Marsh & McLennan calls for the creation of a public-private pandemic risk financing solution

Company has reached out to various Ministers of Finance across Canada

Marsh & McLennan calls for the creation of a public-private pandemic risk financing solution

Insurance News

By Lyle Adriano

Recognizing the devastating impact caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy, businesses, and their employees, Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC) has called for the development of a combined public-private pandemic risk solution.

The company wrote to the federal, provincial, and territorial Ministers of Finance of Canada, informing them that MMC is willing to offer its assistance in the creation of a risk financing and risk transfer mechanism “delivered by industry and back-stopped by federal and provincial governments.”

MMC outlined in its letter to the ministers that the basic framework of a pandemic risk insurance program would be a risk-sharing model between policyholders, insurers, and government. In this model, policyholders would absorb initial losses up to specified deductibles, while insurers would provide business interruption coverage up to a limit. The federal and provincial governments would backstop the overall program by bearing a part of the damages above a certain level. MMC added that this program is not unlike the provision of subsidized agricultural production insurance.

According to MMC, a public-private pandemic risk solution will serve two national interests: it would help accelerate Canada’s economic recovery over the summer and fall of this year; and the solution would provide economic protection against another pandemic in the future.

MMC also warned in the letter that there is currently “very limited insurance protection” to cover for damages related to COVID-19. The firm said that in the coming months, it anticipates demand from Canadian businesses for pandemic risk insurance will skyrocket. If the government fails to intervene, MMC believes that the global insurance market will respond in one of three ways, none of which are ideal:

  • It will struggle to offer a risk transfer product that is commercially viable, and/or meet the demand for coverage;
  • It will exclude coverage for losses arising from infectious diseases on a blanket basis; and/or
  • It will seek to price coverage at a level that makes it prohibitive for customers to purchase.

Related Stories

Keep up with the latest news and events

Join our mailing list, it’s free!