|Publication number||US7483840 B2|
|Application number||US 10/227,102|
|Publication date||27 Jan 2009|
|Filing date||23 Aug 2002|
|Priority date||23 Aug 2002|
|Also published as||US8612264, US20040039610, US20090132301|
|Publication number||10227102, 227102, US 7483840 B2, US 7483840B2, US-B2-7483840, US7483840 B2, US7483840B2|
|Inventors||Michael Frederick Weitermann, Lisa Marie Mrochinski|
|Original Assignee||Atera /Solutions Llc|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (18), Referenced by (5), Classifications (4), Legal Events (2)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
Insurance rate software applications exist for allowing users to research current or future insurance rates or premiums based upon current or past insurance rate information. These applications generally prompt a user or database for an input of data, and display analysis results. However, the results provided by these applications often only provide limited strategic information (i.e., information upon which decisions can be made regarding a user's insurance rates and premiums). As a result, data manipulation, extrapolation, and estimation are typically necessary. For example, a user may wish to determine what effect, if any, will result when a change is made in one or more factors used to determine the user's insurance premiums offered to the user's customers.
Without knowing how such a change will affect the user's offered premiums, it can be difficult to determine the user's position in the marketplace (e.g., whether the resulting premiums would be too expensive compared to other insurance providers or too far below market value). To determine the impact of the change, the user can apply the change to existing policies in the user's portfolio, or can prepare one or more sample policies based upon sample risks. However, the application of the change to existing policies can take a great amount of time and effort, and may not reflect the true impact such a change can have on future business of the user. In addition, the process of developing sample policies and sample risks can be both complicated and time consuming.
In either case, the results of such a change to a user's insurance policies will need to be compared to similar policies offered by other insurance providers. Depending upon the number of other insurance providers selected for this comparison, the amount of work needed to generate useful comparison data can be tremendous. In addition, it is often difficult to manipulate data for purposes of comparison because every insurance provider uses different bases and different insurance rating factors to determine their premiums.
In some embodiments, the invention provides a system for determining insurance premiums. The system can include a user interface screen upon which at least one rating factor used to calculate insurance premiums is displayed. The rating factors can each have at least two rating elements defining possible values of the rating factors. Random numbers generated by a processor can be used by a rate comparison module to select at least one of the rating elements corresponding to the random numbers, thereby at least partially defining a hypothetical risk for which one or more insurance premiums can be calculated. In some cases, the rate comparison module is further adapted to calculate and display one or more premiums covering the risk based upon the at least one rating element.
In other embodiments, the present invention provides a method of comparing insurance premiums of at least two insurance companies. The method can include: providing a rating factor at least partially defining a risk, wherein the rating factor has at least two possible values, generating a random number via a processor, identifying at least one of the possible rating factor values corresponding to the random number generated by the processor, retrieving premium calculation data of a first insurance provider from a memory coupled to the processor, and calculating a premium of the first insurance provider. The premium of the first insurance provider can be at least partially based upon the premium calculation data of the first insurance provider and the at least one possible rating factor value. The method can further include retrieving premium calculation data of a second insurance provider from a memory coupled to the processor, and calculating a premium of the second insurance provider. The premium of the second insurance provider can be at least partially based upon the premium calculation data of the second insurance provider and the at least one possible rating factor value.
The invention also provides a method of generating sample insurance risks for use in comparing insurance company premiums. In some embodiments, the method includes defining an insurance rating factor having at least two possible values, displaying the insurance rating factor on a user interface screen, generating a random number via a processor, identifying a value of the insurance rating factor corresponding to the random number generated by the processor, and assigning the value identified to a sample insurance risk in order to at least partially generate the sample insurance risk.
Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent by consideration of the detailed description and accompanying drawings.
The present invention is further described with reference to the accompanying drawings, which show a preferred embodiment of the present invention. However, it should be noted that the invention as disclosed in the accompanying drawings is illustrated by way of example only. The various elements, combinations of elements, and acts described below and illustrated in the drawings can be arranged and organized differently to result in embodiments which are still within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
In the drawings, wherein like reference numerals indicate like parts:
Before any embodiments of the invention are explained in detail, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of construction, the arrangement of components, and the order of acts set forth in the following description or illustrated in the following drawings. The invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced or of being carried out in various ways. Also, it is to be understood that the phraseology and terminology used herein is for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting. The use of “including,” “comprising,” or “having” and variations thereof herein are meant to encompass the items listed thereafter and equivalents thereof as well as additional items.
