Background

Introduction

  • This report presents an analysis of historical performance trends across the Motor Classes of business.
  • It evaluates portfolio profitability, key movements in claims experience, and outlines actionable recommendations aimed at improving operational efficiency and overall profitability.
  • The analysis covers the period from January 2014 to December 2025.

The sections that follow summarise the key findings arising from this analysis, supported by an assessment of data availability and identified analytical gaps.

Assessment of Data Availability and Analytical Gaps

Overall, the datasets used in this analysis have been assessed and found to be reliable and fit for purpose .

Findings

Recommendations

  • There is a continued need to proceed with the portfolio clean-up process, either by dropping high-risk accounts or repricing adequately to reflect elevated risk exposure.

  • To offset the impact of dropped poor-performing accounts with long-tailed claims, we should aim to grow the Motor Commercial class, targeting well-performing accounts while maintaining strict underwriting discipline.

  • Improve claims management efficiency and regular monitoring using incurred claims ÷ earned premium claim ratio approach for different segments.

  • Exercising more caution on liability limits, i.e. any one person and any one event; as it is becoming more likely for legal claims to exceed the KES. 5 million threshold.

  • Excess Protector – Reinstatement Terms: The policy currently permits unlimited reinstatements of the excess protector, which may unintentionally encourage overreliance and diminish prudent risk management among insureds. Share risk with clients by introducing limits on the availability and distribution of the excess protector.

  • Claims–Underwriting Collaboration at Renewal: Strengthen collaboration between Claims and Underwriting during the renewal process to proactively address emerging risks, including qualitative insights not captured in data, and agree on practical remedial actions for key accounts. Lessons can be drawn from historically well-performing large accounts to inform best practices.

  • Due Diligence on New Business: Conduct comprehensive background checks on new business, including a thorough review of clients’ track records, to ensure alignment with the company’s risk appetite and underwriting standards.

  • Executive Support on Key Accounts: Enhance executive involvement in negotiating key motor accounts to maintain a balanced portfolio between motor and property classes, in view of existing cession patterns within the property segment.

Data & Data Checks

Premium Written

Premium Register vs Financials Reconciliation
motor_commercial
motor_private
Year Register Financials Variance % Variance Register Financials Variance % Variance
2014 398,251,167 398,313,167 -62,000 0% 296,798,311 296,517,225 281,086 0.1%
2015 481,847,299 487,129,339 -5,282,040 -1.1% 368,956,141 363,355,239 5,600,902 1.5%
2016 587,745,583 588,456,068 -710,485 -0.1% 493,097,044 492,370,986 726,058 0.1%
2017 671,230,980 671,230,980 0 0% 551,894,717 551,681,880 212,837 0%
2018 728,920,965 706,169,699 22,751,266 3.2% 628,924,849 587,643,090 41,281,759 7%
2019 785,185,488 770,846,412 14,339,076 1.9% 771,720,126 738,740,626 32,979,500 4.5%
2020 963,733,230 947,739,443 15,993,787 1.7% 1,020,678,994 985,362,643 35,316,351 3.6%
2021 1,353,164,432 1,337,170,645 15,993,787 1.2% 1,327,331,971 1,292,015,669 35,316,302 2.7%
2022 1,646,151,702 1,629,343,373 16,808,329 1% 1,398,222,657 1,371,464,235 26,758,422 2%
2023 1,690,260,813 1,678,593,196 11,667,617 0.7% 1,871,287,486 1,848,877,238 22,410,248 1.2%
2024 1,493,753,606 1,481,602,182 12,151,424 0.8% 1,850,612,013 1,832,428,019 18,183,994 1%
2025 1,551,703,586 1,540,461,037 11,242,549 0.7% 1,844,870,523 1,827,536,637 17,333,886 0.9%
Commentary:
  • The variance observed in the premium register is primarily attributable to Excess Protector and PVT premiums, which are recorded under the Miscellaneous and Fire Industrial classes respectively in the financial statements.
  • This variance has been progressively reducing following the bundling of Excess Protector with motor premiums, eliminating separate debiting.
  • Overall, the premium register is assessed as reliable and fit for purpose for the current analysis.

