26 DEPARTMENT BULLETIN 912. 
all classes of insurance institutions were, respectively, as follows: 
1914, 48.2 per cent; 1915, 121.3 per cent; 1916, 87.3 per cent; 1917, 
50.7 per cent; 1918, 63.7 per cent; and 1919, 47.8 per cent, With such 
variations occurring when the experience of all companies and or- 
ganizations operating in a large number of different States is taken 
into account, including those operating on an assessment plan and 
whose premium income is adjusted on the basis of losses already- 
incurred, it will be apparent that the loss ratio to be expected during 
any given year is highly problematical when the figures for a single 
company charging a fixed premium rate and operating in a severe 
hail district, are considered. More particularly is this the case when 
such company limits its field of operations to a relatively restricted 
area. 
One of the larger mutuals operating in Kansas collected premiums 
during 1914 amounting to $108,459 and incurred losses of only $19,649, 
or a little over 18 per cent of the premiums. During the year follow- 
ing, 1915. the same company collected premiums amounting to 
$348,389 and incurred losses of $651,173, or nearly 187 per cent of the 
premiums collected. For the first of the two years mentioned this 
company was, of course, able to pay back to its members a substan- 
tial rebate, besides adding a considerable sum to its reserves. In 
1915, however, onry the accumulated reserve on hand, coupled with 
the fact that a considerable part of the risks had been reinsured, 
saved the company from being obliged to prorate its' losses, since it 
collects a fixed premium without contingent liability. Most of the 
other Kansas hail mutuals, which also operated on a fixed-premium 
basis, were obliged to prorate their losses in the year last mentioned. 
One of the joint-stock fire insurance companies writing hail in- 
surance in Kansas in the year 1908 collected hail premiums amounting 
to $134,498 and paid losses amounting to $214,633, or 159 per cent 
of the premiums. In 1912, on the other hand, the same company col- 
lected hail premiums nearly as large as those of 1908, namely, $112,- 
889, while its losses were only $39,653, or 35 per cent of the receipts. 
The State of Oklahoma has in recent years shown variations in hail 
losses quite as great as those of Kansas. In 1915, two of the joint- 
stock companies with a relatively large hail business in this State 
had loss ratios of 112 per cent and 192 per cent, respective!}^. In 
1918 the same companies had loss ratios in the State of only 18 per 
cent and 30 per cent, respectively, and one other company with nearly 
$90,000 in premiums had a loss ratio of but 7 per cent. In 1916 one 
of the joint-stock companies operating in North Dakota collected 
premiums* amounting to $206,424, and paid losses amounting to 
$245,767, or 119 per cent of the premiums, while in the following year 
the company had premiums in the same State amounting to $146,516 
and paid losses of only $66,996, or 46 per cent. Even more extreme 
variations in loss ratio could, of course, be cited by giving the ex- 
perience of companies with relatively small amounts at risk. One of 
