Why Payment Moments Need Careful Contract Translation
A deductible removes the first portion of a covered loss, while a finite policy limit caps what the insurer pays. The expected insurer payment therefore depends on severity in a particular interval: losses must exceed the deductible to produce a payment, but the insurer payment cannot exceed the limit. Survival-function integrals describe this interval directly and give both the expected payment and its second moment.
The distinction between a limit on insurer payment and a cap on ground-up loss is important. Throughout this tutorial, \(u\) is the maximum insurer payment after the deductible. The formulas would need to be adjusted if a contract instead capped the loss before applying the deductible.
The largest possible payment is \(u\), so every valid calculation must satisfy \(0\leq E[Y^L]\leq u\) and \(0\leq E[(Y^L)^2]\leq u^2\). These bounds are useful checks, but they do not replace careful interpretation of the contract.
Survival-Function Formulas
Write \(S_X(x)=P(X>x)\) for the survival function of the ground-up loss. For \(0\leq y<u\), a payment greater than \(y\) occurs exactly when the ground-up loss exceeds the deductible plus \(y\):
For a nonnegative random variable \(Z\), the tail-integral identity gives \(E[Z]=\int_0^\infty P(Z>y)\,dy\). Applying it to the bounded payment \(Y^L\), and then using the corresponding identity for the second moment, gives the main results.
The first expression for each moment uses the payment scale \(y\); the second uses the ground-up loss scale \(x=d+y\). The second-moment integrand includes the factor \(y\), or equivalently \(x-d\). It is not correct to integrate \(xS_X(x)\) for the payment second moment, because the insurer pays the amount above the deductible, not the full ground-up loss.
Why the Tail Integrals Hold
For any value \(z\) between zero and \(u\), its length can be written as the area under an indicator:
Substitute \(z=Y^L\) and take expectations. Interchanging expectation and integration is valid here because the integrands are nonnegative and bounded over the finite interval. Thus \(E[Y^L]=\int_0^u P(Y^L>y)\,dy\), and \(E[(Y^L)^2]=2\int_0^u yP(Y^L>y)\,dy\). For \(y<u\), the contract definition implies \(Y^L>y\) exactly when \(X>d+y\). Substituting this probability proves both formulas. Changing variables from \(y\) to \(x=d+y\) gives their alternative forms.
This argument also explains why the finite limit sets the integration range: payments cannot exceed \(u\). With no finite payment limit, the upper endpoint becomes infinity, and the corresponding integrals require the relevant moments to be finite.
Worked Distributional Calculations
Worked Example: Exponential Severity with a Fixed Payment Limit
A hypothetical insurer models a single ground-up claim by an exponential distribution with rate \(\lambda=0.01\) per dollar, so \(S_X(x)=e^{-0.01x}\) for \(x\geq0\). The contract has an ordinary deductible of \(d=\$20\) and a maximum insurer payment of \(u=\$50\). Calculate the expected payment and its second moment.
Method. Use the survival-function formulas over payment amounts from 0 to 50. The exponential parameter is a rate per dollar, and the payment limit applies after the deductible.
For the expected payment,
For the second moment, integrate \(2y\) times the payment survival probability:
The integral identity used in the second line is \(\int_0^u ye^{-\lambda y}\,dy=[1-e^{-\lambda u}(1+\lambda u)]/\lambda^2\), obtained by integration by parts. As a check, the mean is between 0 and the \$50 maximum payment, and the second moment is below \(50^2=2{,}500\). The results are rounded to four decimal places. The calculation avoids treating the payment as the full claim amount above zero.
Worked Example: Uniform Severity with a Deductible and Limit
For a hypothetical equipment policy, suppose \(X\) is uniform on \([0,100]\) dollars. The ordinary deductible is \(d=\$20\), and the maximum insurer payment is \(u=\$30\). Find the expected payment, second moment, and variance.