A system for comparing insurance rates (such as insurance rates of different insurance providers) is illustrated in
The user insurance values and interface module 12 illustrated in
As is well known in the art, insurance companies employ a number of different variables to calculate the amount (premium) that is charged for an insurance policy. This amount is calculated in different manners by different insurance companies, and depends at least in part upon the type of policy involved. By way of example only, the system 10 illustrated in the figures and described herein is adapted to compare insurance rates of automobile insurers. However, it will be appreciated by those in the art that the present invention can be employed to compare insurance rates for any other type of insurance, such as home insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, and the like, the premiums of which are each calculated using a series of variables in a manner similar to auto insurance premiums. In addition, the present invention can be employed to calculate and compare proposed insurance premiums and to test the impact that changes (to the manner in which such premiums are calculated) will have on insurance premiums. In this manner, insurance companies and other users can determine the positions of insurance companies in the market following one or more changes to insurance policy calculations.
As mentioned above, the variables employed to calculate an insurance premium can vary from insurance company to insurance company. Some variables commonly employed in the automobile insurance industry include the amount of insurance protection desired for medical payments associated with a claim on an insurance policy, the amount of property damage protection desired, the desired deductible of the insurance policy, the age, sex, marital status, and location of the insured party, the type and age of the vehicle insured, the amount of protection desired against underinsured or uninsured motorists, the driving record of the insured party, and the like. Typically, each of these “rating factors” are given a numerical value that can be used in a formula or formulas to calculate the amount of risk anticipated in insuring a party. This amount of risk (also typically a numerical value) is therefore employed as a multiplier or other variable to determine the premium of an insurance policy for the insured party. By way of example only, insurance companies can have an established base insurance premium that is increased or decreased by being multiplied by a series of numbers, each number representing a rating factor as described above to reflect the particular individual being insured.
Referring back to
It will be appreciated by those in the art that a large amount of data can be included in the current values user interface screen 24. Accordingly, the current values user interface screen 24, like the other user interface screens of the present invention described herein, can be on a single or multiple screens and can be formatted in any manner desired. For example, a number of rating factors are presented on other tabs 25 (see
The current values user interface screen 24 in the illustrated embodiment does not permit a user to modify the information displayed on the current values user interface screen 24. In order for a user to change one or more of these values to determine the impact the change would have on premiums or upon the user's position in the marketplace, the user enters one or more changes in the system via the proposed values module 18 (see
Although the embodiment of the present invention illustrated in the figures employs two sub-modules 16, 18 each providing one or more user interface screens to present data to a user, one having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that different arrangements of sub-modules and screens are possible and fall within the spirit and scope of the present invention. For example, a single user interface screen can be associated with the current and proposed values sub-modules 16, 18, and can be generated to display the current rating factor values of the user in fields that can be changed as desired. Changed fields in such an embodiment can be reset to the current values in any suitable manner. The user insurance values and interface module 12 can be arranged in any manner capable of retrieving current rating factor values and/or other current premium information for display to a user and for modification by a user.
With reference again to
As mentioned above, it is often desirable for a user to be able to easily compare one or more insurance premiums with one or more insurance premiums of another party. In addition, it is often desirable for a user to be able to easily determine how a change to an insurance premium will affect the user's market position with regard to an insurance product. By way of example only, a user may wish to increase or decrease the value of a particular rating factor used to determine the premiums of insurance products sold by the user. Before making such a change, it can be advantageous for the user to determine how the changed premiums compare to the premiums of similar products offered by other insurance companies. However, the effect such a change will have often depends greatly upon the number and types of insurance products sold by the user. A change to one rating factor can have a much larger effect upon one user's business than upon the business of another. For example, an increase in the weight given to the type of vehicle (e.g., sports cars or luxury cars) covered by a policy can have a greater effect to a user's insurance business in higher-income areas than in lower-income areas. As another example, an increase in the weight given to the age of the policyholder (e.g., drivers over the age of 60) can have a greater effect to a user's insurance business in a neighborhood of older residents than in a neighborhood of younger residents.
In order to determine the effect a change will have to a user's existing and future insurance product portfolio, a user can enter new (proposed) values into the proposed values user interface screen 26. These values are then employed by the rate comparison module 100 (see
Although any user can benefit from the insurance premium comparison information described herein, the following discussion is with reference to an insurance company desiring to compare the premiums of one or more insurance products of the insurance company with the premiums of one or more insurance products offered by another insurance company.
