
Snapshot 1: Sometimes the existence of dual-limit policies does not reduce the cost of accidents.
Snapshot 2: Under the circumstances present here, if the insured is forced to purchase a single-limit policy, it purchases a policy that protects it fully against Lawsuit B and that incidentally protects it against Lawsuit A. If it could purchase a dual-limit policy, however, it would purchase one that protects it against Lawsuit A and that provides no protection against Lawsuit B.
Snapshot 3: Sometimes, the ability to purchase a dual-limit policy can create high-percentage savings in the cost of accidents.
The model assumes that each of the identified outcomes is equally probable, except for the "no-lawsuit" outcome, the probability of which can be set by the user. One computes the cost of accidents by finding the expected utility of the insured given the outcome distribution, the insurance-modified wealth of the insured following each outcome, the user-specified risk aversion of the insured, the user-specified initial wealth of the insured and the user-specified wealth that will survive bankruptcy. The insurance-modified wealth is determined in part by the insurer's obligation to pay damages on behalf of the insured and in part of the premium charged by the insurer, which is computed to be the amount needed to have the insurer break even. The cost of accidents is equal to the difference between the initial wealth of the insured and the amount of wealth which, if held with absolute certainty, would yield the insured the same utility as their expected utility under the computation just described.