k. Comnents . The loss experience of instirers offers the 

 first explanation of the rise of the cost for both hull and 

 protection and indemnity insurance. The rise vas preceded by 

 unsatisfactory loss experience. It is no mere coincidence that 

 New England and the Gulf Area, with worse loss experience for 

 hull insurance than California, also experienced a relatively 

 greater rise in cost than the latter area. The same is true for 

 protection and indemnity insurance. California and New England, 

 with worse loss e::perience than the Gulf Area, also experienced 

 a relatively greater rise in the cost of this kind of insurance 

 than the latter area. This is a natural, development since the 

 insurer, like the vessel owner, expects to realize a profit by 

 increasing his receipts (earned premium) and keeping his costs 

 (including losses) to a minimum. Consequently, the cost of 

 insurance should have risen more than the experience recorded 

 in this study shows in order to meet an extraordinajy amount of 

 losses. Why this did not take place will be explained later 

 (Chapter V) . 



The explanation which the loss experience of insurers 

 offers is general and superficial. It raises more questions 

 than it answers. What lies behind the unprofitable experience 

 of risk carriers? VJhat accidents and to what extent does each 

 category of accidents account for the unusually large losses? 

 What circumstances, conditions, and human conduct related to 

 the fishing operations of the vessel may have contributed to 

 the record of accidents? How and to what extent have insurance 

 practices and policies and existing legislation encouraged the 

 development of the insurance problem? These questions lead to 

 the very heeirt of the problem which besets the commercial 

 fishing industry and are taken up in subsequent chapters. 



F. SUMMARY AND CONCUJ SIGNS 



The financial burden of the owner who carries insurance on 

 his vessel was presented in terms of gross premium and insurance 

 coverage. Following this, the loss experience of insiirers was 

 offered as the first explanation for the rise in the cost of 

 Insurance . 



1- The cost of hull insurance . In terms of gross premium, 

 protection against hull insurance accidents rose daring the years 

 1950-5^ from $2,225 to $2,820 per policy in New England; from $1,008 

 to $1,218 in the Giilf Area; and averaged from $6,21+2 during the first 

 two years, 195O-51, to $6,1+32 in the last three years, 1952-5^, in 

 California. In tenas of coverage, the rise of insurance cost was 

 equELlly, if not more, important than the rise in gross premivun. 



60 



