Description: Spreadsheet with documentation for exhibits to the May 2007 report: The Potential Impact of Pandemic Influenza on the U.S. Life insurance Industry

Description: This article discusses the charge for the new SOA/COVARA AIDS Task Force. This new task force will examine and report on the principles and techniques for the financial recognition of AIDS for insurance companies, recognizing both statutory and GAAP accounting.

Description: This section presents multiple insurance-related legal cases from 1954: 1. AVIATION EXCLUSlON PILOT: Ezell v. Atlantic Life Insurance Company, 2. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY FEDERAL INCOME TAX-OIL ROYALTIES AND BONUS: Great National Life Insurance Company v. Campbell, 3. SIMILAR CORPORATE NAMESADMISSlON TO Do BUSINESS IN STATE : United Life Insurance Company v. United Insurance Company, 4. DOUBLE INDEMNITY MILITARY EXCLUSION: Langlas v. Iowa Life Insurance Company, 5. STATUTE REQUIRING COPY OF APPLICATION TO BE ATTACHED-FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY: Wheeler v. Ben Hur Life Association, 6. BENEFICIARY'S RIGHT TO ASCERTAIN AND TO PAY PREMIUM: American Life Insurance Company v. Hauer, 7. QUARTERLY PREMIUM IN EXCESS OF ONE-QUARTER OF ANNUAL RATE: Cohen v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 8. SETTLEMENT OPTION-TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION: Hall vs. Mutual Life Insurance Company, 9. DEATH DUTIESLIABILITY OF COMPANY UNDER ANNUITY: Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company v. Dimond, 10. DELIVERY OF POLICYPOLICY MAILED TO AGENT: Mid-Continent Life Insurance Company vs. Dees,

Description: Study of the Effect of a Flu Pandemic on Insured Mortality Using the Delphi Method

Description: This section presents and summarizes several insurance-related legal cases from 1954: 1. ACCIDENT POLICY- ACCIDENTAL MEANS: Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Douglass, 2. SUICIDE EXCLUSIONDATE OF ISSUE AND EFFECTIVE DATE: New York Life Insurance Company v. Noonan, 3. INCOME TAX DEFICIENCYGOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AGAINST BENEFICIARY: United States vs. New. 4. BANKRUPTCYPOLICY LOANS MADE AFTER APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEE: Lake, Trustee vs. New York Life Insurance Company, 5. ANNUITY CONTRAcTRECOVERY OF CONSIDERATION: Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. Hardwick, 6. DOUBLE INDEMNITYWAIVER OF AGE LIMIT: Peninsular Life Insurance Company vs. Howard, 7. DEATH ON POLICY ANNIVERSARYDEDUCTION OF UNPAID PREMIUM: Callahan vs. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 8. GOOD HEALTH PROVISIONSUBSTANDARD RISK: Green vs. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company, 9. INSURANCE TRUSTTESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION: Gordon v. Portland Trust Bank, 10. MISREPRESENTATION AS TO INSANITYINCONTESTABLE CLAUSE: Arnold vs. Life Insurance Company of Georgia, 11. ACCIDENT INSURANCEBURNING OF BUILDING: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. Walt

Description: Are you 'dying' to learn about how the mortality data, submitted under the NAIC's Valuation Manual Experience Reporting Requirements (VM50 & VM51), is used? The SOA's Individual Life Experience Committee (ILEC) will describe the data validation 'experience' and explain on how the data eventually influences statutory valuation requirements. The presenters will also 'expose' attendees to the latest insights and observations in the data. Attend this session and learn how the SOA 'minds it's p's and q's' in individual life insurance. At the conclusion of the session, attendees will be able to: - Describe the various types of SOA research that have been performed on the data collected under VM50 and VM51 - Describe the database, released by the SOA, that is compiled from the data collected under VM50 and VM51 - Explain the importance of data quality in VM50 submissions - Identify how the data that is submitted under VM50 would be used to determine Principle-Based Reserving requirement

Description: This section discusses several insurance-related legal cases from 1953 including: 1. STATUTE REQUIRING APPLICATION TO BE ATTACHED EFFECT OF ATTACHING EXTRA PAPER: Nacchio v. New York Life Insurance Company 2. DATE Or LAPSEPoLICY NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL DELIVERY: Pyramid Life Insurance Company vs. Williams 3. DOUBLE INDEMNITYWAIVER AND ESTOPPELINSURER'S FAILURE TO INFORM INSURED POLICY WAS NOT ISSUED AS APPLIED FOR: Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society vs. Counts 4. KILLING OF INSURED BY HEIRINHERITANCE OF POLICY PROCEEDS: Strickland vs. Wysowatcky, 5. PREMIUM TAXES-RETALIATION: Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. Parkinson, 6. AGENT AS BENEFICIARY-CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP: Fifield vs. Crowe, 7. MISREPRESENTATION As TO OCCUPATION AND HABITSPROFESSIONAL GAMBLER: DeBellis vs. United Benefit Life Insurance Company, 8. WAR EXCLUSION-UNDECLARED WAR: Beley vs. Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance Company, 9. DOUBLE INDEMNITYAVIATION EXCLUSIONMILITARY EXCLUSION: Western Reserve Life Insurance Company vs. Meadows, 10. STATF LIFE FUNDREJECTION OF ALL COLORED APPLICANTS: Lange vs. Rancher

Description: This panel discussion looks at the practicality of a company to undertake its own studies in connection with persistency, mortality, morbidity, agency compensation and the significance of the results. Effectiveness of budgets in reducing expenses are also examined. From Transactions of Society of Actuaries 1961, Vol. 13, Pt. 2.

Description: This paper looks at the following cases: 1. DOING BUSINESS BY MAIL SERVICE OF PROCESS: Travelers Heath Association v. Virginia, 2. AVIATION EXCLUSION FAILURE OF INSURED TO SIGN RESTRICTIVE RIDER: McDaniel v. California-Western States Life Insurance Company, 3. WAR RIDER WAIVER BY ACCEPTANCE OF PREMIUMS: White v. New York Life Insurance Company, 4. MISREPRESENTATION IN APPLICATION MINORS BINDING EFFECT: Modern Woodmen of America v. Stevens, 5. DISABILITY BENEFITS INSANITY AS EXCUSING NOTICE: Chagnon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 6. AGENTS' COMPENSATION AMOUNT NOT AGREED TO IN ADVANCE: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Durkin, 7. GOVERNMENT ALLOTMENTPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS IN ERROR: Atlas Life Insurance Company v. Davis, 8. EFFECTIVE DATESUBSTANDARD INSURANCE: Republic National Life Insurance Company v. Hall.

Description: The embattled life insurance industry in Australia needs to come to terms with a new environment of heightened claims volumes, unprecedented losses, changing distribution models and even reduced benefits. Like the mythological phoenix that spectacularly regenerates from its ashes every century, Australia’s life insurance industry needs something special to rise from its ashes. Claims management innovation promises to give the necessary impetus for a market that is desperate for some good news, whilst laying the foundation for a claims revolution worldwide.