The Financial Perspective

Earned Premium Versus Claims Paid

Motor Commercial

Motor Commercial has recorded a sustained decline in earned premium over the last two years, following a period where claims growth outpaced earned premium growth. The weakest performance is observed in 2025, with earned premium exceeding paid claims by only KES 50 million, compared to materially stronger margins in 2014 despite lower gross premiums.

Several major accounts have exited the portfolio, likely due to sustained poor performance, including (but not limited to): Babito, Zulfikar.

At the same time, a number of large accounts with weak performance indicators remain active, notably:

There is a continued need to proceed with the portfolio clean-up process, either by dropping high-risk accounts or repricing adequately to reflect elevated risk exposure.

Initial discussions indicate that the above motor accounts are connected to other non-motor businesses, either directly or through related parties.

We recommend conducting a portfolio-level analysis at both gross and net-of-reinsurance levels. Since motor risk is largely retained while property classes are heavily ceded, there is a potential for the insurer to absorb motor losses from these large accounts while ceding profits from non-motor lines to reinsurers, which could negatively impact the overall financial position of GA. Any agreed remedial actions should carefully consider the ceding patterns of these accounts.

Some large accounts are performing well, including Car General (226 vehicles, GWP of KES 40 million, claim ratio below 50%) and Transmara (560 vehicles, GWP of KES 52 million, claim ratio below 60%).

Motor Private

Motor Private has delivered stable margins in recent years, with the exception of 2021, when claims growth of 70% significantly exceeded earned premium growth of 32%, resulting in a margin of approximately KES 50 million.

Growth momentum has been maintained despite the termination of the NCBA scheme.

The net position

The next graph shows the movement of funds from the Earned Premium position to Net Profit or Loss, accounting for key factors such as claim payments, service provider fees, intermediary commissions, miscellaneous expenses, overhead costs, and changes in outstanding claim reserves. This waterfall chart clearly illustrates how each factor impacts the journey from earned premiums to the bottom line.

In 2025, Motor Commercial recorded a KES -235 million result driven by adverse premium and claims trends, excluding the impact of outstanding claims and IBNR.

In 2025, Motor Private achieved a margin of 3% (18% without miscellaneous expenses), potentially signalling a rebound after the challenging performance observed from 2021 to 2023.

The next section evaluates the claims experience.

Claims Analysis

Break down of Overall Claim Expense

We begin by decomposing the overall claims expense into its key components: claim payments, service provider fees, miscellaneous expenses, and the offsetting impact of excesses, salvage, and recoveries.

The main driver of claims expense is Claim Payments, followed by Service Provider Fees and Miscellaneous Expenses.

We observe a growing positive contribution from Salvages and Recoveries, while the impact of Excess is shrinking, potentially reflecting increased uptake of excess protector coverage.Further investigation into the motor private salvage value recorded in 2022.

For Motor Private, Claim Payments declined in 2025, but the benefit was offset by higher Miscellaneous Expenses.

Claim Payment insights - Per Class

For both Motor Private and Commercial, we examine the pattern of claims split into Legal and Own Damage, as summarized below.

Impact of Frequency and Severity

  • Motor Private 2025: Total paid claims declined, primarily due to a reduction in Own Damage payouts, driven by a decrease in the number of claims (-11%) and lower average severity (-5.5%).

  • Motor Commercial 2025: Total claims payouts increased, mainly driven by growth in Own Damage claims.This increase was driven by a higher average claim cost (+22%), despite a decline in the total number of claims paid (-6%).

Impact of Watu

  • Significant reduction in Own Damage Watu claim payments, indicating a run-off pattern.

  • Significant payouts continue on the Legal side, totaling KES 194 million in 2025.

  • Legal claims remain under development, and further payouts are expected.

