Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT systemics.com>]

Sven Anderson wrote:
> Duane, 10.07.2006 20:20:
> > Sven Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > Although I agree, that it is good to limit the assurers liability, to
> > > protect them against ridiculous claims. 1000$ is the right magnitude,
> > > I guess.
> > Someone on a few dollar an hour that will hurt them a lot, possibly not
> > even be recoverable, and someone on a million dollars a year it's pocket
> > change. I don't think a fixed value is a good solution to any situation
> > where you are trying to penalise someone.
>
> It is not for penalty, it just to limit the risk for the assurer. Else I
> would agree. But how someone can rely on certificates, were you first have
> to find out, how much the involved assurers earn?

Yes.  In general you would expect the judge / arbitrator
to take that into account;  the limit is an upper limit.

But it does give rise to an interesting asymmetry.  If
your Assurers in the philippines earn $5 per day, and
your R/L/O put a limit of $1000 on the model, it might
be an unbalanced system.  That is, it's easy enough for
a crook to fly to the philippines, pay $50 to get a
false assurance, then go do a $1000 fraud somewhere
else.

Not that I think we need to worry about that for now;
this is the sort of bug that we look at in the next
round, after we get a basic model in place.

iang