For \(0\leq y\leq30\), the survival function at the deductible-plus-payment threshold is \(S_X(20+y)=(100-(20+y))/100=(80-y)/100\). Therefore,
For the second moment,
The variance is \(540.00-(19.50)^2=540.00-380.25=159.75\) dollars squared. Both moment bounds hold: \(19.50\leq30\) and \(540.00\leq30^2=900\). The values are exact to the displayed cent for the mean and variance. The method accounts only for losses in the interval relevant to insurer payments; losses above the attachment point do not contribute their full ground-up amount.
Worked Example: Pareto-Type Severity with a Higher Deductible
A hypothetical portfolio uses a Lomax, or Pareto Type II, severity model with survival function \(S_X(x)=(1+x/100)^{-3}\) for \(x\geq0\), where amounts are in dollars. A policy has \(d=\$100\) and maximum payment \(u=\$100\). Calculate the two payment moments.
Use the loss-scale integral for the mean and set \(z=1+x/100\). The integration endpoints \(x=100\) and \(x=200\) become \(z=2\) and \(z=3\), with \(dx=100\,dz\):
For the second moment, the payment above the deductible is \(x-100\). Under the same substitution, \(x-100=100(z-2)\):
The payment is capped at \$100, so its second moment cannot exceed \$10,000; the calculated value satisfies that bound. The results are rounded to four decimal places. This example illustrates that a high deductible can produce a modest mean even when the severity model has a long right tail: only the survival probabilities across the covered payment interval enter the calculation.
Common Mistake: Applying the Limit to the Wrong Amount
The most frequent contract-translation error is to apply the limit to ground-up loss and then subtract the deductible. For the convention used here, the correct calculation is \(Y^L=\min((X-d)_+,u)\): first determine the amount above the deductible, then cap the insurer payment.
For example, let a ground-up loss be \(X=\$90\), with \(d=\$20\) and maximum payment \(u=\$50\). The incorrect calculation is \(\min(90,50)-20=30\) dollars. It applies the \$50 cap to the ground-up loss, rather than to the insurer payment. The correct payment is \(\min(90-20,50)=\min(70,50)=\$50\).
A different contract might explicitly state that its limit caps the ground-up loss before the deductible. That is a different contract definition and can produce a different payment. Read the wording before choosing a formula; the symbol \(u\) alone does not determine where a limit applies.
These moment calculations are aligned with the SOA Exam ASTAM (Advanced Short-Term Actuarial Mathematics) syllabus. They are useful whenever a model requires the mean or second moment of a covered claim payment rather than of the underlying ground-up severity.
Check Your Understanding
For each problem, treat the stated limit as the maximum insurer payment after the deductible. Use the survival-integral formulas and check the result against the maximum possible payment.
- A hypothetical loss has an exponential distribution with rate \(0.02\) per dollar. The deductible is \$10 and the maximum payment is \$20. Find the expected payment, to four decimal places. (Answer: \$13.4960)
- A hypothetical severity is uniform on \([0,80]\) dollars. With \(d=\$15\) and \(u=\$25\), find the expected payment and second moment. (Answer: \$16.4063 and \$377.6042 dollars squared)
- A hypothetical severity has survival function \(S_X(x)=(1+x/50)^{-2}\), \(x\geq0\), with amounts in dollars. If \(d=\$50\) and \(u=\$50\), find both payment moments to four decimal places. (Answer: \$8.3333 and \$360.6592 dollars squared)
- A hypothetical exponential severity has rate \(0.01\) per dollar, with \(d=0\) and \(u=\$100\). Find the expected payment and second moment to four decimal places. (Answer: \$63.2121 and \$5,284.8224 dollars squared)
- A hypothetical loss is uniform on \([0,100]\) dollars. Its deductible is \$20, and its stated \$60 limit is explicitly a maximum insurer payment after the deductible. Find the expected payment and second moment. (Answer: \$30.00 and \$1,440.00 dollars squared)