Claim Count

  • For two consecutive years, we observe a decline in Own Damage (OD) claims alongside a gradual rise in Legal claims.

  • OD Service Provider Payouts: Expected to reflect a similar declining pattern.

  • Team Workload: The sudden increase in claims in 2021 raises questions on staffing. If current trends continue, the number of claims may fall below 2021 levels, prompting a review of headcount for both OD and Legal teams.

Average Claims Paid

  • Legal claims are generally higher than OD claims, averaging around KES 700K.

  • There was a sharp increase in average legal claims between 2017 and 2020, after which they stabilized.

  • Motor Private OD claims are well controlled, but Motor Commercial OD severities have been rising year-on-year since 2022, with 2025 average OD Motor Commercial claims growing over 20%—a trend that needs addressing.

  • There is need to review the claims reserving guidelines to reflect the most recent trends.

YoY Growth Rate

  • Significant increase in year-on-year growth in 2021 (both claim amounts and claim counts), which should have served as an early warning signal of the poor performance later observed under the Watu Scheme.

  • The legal claims payment trend closely followed the earlier Watu own-damage (OD) trend.

  • A growing number of legal Motor Private claims continues to exert upward pressure on overall claims development.

We now narrow the focus to review Legal claims first, followed by Own Damage claims.

Own Damage Claims

For Own Damage (OD) claims, it is possible to further classify them into: Windscreen, Repairs, Thefts (partial & total), and Total Loss (from accidents).

Repairs

  • Motor Private: 65–75% of claims, ~3,000 claims annually. Sharp increase in average claim cost in 2024, followed by a marginal increase in 2025. This may largely be due to Shama’s supply of parts.

  • Motor Commercial accounts for 45–55% of total payouts, with approximately 900 claims annually. Of these, GREENWHEELS ELECTRIC MOBILITY SOLUTIONS LTD contributed 194 claims in 2025.

  • Motor Commercial’s overall claim severity appears to be declining. However, when motorcycle repair claims are excluded, the 2025 average claim increases from 384,974 to 502,235, representing a 5% reduction compared to the 2024 average. This suggests that the apparent improvement is largely driven by lower-value motorcycle repair claims rather than an overall reduction in claim costs.

Total Loss

  • Accounts for 25–30% of total claim payouts under Motor Private and Commercial.

  • The number of cases has been declining.

  • Motor Commercial 2025: Contribution rose to 40% (from 26% in 2024), driven by both number of claims and average claim amount.

  • The increase in total losses is the main driver of higher average cost per claim in Motor Commercial OD.

  • Recommendation: Investigate Total Loss cases under Motor Commercial in 2025.

Thefts

  • Motor Private: ~20 vehicle theft cases annually, while Motor Commercial: less than 10 cases before Watu.

  • Watu credit: Motor Commercial theft cases rose to 1,500 per year.

  • Partial thefts have minimal impact.

Windscreen

  • Contributes about 1.5% of total payouts in both Motor Commercial and Motor Private, made up of approximately 500 motor commercial and 1,000 motor private claims.

  • Average claim cost shows no major concern, with year-on-year growth within inflation thresholds.

  • Total payout is declining.

  • Claims Assessment Approach: Given the high claim frequency, we recommend continuing with desktop assessments to optimise efficiency and avoid incurring additional physical claim assessment costs.

Empanelled garages

Empanelment of garages is currently work in progress, with a dedicated resource reviewing the onboarding process and conducting background checks on related parties for compliance and proper governance.

At the moment, about 14 garages have been vetted, with Shamas Motors Ltd still leading in supplies.

The 14 vetted garages include:

  • Shamas Motors Ltd
  • ANU Automotive Ltd
  • General Japanese Autoparts Ltd
  • Kimcar Auto Parts
  • Kylin Auto Parts Ltd
  • Lokomotive Auto Services
  • Maxton Motor Spares
  • Nanak
  • Teoguys
  • Titanic Auto Solutions
  • Lejan Europarts
  • Mojaev Kenya Ltd
  • Alpine Auto Parts
  • Sai Raj Ltd

Key Observations

  • Motor Private – Parts Supply (Empanelled): Empanelled garages account for approximately 20% of total claim payouts in 2025 under Motor Private, indicating growing adoption of parts supply within the empanelled network.

