The Growing Challenge of Multiple Claims Across Renewable Energy Portfolios

As renewable energy portfolios have grown in scale, so too has the potential for insurers to find themselves managing multiple claims across an individual insured account.

For owners and asset managers responsible for hundreds of individual wind, solar and battery energy storage assets, a certain frequency of losses is an inevitable consequence of scale. While individually many of these claims may be relatively modest, collectively they create a different challenge for insurers and their loss adjusting partners: maintaining consistent technical scrutiny, accurate reserves and timely claims progression across a potentially significant volume of open files.

For insurers, effective account management therefore requires more than simply having sufficient adjusting resource available. It means establishing processes that combine specialist renewable energy expertise with consistent reporting, accurate reserving and clear communication between insurer, broker, insured and adjuster.

In this interview, Jonas Zahn, Loss Adjuster, Green Partners Adjusting, sets out best practice when managing accounts experiencing multiple losses – and why some of the most important work can take place before the first claim has even occurred.

Jonas, why are insurers increasingly likely to find themselves managing multiple claims across a single renewable energy account?

Well, primarily, it’s a consequence of the scale that renewable energy portfolios have now reached.

A large asset owner or investment manager might have hundreds of insured locations, potentially spread across several countries and incorporating solar PV, wind and, increasingly, BESS. At that scale, you would statistically expect a certain number of incidents during any given year.

As regards the nature of these losses, many are what we would describe as attritional losses. Across a sizeable installed portfolio, they could typically consist of equipment failures, cable theft or weather-related damage. On an individual basis, they’re not something we would regard as particularly large or unusual.

But what that means in practice is the insurer, rather than having one large isolated event on an account, could have ten, twenty or potentially considerably more live claims at different stages of progression. That changes the claims management requirement, with the challenge being to ensure that each of those losses continues to receive the appropriate level of consistent attention.

Okay, so what makes managing that type of portfolio account different from handling an individual large loss?

It means that consistency – in approach, management and administration – becomes extremely important.

Whether the claim is relatively modest or runs into several million pounds, the insurer needs confidence that it will be handled according to an agreed process – namely, information will be requested promptly, the circumstances and policy position will be properly investigated, reserves will be reviewed, and reports and recommendations will be provided within the pre-agreed timeframes.

Equally, you can’t allow efficiency to turn claims management into just a volume-processing exercise. By their very nature, renewable energy losses still require specialist knowledge. A portfolio may contain wind, solar and BESS assets, and the loss adjuster handling an individual loss needs to understand the technology involved, the likely failure mechanisms and the practical issues associated with remediation.

The objective is therefore to combine technical competence at individual claim level with the processes and capacity required to manage a much larger volume of claims efficiently.

Given the importance of getting the process right the moment losses occur, is there anything that can be done in preparation?

Yes, very much so – it really is best practice to establish a lot of key information regarding the portfolio and its projects early on where, statistically, it’s likely an account will have a regular claims frequency.

Ideally, the adjuster already knows the principal stakeholders before an incident occurs. That might include the insurer’s claims team, broker and the insured’s risk manager and potentially local asset managers.

It means everyone understands how the process is intended to work: who should be contacted, how quickly responses and reports are expected, what information the adjuster is likely to require and how communication between the different parties will be managed. In the event of a claim, if everyone understands what information is being requested, why it is required and what happens next, there is less potential for misunderstanding at what can already be a stressful point for the insured.

Presumably, the critical information required following a loss can also be prepared in advance to further expedite the process?

Yes, exactly. One of the practical things an adjuster can do is establish a standardised Request for Information, or RFI, for the principal technologies on the account.

There is a core set of information we are likely to require whenever we receive notification of a solar, wind or BESS loss. That might include the location and technology involved, consideration as to whether the site is operational or still under construction, the circumstances of the incident, relevant equipment and manufacturer information, the O&M contractor and the evidence available following the event.

If the insured understands those requirements in advance, it can begin assembling the relevant information immediately rather than waiting for an adjuster to request each item individually.

