Insurers have been kept busy, of late, by nature's fury. The year 2004 was reported to be the worst for insurers by way of claims, because of natural calamities. Even before the din settled down, the next calamity came up. While the total amount of insured losses in more advanced markets is very high, how is it that the greatest calamity in the form of tsunami that hit several countries turned out to be so paltry? A great epoch-making event; or a natural calamity, for that matter, of great proportions remains etched in one's memory for a long time and unless it is overshadowed by a similar event, it keeps getting quoted often. The tsunami that we all witnessed last year, is one such event. The fact, that it affected so many countries in the region, and the trail of devastation that it left behind, are enough to make it an event to be remembered for long.
Similarly, it would have had a tremendous effect on the bottom lines of insurers which eventually would have affected the industry in more ways than one. However, did that really happen? Whether it did or not, what are the reasons? This forms the crux of this article and we shall take a look at the factors that play an important role for such eventualities. It is wonderful to be able to put behind you the adverse happenings and just get on with the job on hand. After all, life goes on, doesn't it? It is fashionably termed as the resilience of the humanity to get on with things. Looking back at it, is it really the resilience alone that is responsible for such a phenomenon. Or is there something more to it? It is possible that there is an element of fatalism about it and the feeling that after all, we were destined for such a happening. On the other hand, overdoing the resilience tag could lead to some sort of complacency. It is very interesting to draw a comparison to the effect of Hurricane Katrina which also had a huge impact on the lives of people in the surrounding regions of the Gulf of Mexico.
|