  • Motor Commercial – Parts Supply (Empanelled): Empanelled garages contribute only 4% of parts supply by value, suggesting limited utilisation under Motor Commercial.

  • Average Claim Cost – Empanelled vs Other Garages: Empanelled garages exhibit a significantly lower average repair claim cost compared to non-empanelled garages. This warrants further investigation to determine whether the difference arises from case mix (simpler claims being referred to empanelled garages) or from genuine cost efficiencies and savings within the empanelled network.

The plot below shows the key Own Damage claim metrics.

Key Observations

  • Motor Private OD: Experience is primarily driven by Repairs.

  • Motor Commercial OD: Experience is mainly driven by Total Losses, especially now that the impact of Watu Credit is fading.

  • Average Cost – Total Losses (Motor Commercial): Has been increasing consistently since 2020. Despite a decrease in the number of cases, the severity of losses limits potential gains.

  • Average Cost – Repairs: On a decline for both Motor Private and Motor Commercial.

  • Watu Credit Impact: Continued effects may be observed on the Legal side under Motor Commercial.

  • Recommendation: Adopt this monitoring framework regularly to prevent adverse schemes like Watu Credit in the future.

Service Provider Analysis

Legal Services

  • Purpose: Legal service providers are engaged to defend our policyholders or pursue recoveries. Our data does not distinguish between these two activities.

  • Cost vs. Outcome: A successful defense results in no claim payout (case dismissed), so calculating total service provider expense per shilling of claim does not accurately reflect the cost of processing claims.

  • Investigators: Paid to assess claim potency; this cost applies to most or all legal cases.

  • Court Filing Costs (Recovery assignments): Filing a claim in court costs KES 70–100K, whether pursuing recovery or responding to summons. These amounts are currently included in service provider fees, which are regulated by the LSK act.

  • Third-Party Claim Payment Refunds: Where empanelled lawyers settle claims on our behalf and later seek reimbursement, legal fees may appear elevated. In this analysis, service provider fees are capped at KES 300K, with any excess classified as a claim.

  • Multiple claimants in one claim number: An advocate may be engaged to defend cases relating to one claim even though there are several claimants. In that case, legal fee reviewed per claim number may appear to be unreasonably high.

  • Only a few doctors such as Dr. Malik are engaged for court appearances, and these will usually cost around KES 20,000.

  • Court appearance for doctors requires professionalism and familiarity with the court environment when giving a professional opinion.

  • Future Tracking: To monitor out-of-court settlements (legal claims paid without the involvement of our empanelled lawyers).

Own Damage Service Provider Fees - Zayan: Paid for towing services, with fees dependent on the location of the salvage. - Assessments/Investigations in far away towns such as Mandera County will attract additional cost reimbursements for logistics expenses and may cost upwards of KES 10,000 – 15,000. This may adversely affect providers such as xenon with countrywide presence.

The next scatter graph shows the key service provider metrics for each service provider.

  • Benchmark – GA Assessment Centre Costs: With the introduction of the GA Assessment Centre, we expect average assessment costs of approximately KES 6,380 per unit for Motor Commercial and KES 5,800 per unit for Motor Private, inclusive of VAT.

Further Analysis Required

  • Service provider fees (Legal Payments): Extract the fee component using the withholding tax entries booked per claim.

  • Legal costs breakdown: Split legal costs into claim defense versus recovery costs. Since both defense and recovery is probabilistic, it would be valuable to identify successful and unsuccessful recoveries.

Team workload

We analyzed staffing levels over the years to understand how the team grew in relation to claims volume.

Only active officers are considered in this analysis — defined as those who approved at least 10 million annually and, if present in the previous year, whose total approvals did not decline by more than 50%, ensuring that mid-year exits are excluded.