After a user has entered (via the proposed values user interface screen 26) one or more proposed changes to any number of rating factors or any other variables used to calculate insurance premiums as shown in
Using the type of insurance policy entered by the user, the rate comparison module 100 calculates the premiums of one or more parties. In particular, the rate comparison module 100 uses a formula to calculate one or more premiums of insurance policies offered by the user as well as to calculate one or more premiums of insurance policies offered by other insurance companies, and then displays the premiums for comparison by the user.
The rate comparison module 100 can take any form desired, and in the illustrated embodiment of
The rate comparison module 100 shown in
The rate comparison module 100 in the illustrated embodiment can perform a comparison between a user's premium(s) and the premium(s) offered by other insurance companies by determining the premiums for one or more vehicles—each having different vehicle and driver attributes. Although the premiums can be calculated for any number of vehicles for this purpose, the rate comparison user interface screen 34 in the illustrated embodiment has fields for up to four different vehicles (i.e., in blocks 104, 108, 112, and 116; columns F to H, rows 4-12) with four corresponding drivers (i.e., in blocks 104, 108, 112, and 116; columns F to H, rows 15-22). The information regarding each vehicle can be hypothetical or can be actual data from vehicles already insured or proposed to be insured by the user, and can be manually entered. In some embodiments, one or more of the vehicle or driver attributes can be entered using a menu of possible options (e.g., a pull-down or pop-up menu enabling a user to select from one of several entries for the selected attribute field).
The premiums of the user and of the other insurance companies are calculated by the rate comparison module 100 based upon the information entered in the vehicle and driver information fields for each vehicle 104, 108, 112, 116. The premiums are calculated using one or more formulas as mentioned above. To calculate the user's premium for each vehicle prior to the proposed changes described above, the processor 30 draws the data from the vehicle and driver fields 104, 108, 112, 116 for each vehicle, draws policy data from the policy type fields 36, identifies and draws the proper current values data (corresponding to the policy type fields 36 in the rate comparison user interface screen 34) from the memory 22 and/or from the current values module 16, and uses this data in a formula or formulas to calculate the user's current premium. To calculate the user's proposed premium for each vehicle, the processor 30 draws the data from the vehicle and driver fields for each vehicle 104, 108, 112, 116, draws policy data from the policy type fields 36, identifies and draws the proper proposed values data (corresponding to the policy type fields 36 in the rate comparison user interface screen 34) from the memory 22 and/or from the proposed values module 18, and uses this data in a formula or formulas to calculate the user's proposed premium.
To calculate a competitor's premium for each vehicle, the processor 30 draws the data from the vehicle and driver fields for each vehicle 104, 108, 112, 116, draws policy data from the policy type fields 36, identifies and draws the ratings data for the competitor (i.e., the competitors rating data corresponding to the policy type fields 36 in the rate comparison user interface screen 34) from the memory 22, and uses this data in a formula or formulas to calculate the competitor's premium. This process can be repeated for as many competitors as desired, such as for all competitors or only competitors selected for comparison by the user. In this regard, the ratings data for each competitor can be stored in the memory 22 in individual files referenced by the processor 30 or in any other manner desired.
The process of employing a processor 30 to calculate a premium of a user's insurance policy or of a premium of a competitor's insurance policy based upon information regarding a particular vehicle and driver is conventional in nature and is not therefore described further herein.
After the current and proposed user's premiums and the competitor's premiums are calculated as described above, the premiums for each vehicle can be displayed for comparison by a user. Alternatively or in addition, a total can be taken of all vehicles for each premium, thereby generating a summed premium that can be more easily compared. In the illustrated embodiment, when the total premium for all vehicles have been calculated, they are displayed in a premium block 120 (columns A-I, rows 26-36) as shown in
In some embodiments, a total is taken of the premiums calculated by the rate comparison module 100 for each vehicle and driver sample. These premium totals can then be displayed for comparison by a user. An example of such a comparison is presented at the bottom of
It may be desirable to view factors instead of premiums calculated by the rate comparison module 100 used to calculate the premiums just described. Some embodiments of the present invention therefore present this data or otherwise make this data available to the user. For example, the rating factor values calculated for the vehicles on
In some embodiments, the premium data calculated by the rate comparison module 100 can be presented in graphical format for assessment by a user. In particular, this information can be displayed in any manner desired, and is shown in a table format in
In short, if a user changes information entered in the rate tab 128, the rate-compare module 100 responds by accessing rating factors (e.g., from a plurality of cells in the user insurance values and interface module 12 or data stored in the memory 22) based upon the user-input information, and rates out a risk scenario. In some embodiments, the premiums are calculated and updated in real time.