The same principle applies to evidence preservation. Even before interacting with the loss adjuster, the insured should understand what records and physical evidence need to be retained following an incident.

None of these steps changes the technical investigation that subsequently needs to take place, but they can remove avoidable delays from the beginning of the claim.

Does standardising the process mean every account should be managed in the same way?

No. There is an important distinction between having a consistent underlying claims process and imposing a one-size-fits-all service on every loss.

Different insurers have different reporting requirements, service expectations and internal processes. One insurer may want reports presented in a particular format or certain information highlighted; another may have specific response-time requirements or escalation procedures. Equally, the insured may want all claims communication to pass through a particular individual.

The adjusting process needs to accommodate those requirements, with the important thing being that they are agreed and understood.

For a high-frequency account, relatively small differences in process can become significant when repeated across dozens of claims. Agreeing the appropriate way of working at the outset therefore makes the entire account easier to manage for all stakeholders.

How can an adjuster best support an insurer that may have a large number of claims open simultaneously?

It sounds obvious, but you need to be able to see both the individual claim and the account as a whole.

Detailed adjusting reports remain important at claim level, but if an insurer has a significant number of open losses it also needs a straightforward way of understanding the overall position.

A claims bordereau can provide that portfolio-level view, capturing key information such as the loss date, location, reserve and current status of each claim.

That allows the insurer and adjuster to identify which matters are progressing, where information remains outstanding and where action may be required. Additionally, the contentious claims would then be highlighted – allowing all parties to give these the attention they deserve.

It also helps prevent individual, smaller claims disappearing within the overall volume of activity. Good account management is not simply about opening files and responding when new information arrives; each matter needs to be actively progressed towards a conclusion.

In terms of the bigger picture, why is highly accurate claims management important for insurers?

It comes down to the reserve, which is one of the most important outputs of the adjusting process because it gives the insurer the best available assessment of what a claim is ultimately expected to cost, allowing the insurer to balance their cash reserves accordingly.

On an individual loss that is obviously important. Across a large number of simultaneous claims, however, inaccuracies can accumulate.

If reserves are materially too high, the insurer may be allocating more liquidity against future claims payments than is necessary, limiting the ability to invest in other parts of their business. If they are too low, the insurer may not be adequately reflecting its expected liabilities. Those figures can also feed into wider financial reporting and potentially reinsurance requirements.

There is an implication for the insured too, because the development of claims and the overall loss ratio on an account can ultimately influence the renewal process and future premium.

Setting an appropriate reserve therefore requires both technical experience and judgement. This can become particularly challenging where there is an ongoing business interruption element, and the potential loss continues to develop over time.

It is one reason why account claims management needs to be considered in the round. The objective isn’t simply to determine the technically correct answer on each individual claim; it is also to provide the insurer with an accurate and current picture of the overall account, while avoiding unnecessary fluctuations in reserves.

With a mixture of large and small losses, how do you ensure the smaller claims continue to progress?

This is one of the less visible but very important aspects of managing a high-frequency account. If there are major losses demanding attention alongside a relatively small claim, it is easy to understand why the larger matters become the immediate priority.

The insured may also have less incentive to chase information on a small loss, while from the insurer’s perspective the financial exposure may be relatively minor. The danger is that, between those competing priorities, nobody actively progresses the file.

That is why the underlying claims management process matters. There should be systems in place to identify when a claim has not advanced within an appropriate defined period, whether information needs to be chased, whether the reserve needs updating or whether the matter can now be brought to a conclusion.

The level of work undertaken should always be proportionate, but the discipline applied to progressing it should be consistent.

Ultimately, good account claims management means giving insurers confidence that every valid claim will receive the appropriate technical attention and will continue to move forward – whether it is the largest loss on the account or the smallest.

For portfolios generating multiple claims each year, that combination of specialist expertise, accurate information and consistent execution is what turns a collection of individual loss files into a properly managed account.

– Ends –