Talk:Co-insurance

message: A building valued at $1,000,000 has an 80% coinsurance clause but is insured for only $750,000. It suffers a $200,000 loss. The insured would recover $750,000 ÷ (.80 × 1,000,000) × 200,000 = $187,500 (less any deductible).
In this example the underreporting penalty would be $12,500.
So, if the building is insured for 900 thousand dollars: $900 000 ÷ (.80 × 1 000 000) × 200 000 = $225 000, more than the loss. This can't be right - should explain how these cases are handled—Random832 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  The coinsurance penalty doesn't "kick in" unless the building's insured value was *less* than its actual value by more than the coinsurance percentage.  In your example, since $900,000/$1,000,000 > 80%, the coinsurance penalty formula isn't used to calculate the reimbursement.     Lawyer2b (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So then they simply reimburse the whole loss in that case, and there is no penalty at all for underreporting? I assume, though, that a total loss would only be reimbursed for the insured value ($900k) rather than the actual value ($1000k) in that case, correct? --Random832 (contribs) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe both your surmises are correct.  :-)  Lawyer2b (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  underreporting penalty 

message: I understand that coinsurance refers to the fact that part of the insurance is provided by the owner. Can you say that a policy has a low coinsurance level if the percentage covered by the owner is low?Koczy (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The 80% or the 20% is the level of coinsurance?

message: The article was recently renamed to "Co-insurance" by . I don't agree with this change and there was no consensus for it. Please move it back. Note that the hyphen was only added to the lead recently  - the article has a long history of no hyphen, as well it should given that the lack of the hyphen is much more common, and saves everyone from hitting an extra key. II | (t - c) 07:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back to "Coinsurance" 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus that coinsurance is prevalent enough in sources. Someday maybe it will go the way of email, but there's no consensus here that we've reached that day yet.  ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Co-insurance →  – I have seen both "coinsurance" and "co-insurance" in practice, but believe the former is more common in today's parlance. Google searches confirm this, with "coinsurance" getting 5.0 millon results and "co-insurance" getting only 1.8 millon. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME, I agree with ImperfectlyInformed's 2010 request that the move by  be reversed. See also, Wiktionary's entry. – voidxor 04:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 January 2020