Julius also excluded in staff count.

For both the OD and Legal teams, the workload has effectively doubled over the analysis period, assuming that work is shared equitably across team members.

The OD team was understaffed in 2021, coinciding with several team exits and a rising claims workload - the onset of Watu Credit claims. Over the past two years, however, there has been a gradual decrease in total claims, suggesting that it may be necessary to review the staffing strategy if these trends continue.

Actual claim distribution

The graph below illustrates the members of the motor claims team and the actual annual amount of claims approved by each member.

claims learning curve

WASONGA — an officer who, in their first year on the claims team (2021), approved the highest volume of payments, before leaving the team the following year.

The analysis also revealed a uneven distribution of tasks, with some officers clearly handling more claims than their peers.

Some officers cumulatively approved payments exceeding KES 350 million annually.

In some instances, officers appeared to process a high volume of claims when interns were using their accounts to make payments.

Further analysis may be required to redistribute this activity to the respective interns working under a certain officer — the available data is currently insufficient to support this analysis.

Recommendation: Investigate the efficiency of the maker-checker frameworks in place, noting the existence of ‘offline’ claims approvers and officers who process claim payments only.

Claims Life Cycle

The graph below shows the time taken from the date of loss to the payment of a claim.

  • Own Damage (OD) claims increased from approximately 90 days in 2017 to around 150 days in 2025, potentially reflecting service delays or extended credit terms with garages.

  • Legal claims have decreased from roughly four years in 2017 to approximately two years in recent periods (2014–2025), likely due to the introduction of the Small Claims Court.

  • Recommendation for further analysis: Disintegrate the claim lifecycle into sub-tasks within claim processing.

For example, measure:
  • Time to complete claim documentation
  • Time to issue repair authorities
  • Time taken at the repair stage
  • Time taken by the garage to invoice
  • Time taken by GA to settle the invoice

Our data is currently insufficient to support this level of analysis. We recommend that this information be captured either in EDMS or within the new system.

Whole portfolio Profitability

Commentary:
  • Early years (2014 - 2018) were profitable
  • 2019 to 2022 recorded claim ratios above 80%. The peak in 2021 is because of Watu Credit scheme. The scheme was issued with one major policy number with a start date of 2021-05-01 and end date of 2026-04-30, allowing most of the Watu Credit claims (4,948) to be attached to it. Our methodology accounts for premium and claims attaching to this policy in underwriting year 2021.
  • Recent years are still developing
Commentary:
  • Watu Credit's performance has been adverse, and the scheme has since been terminated.
  • Upon removing Watu Credit from the analysis, the loss ratio peaks in the 2020 and 2021 underwriting years for both Motor Commercial and Private classes.
  • Subsequent analysis considers the motor book with the exception of Watu Credit. Where necessary to incorporate Watu Credit, the relevant sections will be highlighted accordingly.

Claim Ratio Development Triangle

Rationale:
  • The Claim Ratio Development Triangle tracks how claims evolve over time relative to earned premiums, helping identify trends in settlement patterns, long-tailed claims, and reserve adequacy.
  • It supports ultimate loss estimation and the assessment of underwriting year performance.