The exemplary system 10 illustrated in the figures enables a user to compare insurance policy premiums in another manner. As an alternative to the use of vehicle and driver information entered as described above, the system 10 enables a user to select a randomization function in which the system 10 generates hypothetical vehicles and drivers for which current, proposed, and competitor insurance premiums can be calculated and compared. In some embodiments of the present invention, the system 10 has no fields or data blocks 104, 108, 112, 116 for user entry of vehicle and driver information as described above. However, in some embodiments such as that shown in the figures, this randomization function is used as an alternative to the vehicle and driver data blocks 104, 108, 112, 116
By generating hypothetical vehicle and driver samples, a user can simulate a number of policies and their corresponding premiums. Therefore, the user can determine the corresponding premiums using the current rating factor values (i.e., how much each policy would cost for each vehicle and driver based upon the current rating factors used by the user), the proposed rating factor values (i.e., how much each policy would cost if one or more of these values are changed), and the competitor rating factor values (i.e., how much each insurance company competitor would charge for the same policy using the rating factor values). Upon determining the premiums for each hypothetical vehicle and driver sample generated by the rate comparison module 100, the premiums can be summed, displayed, and compared as described above. The use of randomly generated vehicle and driver samples can therefore save significant time compared to the process of obtaining and manually entering real or hypothetical vehicle and driver samples.
In some embodiments of the present invention, the same series of calls for data used in calculating premiums for vehicle and driver samples in blocks 104, 108, 112, and 116 is used in randomly generated vehicle and driver samples (i.e., in a batch rating process of the rate compare module 100). The batch rating process or “randomization” process uses a set of methods to generate different risk scenarios. Rather than require the user to develop sample policies, the randomization process can be employed to automatically generate a wide variety of sample risks with only a few keystrokes.
In order to prepare a set of hypothetical vehicle and driver samples for which policies can be generated and the corresponding premiums can be compared, each rating factor used to calculate insurance policy premiums (as described above) is assigned one or more potential values, and in some cases a range of values. Each hypothetical vehicle and driver sample is defined by a number of parameters (e.g., the rating factors described above) some of which can include driver age, driver sex, driver marital status, desired protection against uninsured or underinsured motorists, desired amount of property damage protection, and the like. Each such parameter has one or more values.
For example, the driver's age can have a value for each possible driver's age from 16-100. As another example, the driver's sex can have two possible values (male and female). As another example, the driver's marital status can also have two possible values (married or not married). As another example, the desired protection against uninsured or underinsured motorists can have a number of possible values (e.g., no coverage, $25,000/$50,000, $50,000/$100,000, $100,000/$300,000, $150,000/$300,000, $250,000/$500,000, $300,000/$300,000, and $500,000/$500,000). As yet another example, the desired property damage limit can have a number of possible values (e.g., no coverage, $10,000, $15,000, $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, and $250,000). Still other rating factors can have any number of possible values. Some of the rating factor values are dependent at least in part upon the possible types of parties that may be existing or future policyholders of the user, while other rating factor values are dependent at least in part upon the type of insurance offered by the user or other insurance companies.
For each hypothetical vehicle and driver sample prepared by the rate comparison module 100, each rating factor is randomly assigned a value from one of the possible values for that rating factor. In some cases, the rating factor has only one possible value, while in other cases the rate comparison module 100 has two or more values from which the rate comparison module 100 chooses. After the desired number of hypothetical vehicle and driver samples have been prepared in this manner, the rate comparison module 100 can calculate the cost of a premium as described above for each hypothetical vehicle and driver sample using the values of the sample.
In some embodiments, the rate comparison module 100 randomly selects between the possible values for vehicle and driver sample parameter in an equal manner. In other words, each possible value for each parameter has an equal chance of being selected. In other embodiments however, one or more of the parameters have possible values that are unequally weighted with respect to the others. This can better reflect real-world scenarios in which a party is more likely to choose certain types of insurance coverage than others or in which a party is more likely to have certain characteristics than others. By way of example only, based upon a user's knowledge of his or her market, the user may be aware that a party is more likely to select an uninsured motorists protection amount of $100,000/$300,000 than a significantly greater amount (e.g., $500,000/$500,000). Therefore the various potential values in one or more of the rating factors described above can be weighted to reflect the probability of parties to fall into one or more of such values.
