown in treaty monitoring areas.
Audit worksheets for treaty claims show reserve history and communication logs. Reviewers compare reporting dates against treaty notification times stored in settings. They type observations in fields in the audit application, linked to claim numbers but outside the claims system.
The audit application stores timestamps and reviewer information. Findings do not change reserve or recovery entries, but compliance with treaty rules
Authority changes spread through user profiles with logged starting dates. Changes in settlement ceilings affect files within treaty limits. Past approvals keep records of authority levels active at the time of action.
Settings logs keep the authority structure under which each reserve decision was validated. Treaty oversight uses these logs when reviewing big loss growth.
Fraud results can change recovery predictions. Updated recovery expectations are entered into the reinsurance summary form. This change makes a notification to the treaty reporting dashboard and an entry in the escalation log.
Recovery changes affect risk calculations in capital models. Every change makes a new version of projected recoverables stored in repositories.
Compliance reviews take data from claims marked with treaty indicators. Reports list open files by attachment tier, reserve size, and reporting status. Each takes starting dates of treaty agreements.
Extract happens on set times separate from claim updates. Timing may differ from real-time reserve positions in operational screens.
Accounting reconciles reinsurance recoverables separate from claim payments. When a payment crossing attachment is made, a recoverable entry posts to a reinsurance ledger. The ledger gives its transaction ID linked to the claim number. Reconciliation notes referencing these entries appear in finance modules separate from claims handling screens.
Payment entries travel through paths. Batch cycles can post payments before recoverable entries are confirmed, making differences reconciled in cycles.
Quality teams do reviews of treaty claims. Their review dashboards group files by attachment level and reporting time. Finishing a quality review makes an entry in a database and a note added to the claim file.
Quality databases keep identifiers separate from claim numbers and treaty codes. Cross-references traceability across layers.
System logs record updates to attachment limits and reporting times. Each includes user , timestamp, and a change description. Old settings are archived for audits.
Archived settings validate reporting time and recovery with the rules active at the time.
Reporting extracts treaty-related claims into summary files sent to reinsurers at times. They show claim number, policy , loss date, paid amounts, case reserves, and recovery percentages. Each transmission makes a reference code stored in the module. Claims keep a to the batch number without copying in the file.
Cycles are monthly or quarterly in agreements. Claims may appear in extracts as reserves develop, each batch making a reference entry.
Actuarial modules use treaty-tagged claims into modeling datasets. Data fields feed into tables calculating proximity. patterns stay with identifiers across policy years. Outputs are stored in repositories from claim records.
Models keep their histories. Assumptions regarding factors and rates are preserved.
Capital systems integrate treaty estimates into calculations. When projected losses approach treaty layers, assumptions fill templates. These assumptions reference limits and percentages recorded in treaty files. The model keeps scenario records claim logs.
Scenario modeling may use stress parameters reserves. Outputs allocations without claim data.
Data retention schedules apply rules to treaty Reporting forms, confirmations, and extracts are stored in repositories by parameters with treaty terms. Archived records keep timestamps and identifiers even after claims close.
Portfolio tools track risk treaties spanning . Claims sharing codes or tiers aggregate within panels that show percentages and figures. Claim files keep identifiers data views in tables.
The claim file in the portfolio displays reserve adjustments, entries, timestamps, and indicators in designated header fields. The file is indexed under codes in tables. Sequential routing entries register under the identifier. parameters for limits sit in tables. Revisions add versions.
