Insurance
- Thread starter Turkina
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
The simplest method, which I've long employed, is that insurance is built into the financing costs.
This is a basic All Risks policy, meaning it covers against all perils except those specifically named (which vary depending on the TU involved).
This is not a cheap policy (that 20% down payment is mostly the insurance coverage) and the players are not the beneficiaries. So to answer the question of loss, no the players would not be financially liable, the bank is the owner and beneficiary of the policy.
If the players own the ship outright and want insurance (especially replacement insurance) on the ship it would be very expensive and they could probably only afford a Named Peril policy.
In no case will the policy cover recklessness and criminal acts. In MTU actions which would jeopardize the policy are grounds for the bank to call the loan and if you can't pay they get the ship and you get nothing.
As a side note, freight insurance is also not a concern for the players, it is the freight owner who handles that. If the players want to insure personal property, such as gear or speculative cargo that will be up to them and the prices will vary widely but again they will probably find it expensive and a hassle.
The Imperium expects Travellers to look out for themselves for the most part so there are not many Interstellar insurance options. One I've used is the TAS membership by including a basic property, life, health, and accident insurance package in the benefits.
This is a basic All Risks policy, meaning it covers against all perils except those specifically named (which vary depending on the TU involved).
This is not a cheap policy (that 20% down payment is mostly the insurance coverage) and the players are not the beneficiaries. So to answer the question of loss, no the players would not be financially liable, the bank is the owner and beneficiary of the policy.
If the players own the ship outright and want insurance (especially replacement insurance) on the ship it would be very expensive and they could probably only afford a Named Peril policy.
In no case will the policy cover recklessness and criminal acts. In MTU actions which would jeopardize the policy are grounds for the bank to call the loan and if you can't pay they get the ship and you get nothing.
As a side note, freight insurance is also not a concern for the players, it is the freight owner who handles that. If the players want to insure personal property, such as gear or speculative cargo that will be up to them and the prices will vary widely but again they will probably find it expensive and a hassle.
The Imperium expects Travellers to look out for themselves for the most part so there are not many Interstellar insurance options. One I've used is the TAS membership by including a basic property, life, health, and accident insurance package in the benefits.
say you have a 48MCr ship, and you insure it for replacement. now assume an annual loss rate of 0.005 per year - that is, each year one in two hundred insured ships is lost. that means that if every insured ship pays 1/200 of the cost of their ship the insurance company will break even. 48MCr/200 = 240,000 Cr/year. double that so the company makes a profit - 480,000 Cr/year. that's 40,000 Cr/month. if the ship has an 80 dton cargo hold then that's about 313Cr/dton for insurance assuming a .8 capacity rate. depending on what's being shipped it's easily doable.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
To clarify the no coverage for recklessness and criminal actions. The bank would not be responsible for the actions so they would still be paid in the case of a loan, and the players acting in such a way would be prosecuted. It would only apply to the players if they had bought insurance on their own property and then engaged in such actions, in which case they would not be covered and they would be prosecuted.
I was curious about your 1 percent insurance rate, so I looked up data on Commercial fishing boats. One fleet of commercial fishing boats pay 6 percent per year in insurance, so 1 percent is a good rate.
(As an aside, fishing boats seem to operate at a rate of expenses = 50 percent of revenue - so cargo rates are too low to afford 6 percent insurance.) Who would have thought that the crew of a free trader earns less than a commercial fisherman.
I had originally wondered if 1 percent was too high (most losses are much less than 1 per 200, imagine if 1 airplane in 200 crashed each year). I was looking for data on general shipping, but only found the fishing boats. So, I wasn't against the 1% figure, I was just curious about other real world loss rates.
You need to also bear in mind that premiums are not just set by reference to actuarial data on previous loss experience but on projected future casualty rates (e.g: after 9/11 the the cost of war risks in commercial aviation went up by 200% or more - or alternatively the level of cover for the same premium dropped from about $2 billion to $50 million).
In traveller terms I would guess that insurance policies would have exclusions if you were to fly into certain 'hot' sub-sectors or systems, or the level of cover would vary depending on where you were.
Then again, if I wanted to go into this sort of stuff in detail in my traveller adventures, I'd stay late at work rather than playing traveller!
Ravs
In traveller terms I would guess that insurance policies would have exclusions if you were to fly into certain 'hot' sub-sectors or systems, or the level of cover would vary depending on where you were.
Then again, if I wanted to go into this sort of stuff in detail in my traveller adventures, I'd stay late at work rather than playing traveller!
Ravs
P
Pickles
Guest
Another factor is the insured's perceived ability to pay. To take a RW example, add a private pilot's licence to your accomplishments and watch your premiums soar. This is not because of increased risk, which is statistically negligible (and may be negative due to more time spent safely in the air than on a deadly highway). People who can afford to fly, however, can also afford to pay through the nose for the privilege ...
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
That depends on the type of insurance. However Flying, as a pilot, is statistically one of the deadliest jobs in the world. It isn't the big airliners that go down, but the small stuff. (Much of it doesn't make the news.) Someone publishes a report every year on the deadliest jobs in the world and Pilot is always in the top 2 or 3. Commercial Air travel is quite a bit safer than being on the ground, but piloting aircraft is not.Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
Another factor is the insured's perceived ability to pay. To take a RW example, add a private pilot's licence to your accomplishments and watch your premiums soar. This is not because of increased risk, which is statistically negligible (and may be negative due to more time spent safely in the air than on a deadly highway). People who can afford to fly, however, can also afford to pay through the nose for the privilege ...
Having worked in the insurance industry, I can say with confidence that all adventures ever published (without even having read most of them) should have to come with an "Your Insurance Coverage Ends HERE" bumper sticker. Insurance companies are like that - they don´t like risk, and Travelling has "risk" (or rather, "RISK!") written all over it.
Similar threads