It should be noted that for each hypothetical vehicle and driver sample generated by the rate comparison module 100, none, some, or all of the parameters can have unequally weighted possible values. When generating each hypothetical vehicle and driver sample, the rate comparison module 100 can randomly select from the possible values of each parameter (in an equally or unequally weighted manner as described above) in a number of different manners. In the illustrated embodiment, a random number is generated for each parameter. The random number generated corresponds to one of the possible values of the parameter. In this regard, each possible value of a parameter can be assigned a range of numerical values, each range corresponding to a random number generated by the rate comparison module 100. For example, in some cases the insurance premium of a student can be reduced if the student has performed well in school. In such cases, a “good student discount” parameter can exist for a hypothetical vehicle and driver sample, wherein a “yes” value can be assigned a range of numbers from 0-4, and a “no” value can be assigned a range of numbers from 5-9. If the random number selected is 7, the good student parameter for the hypothetical vehicle and driver sample would be assigned as “no”. If the random number selected is 1, the good student parameter would be assigned as “yes”.
As another example, a vehicle use parameter can be employed in calculating premiums, wherein the vehicle use parameter includes “pleasure”, “school”, “work”, “business”, and “farm” values. In such a case, the “pleasure” value can be assigned a range of numbers from 0-1, the “school” value can be assigned a range of numbers from 2-3, the “work” value can be assigned a range of numbers from 4-5, the “business”value can be assigned a range of numbers from 6-7, and the “farm” value can be assigned a range of numbers from 8-9. If the random number for this parameter selected is 5, the vehicle use parameter would be assigned as “work”. As another example, if the random number for this parameter selected is 0, the vehicle use parameter would be assigned as “pleasure”.
In both examples just presented, each possible value is given an equal weight (e.g., 50% for male and 50% for female; 20% for each vehicle type). However, as described earlier, the possible values for one or more parameters of a hypothetical vehicle and driver sample need not necessarily be equally weighted. If one or more possible values for any parameter are more likely than others, the possible values can be weighted differently to reflect this likelihood. For example, if a user is three times as likely to have a vehicle usage of “work” rather than “business”, the above-described distribution can be reassigned in order to reflect real-life vehicle and driver samples as follows: the “work” value can be assigned a range of numbers from 4-6 while “business” is assigned the number 7. Any other probability distribution can be employed for any one or more of the variables as desired.
As indicated above, the randomization process creates policies by randomly selecting from a plurality of available values of one or more rating factors. For example, if available bodily injury limits are $25,000/$50,000, $50,000/$100,000, $100,000/$300,000 and $250,000/$500,000, the randomization process selects a limit based upon a probability assigned to each limit (or otherwise randomly selects a limit based upon equal probabilities for each limit). In some embodiments, the probabilities can be assigned to mirror real world probabilities. For example, the probabilities can be assigned so the probability of a $100,000/$300,000 limit being selected is much greater than a $25,000/$50,000 limit. The process continues with any additional rating factor variables being selected, such as rating factor variables for coverage limits, deductibles, vehicles, drivers and attributes such as accidents and violations.