Motor Commercial

Motor Commercial - Loss Ratio Development Triangle
uw average_premium GWP EP Dev 0 Dev 1 Dev 2 Dev 3 Dev 4 Dev 5 Dev 6 Dev 7 Dev 8 Dev 9 Dev 10 Dev 11 OS_LR Incurred_LR
2014 4.67 418 418 19.5 28.9 34 41.1 46.5 49.8 50.6 51.3 51.8 52 52.6 52.6 0.0 52.6
2015 4.54 480 480 23.8 43.6 48.9 53.2 56.9 58.1 58.7 59.8 59.8 60 60.4 0.0 60.4
2016 4.61 587 587 23.0 38.1 44.5 50.5 52.5 54.2 55.5 56.2 56.3 56.4 0.2 56.6
2017 4.44 652 652 22.6 39.6 46.3 49.2 50.8 52.6 56 57.3 57.6 0.3 57.9
2018 4.32 736 736 27.5 49.5 58.3 63.1 68.4 70.2 71.8 72.4 0.1 72.5
2019 4.04 762 762 28.2 46.7 55.9 60.4 64.5 67.5 69.2 2.5 71.7
2020 3.88 1,002 1,002 21.2 44.9 54.8 64.4 71.1 74.5 2.5 77.0
2021 4.10 1,034 1,034 31.1 53.7 65.7 75.5 83.5 38.8 122.3
2022 4.39 1,361 1,361 35.3 50.1 60.5 68.3 8.5 76.8
2023 4.39 1,383 1,383 21.9 40.3 50.8 11.1 61.9
2024 4.29 1,442 1,442 13.7 43.4 18.8 62.2
2025 4.25 1,513 955 19.1 28.7 47.8
Commentary:
  • Claims typically mature over seven years, with significant development between years 1–4. Recent years (2024–2025) show lower first-year ratios (14.7–20.7%).
  • A drastic drop noted in paid claim ratio in recent years could be a sign of improved quality of business or changing patterns of claim settlement. Further investigation required to get to a logical conclusion.
  • Weak reserve estimates; we are likely to settle at a 70% ultimate loss ratio, a gap that needs to be closed through Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) Reserves.

Motor Private

Motor Private - Loss Ratio Development Triangle
uw average_premium GWP EP Dev 0 Dev 1 Dev 2 Dev 3 Dev 4 Dev 5 Dev 6 Dev 7 Dev 8 Dev 9 Dev 10 Dev 11 OS_LR Incurred_LR
2014 4.02 295 295 28.6 41.5 44.1 48 49.8 52.8 53.3 55.8 55.7 54.8 54.8 55 0.0 55.8
2015 3.90 383 383 31.6 48.3 57.5 61.8 62.4 63.1 63.8 64.5 64.5 64.3 64.5 0.0 64.5
2016 3.80 495 495 36.4 54.8 60.9 66.1 69.8 72.6 73.4 74.3 74.5 74.5 0.0 74.5
2017 3.77 549 549 33.4 57.9 64.6 68.1 70.7 71.9 72.5 73.4 73.4 0.3 73.7
2018 3.67 649 649 40.2 58.9 64.8 68.2 71.4 72.7 73.5 73.6 0.1 73.7
2019 3.59 794 794 35.9 58.8 68.2 71.5 75.9 78 78.7 0.5 79.2
2020 3.31 1,078 1,078 33.7 68.2 79.7 91 96.2 98.7 1.8 100.5
2021 3.65 1,330 1,330 44.7 71.8 84.2 90.5 95.7 3.6 99.3
2022 3.87 1,519 1,519 33.9 59.6 68.4 73.2 4.3 77.5
2023 3.84 1,756 1,756 33.3 58.3 66.3 4.6 70.9
2024 3.77 1,807 1,806 33.9 52.7 8.0 60.7
2025 3.05 1,729 1,036 22.8 18.0 40.8
Commentary:
  • A gradual increase in claim ratio over the past 10 years, peaking in 2020 and 2021 (>100% for 2020–2021).
  • Mixed signals on early performance over the 10 years. Higher claim ratio in development year 0 in 2024 and 2025.
  • Weak reserve estimates; we are likely to settle at a 75% ultimate loss ratio , a gap that needs to be closed through Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) Reserves.

Portfolio Performance by Segments

Introduction

The dataset includes multiple features that capture and explain key dimensions of performance. These features are summarized in the table below.

Profitability by Cover type - TPO VS Comprehensive

  • TPO coverage eroding profitability in the motor commercial book, while registering high levels of volatility coupled with high claim ratios for certain years in motor private.

  • We review the pricing of TPO across various products in order to interpret the claim ratio results.