With continued reference to the illustrated embodiment of the present invention, the randomization process can be initiated by a user selecting any user-manipulatable control such as the “randomization” button 136 on the rate comparison user interface screen 34 or by entering a command via the keyboard 32 (see
In some embodiments of the present invention, a new user interface screen is generated by the processor 30 and the rate comparison module 100 upon selection of the randomization function. An example of such a user interface screen is presented in
Only some of the variables used to calculate premiums are illustrated in
As mentioned above, the possible values that can be selected for one or more variables (e.g., rating factors) need not necessarily be equally weighted. In some embodiments of the present invention, the user can select the manner in which the various possible values of any one or more variables are randomly selected by the rate comparison module 100. For example, the user can select to change a particular variable by manipulating any user-manipulatable control on the randomization interface screen 400 (e.g., a button, file, pull-down menu, etc.), by double-clicking or “right-clicking” the variable on the randomization interface screen 400 with a mouse or other controller, by a command via the keyboard 32, and the like. A menu, screen, window, or other user interface can then be activated to enable the user to assign different weights to one or more of the possible values in that variable. By way of example only, and with reference to
After a user has selected the possible values he or she wishes (and in some cases, the probability distributions for such values) for the variables in the randomization interface screen(s) 400, the selections and/or distributions can be saved in some embodiments for use at a later time by clicking on a “Save” button 420 or by manipulating another control for this purpose. Such selections can thereby be saved in the memory 22 or in another memory in any conventional manner. Likewise, to retrieve an already saved set of selections, the user can click on a “Retrieve” button 424 or can manipulate another control for this purpose. The user can also be given the option to copy selections into one or more variables and/or to reset the variables, such as by clicking a “copy” button or a “reset” button, respectively, from a plurality of copy button groups 428 and a plurality of reset button groups 432, respectively, as shown in
After the rating factors and other variables have been assigned on the randomization interface screen(s) 400, the user can begin the process of generating hypothetical vehicle and driver samples by operating any type of user-manipulatable control such as a “Run” button 436 on the randomization interface screen 400, by a command entered via the keyboard 32, and the like. In some embodiments, the rate comparison module 100 permits a user to enter the number of hypothetical vehicle and driver samples to be generated, such as by entering a number on the randomization interface screen, by prompting the user by a pop-up window 500 as shown in
In some embodiments, the data regarding each hypothetical vehicle and driver sample generated by the rate comparison module 100 is not readily accessible to the user, and is stored or is otherwise available only for the rate comparison module 100 and the processor 30 in generating premium data for the samples. In other embodiments however, this data is available for viewing by the user and/or is input to a file to be stored in a memory (e.g., memory 22). For example, the pop-up window 500 in the exemplary embodiment in the figures enables a user to select whether the hypothetical vehicle and driver sample data will be output to a file. This output file can include a listing of the rating parameters and premiums generated for each company for each vehicle on a policy. In the illustrated embodiment of
As described above, the rate comparison module 100 draws the policy information data selected by the user (see, for example, cells 36 in
These calculated premiums can be presented in any manner desired, such as in a list, table, and the like. In the illustrated embodiment, the calculated premiums are presented on the random tab 132 of the rate comparison user interface screen 34 (see
With continued reference to the embodiment illustrated in
For an overview of the data generated by the rate comparison module 100, the rate comparison module 100 can calculate an average or sum of each premium offered by each insurance company (i.e., the user and/or any number of other insurance companies) and can present the averages or sums in any form, such as in a table, graph, or other manner. For example, using the same vehicle and driver samples, the premium for bodily injury protection for each sample can be calculated for each insurance carrier, and can be presented in a table, bar chart, graph, or other form. By presenting the data in this manner, the user can readily and easily compare the insurance premiums of each insurance provider, and can compare the user's position with other insurance providers in the market. It will be appreciated that such a comparison can be made by manipulating the calculated premiums of the hypothetical vehicle and driver samples in a number of other manners (besides summing or averaging multiple calculated premiums).
For example, for each insurance company being compared, the median premium of a number of premiums (one for each vehicle and driver sample) can be calculated and presented. As another example, the mean premium can instead be calculated and presented. Alternatively or in addition, each calculated premium of the sample can be multiplied or divided by a common number (e.g., normalized). Still other manners exist for presenting a number that is representative of a group of premiums of an insurance company for comparison with other such numbers (corresponding to other insurance companies), each of which falls within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
In block 812, one or more rating elements can be selected by a user (e.g., on the randomization interface screen 400 as described above) in one or more of the rating factors. Those rating elements selected can be highlighted or can otherwise be given an indictor by the processor 30. The rate comparison module 100 determines which rating elements will be included in the randomization calculation process by using only those rating elements selected by the user. If the user does not select any rating element in a rating factor, the rate comparison module can use all rating elements, as indicated earlier.
In some embodiments of the present invention, if less than all rating elements for a rating factor are selected or are otherwise employed in the randomization process, the probability distribution of the rating elements can be adjusted accordingly (i.e., so that the probabilities for each rating element selected or otherwise employed add up to 100%). This step takes place in block 816 of the embodiment illustrated in
With reference to block 820 in
With reference again to the exemplary method illustrated in
If the rating factor is mutually exclusive, which is decided in block 832, the process goes to make the rating elements available to the rating logic in block 836. If the rating factor is not mutually exclusive, the non-mutually exclusive rating factors are defined in block 840. Probabilities are then assigned to these non-mutually exclusive rating factors in block 844. Similar to treatment of the rating element probability distribution, a cumulative probability distribution function is generated from the rating factor probabilities in block 848. Thereafter, a second random number is generated in block 852. The rating factor distribution corresponding to the second random number is selected in block 856. The process then goes to make the rating elements available to the rating logic in block 836.
As described in greater detail above, the results of the randomization process can be summarized on the random tab 132 of the rate comparison user interface screen 34 (see
The embodiments described above and illustrated in the figures are presented by way of example only and are not intended as a limitation upon the concepts and principles of the present invention. As such, it will be appreciated by one having ordinary skill in the art that various changes in the elements and their configuration and arrangement are possible without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention as set forth in the appended claims.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US4831526||22 Apr 1986||16 May 1989||The Chubb Corporation||Computerized insurance premium quote request and policy issuance system|
|US4975840||17 Jun 1988||4 Dec 1990||Lincoln National Risk Management, Inc.||Method and apparatus for evaluating a potentially insurable risk|
|US5414836 *||29 Sep 1993||9 May 1995||International Business Machines Corporation||Software testing system that employs a graphical interface to generate test cases configured as hybrid tree structures|
|US5479344||26 May 1994||26 Dec 1995||Impact Technologies Group, Inc.||Insurance computation display|
|US5523942||31 Mar 1994||4 Jun 1996||New England Mutual Life Insurance Company||Design grid for inputting insurance and investment product information in a computer system|
|US5655085||18 Mar 1994||5 Aug 1997||The Ryan Evalulife Systems, Inc.||Computer system for automated comparing of universal life insurance policies based on selectable criteria|
|US5758328||22 Feb 1996||26 May 1998||Giovannoli; Joseph||Computerized quotation system and method|
|US5842178||30 Jan 1998||24 Nov 1998||Giovannoli; Joseph||Computerized quotation system and method|
|US5873066||10 Feb 1997||16 Feb 1999||Insurance Company Of North America||System for electronically managing and documenting the underwriting of an excess casualty insurance policy|
|US5956691||7 Jan 1997||21 Sep 1999||Second Opinion Financial Systems, Inc.||Dynamic policy illustration system|
|US5970464||10 Sep 1997||19 Oct 1999||International Business Machines Corporation||Data mining based underwriting profitability analysis|
|US6009402||28 Jul 1997||28 Dec 1999||Whitworth; Brian L.||System and method for predicting, comparing and presenting the cost of self insurance versus insurance and for creating bond financing when advantageous|
|US6163770||25 Aug 1998||19 Dec 2000||Financial Growth Resources, Inc.||Computer apparatus and method for generating documentation using a computed value for a claims cost affected by at least one concurrent, different insurance policy for the same insured|
|US6182048||23 Nov 1998||30 Jan 2001||General Electric Company||System and method for automated risk-based pricing of a vehicle warranty insurance policy|
|US6490645 *||23 Feb 2000||3 Dec 2002||Motorola, Inc.||Optimized random access scheme for a shared response|
|US6772128 *||26 Apr 2001||3 Aug 2004||American International Group, Inc.||Nuclear decommissioning insurance financial product and method|
|US20010023404 *||28 Feb 2001||20 Sep 2001||International Business Machines Corporation||Technique for generating insurance premium quotes by multiple insurance vendors in response to a single user request|
|JPH10228462A||Title not available|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8612264||27 Jan 2009||17 Dec 2013||Atera Solutions, Llc||Randomized competitive insurance pricing system and method|
|US20070027726 *||21 Apr 2006||1 Feb 2007||Warren Gregory S||Calculation of driver score based on vehicle operation for forward looking insurance premiums|
|US20070244773 *||28 Oct 2005||18 Oct 2007||Zanox.De Ag||Method and System for Evaluating an Object or Obtaining Information From Operators|
|US20090132301 *||27 Jan 2009||21 May 2009||Michael Fredrick Weitermann||Randomized competitive insurance pricing system and method|
|WO2015134428A1 *||3 Mar 2015||11 Sep 2015||Inrix Inc||User-managed evidentiary record of driving behavior and risk rating|
|23 Aug 2002||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: ATERA SOLUTIONS, LLC, WISCONSIN
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:WEITERMANN, MICHAEL FREDRICK;MROCHINSKI, LISA MARIE;REEL/FRAME:013229/0629
Effective date: 20020823
|18 Jul 2012||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4