Third Party Only (TPO) Premiums Summary – 2025

2025 Treaty Recommended Rates
Segment Policy_Type Treaty_Single Treaty_Fleet
Motor Private 12,000 10,000
Motor Commercial (Own Goods) Up to 3 Tons 12,000 10,000
Motor Commercial (Own Goods) 3–8 Tons 15,000 12,500
Motor Commercial (Own Goods) Above 8 Tons 20,000 18,000
Motor Commercial (General Cartage) Up to 8 Tons 20,000 15,000
Motor Commercial (General Cartage) 8–20 Tons 25,000 20,000
Motor Commercial (General Cartage) 20–30 Tons 30,000 25,000
Motor Commercial (General Cartage) Prime Mover 25,000 20,000

Comment

  • The tonnage of motor commercial vehicles is not currently captured in our database; therefore, it is not possible to assess compliance with reinsurance guidelines based on this parameter.
  • However, discussions with underwriters indicate that several corporate policies continue to be priced below treaty-recommended rates, largely due to market pressures and the need to retain long-standing clients.
  • The impact of legal claims is expected to intensify following the operationalization of the Small Claims Court.
  • Recommendation: Adhere to treaty-recommended TPO premiums to improve claims ratios, safeguard underwriting profitability, and reduce volatility.

We now explain the rationale used to group policyholders and intermediaries into various categories based on their size.

Insured Category Policyholders are divided into four quartiles based on the size of their business per underwriting year. The graph below shows the contribution of each category to our Motor business.

Observation: 74% of our small customers in Motor Commercial contribute only 11% of total Motor Commercial premium. In contrast, 33 premium customers contribute 38% of total Motor Commercial premium.

Intermediary Category Intermediaries are divided into four quartiles based on the size of their Motor portfolio with us. The table below shows the 2025 insured category insights.

Other Adjustments Include:

  • Third Party Only (TPO) business is excluded due to the absence of sum insured data.

  • Watu Credit excluded. Remaining Motorcycle subclasses are combined to improve credibility.

  • The channels “Other” and “Coinsurance” are excluded due to limited volume and heterogeneity.

  • For branch analysis, Eldoret, Nakuru, and Nanyuki are aggregated and treated as satellite branches to enhance statistical robustness.

Using these data features to segment the data, we see the historical performance of various segments below.

Observations

The portfolio has maintained steady growth over the years, driven mainly by Head Office, Motor Private, and the Bancassurance channel. However, this growth has been accompanied by a deterioration in the claim ratio.

Analysis of branch performance indicates that Kisumu and Mombasa branches exhibit higher volatility compared to Westlands, which remains stable and delivering decent results. Overall, head office drives the final results as it represents the largest proportion of business.

Analysis of business category shows that new business tends to underperform relative to the existing portfolio, for both Motor Private and Motor Commercial classes.

Analysis of channel performance indicates that the agency channel consistently underperforms compared to brokerage, which delivers the best results. Recent improvements in agency business are attributed to price modifications. Emerging risks include Motor Private bancassurance business, while broker channel continues to perform well under both Motor Commercial and Private.

Analysis of insured category shows that small clients underperform relative to all other categories under both classes.

Analysis of intermediary category indicates no significant differences across recorded performances.

Analysis of sub-class performance highlights that the online contracted taxis sub-class performed poorly, though recent improvements are noted, likely due to premium increases. The Motorcycle class sharply deteriorated in 2024, primarily due to the Greenwheels account. Another high-risk sub-class is Motor PSV Bus, which consistently records higher claim ratios. Motor Commercial overall performs better, mainly due to better pricing.

Two tables are shown in the subsequent sections showing the historical profitability for branches and intermediaries. Similar tables are available for a closer look into all other segment performances.

Branch profitability

Intermediary profitability

Given the significant premium differentiation across the market and the year-on-year variation in premium rates, the loss ratio is not a fully comparable measure of underlying risk experience.

Accordingly, subsequent analysis is based on loss per sum insured (losses incurred divided by total sum insured) to provide a more exposure-consistent metric.

Motor Portfolio Risk Factors

Analysis of claims per unit of sum insured (SI) indicates that there is no significant difference in risk profile of policies written under motor commercial and motor private. Superior performance of motor commercial vehicle above motor private car is majorly due to pricing differences - we charge higher premium for motor commercial.

  • There is a strong correlation between premium rate and the observed claim ratio. Properly pricing the risk ensures even high-risk segments become profitable. This explains why Comprehensive Motor Commercial, has historically recorded better claim ratios than Motor Private.

  • In 2020 and 2021, the company expanded aggressively into the retail space, with the agency channel playing a key role. This graph shows the gradual increase in risk profile during this season, which eventually resulted in lower profitability levels.

Question: During which years were we able to adequately price for the risk?

  • 2022, claim ratios were below 80%, despite deteriorating claims experience.

Next Step: A statistical model will be fitted to explain rate_per_SI, providing a more objective, exposure-adjusted measure of risk than traditional loss ratio analysis.

Since multiple explanatory variables interact, their combined effect determines the final burning cost, which can subsequently be converted into a premium rate by applying an appropriate margin.

Linear Model - Motor Commercial

We fitted a linear model to estimate the additive contributions of various factors to the burning cost of Motor Commercial.

The intercept represents the baseline risk profile defined by:

  • Subclass: Motor Commercial Vehicle
  • Branch: Head Office
  • Channel: Broker
  • Business Category: Existing
  • Insured Category: Tier 3 - Medium
  • Intermediary Category: Tier 2 - Large

The following factors have the largest impact on burning cost:

  • Channels: Staff and Agency
  • Branches: Mombasa and Kisumu
  • Policyholders: Tier 1 (high premium) clients
  • Business types: Online contracted taxis
  • Underwriting practices: 2022 cohort

Linear Model - Motor Private

We fitted a linear model to estimate the additive contributions of various factors to the burning cost of Motor Private.

The intercept represents the baseline case with the following characteristics:

  • Branch: Head Office
  • Business Category: New
  • Channel: Bancassurance
  • Insured Category: Medium
  • Intermediary Category: Large
  • Subclass: Motor Private Car

The following factors have the largest impact on burning cost for Motor Private:

  • Channels: Staff, Broker, and Direct.
  • Business types / Policyholders: New business, Tier 4 (small policyholders)
  • Underwriting practices: 2021 cohort

Notes / Observations:

  • Bancassurance may appear as a key risk factor due to the NCBA Motor Private experience, which recorded a total premium with a corresponding claim ratio of above 100% between 2022 and 2023, despite charging fairly high premium rates.

  • Bancassurance primarily sells comprehensive policies, including Excess Protector, which may contribute to higher observed risk.

  • Broker policies, despite lower premium rates, often record superior claim ratios—worth further investigation.

  • All branches could borrow lessons from the Westlands branch underwriting approach.

Calculation of Technical Premiums

To demonstrate how the coefficients from the linear model can be applied, we focus on a subset of segment combinations, holding certain variables constant to simplify interpretation. Specifically, we fix:

  • sub_class limited to: Motor Commercial Vehicle, Online Contracted Taxis, Motor Private Car
  • intermediary_category fixed at: Tier 3 - Medium
  • insured_category fixed at: Tier 3 - Medium
  • business_category fixed at: New
  • uw (underwriting year) fixed at: 2022

Target Loss Ratio: 75% — sufficient to cover 10% intermediary commissions, 10% overheads, and a 5% margin.

This approach allows us to isolate and visualize the effect of the remaining variables on predicted burning costs while keeping other factors constant.

Observation: Holding all factors constant and pricing under the baseline assumptions, we remain competitive in Motor Commercial Vehicle comprehensive policies, except within the Agency channel.

We exhibit weaker premium competitiveness in Online Taxi and Motor Private Car segments.

This underscores the importance of strengthening claims reduction measures alongside enhanced risk selection to achieve an optimal balance between profitability and market competitiveness.