You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
At present it's possible to output results by individual coverages; Buildings (B), Contents (C), Business Interruption (BI), and Other (O). It isn't possible to output Buildings and Contents losses combined as Property Damage (PD).
Property Damage is the sum of Buildings and Contents losses. I'm unsure if Other would need to be included (though it seems to be very infrequently used).
Several end users have requested this capability, and presently are manually producing results from event losses per coverage.
Example data / logs
Currently "coverage_type_id" allows output per individual coverages:
1: Buildings
2: Other
3: Contents
4: Business Interruption
Perhaps it's possible to add an additional coverage type of:
5: Property Damage (PD)
This could potentially be problematic as coverage_type_id=5 duplicates the loss given in coverage_type_id=[1,3]. There may be other (better) ways to allow this output, above suggestion is mostly to help explain desired outcome.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Issue Description
At present it's possible to output results by individual coverages; Buildings (B), Contents (C), Business Interruption (BI), and Other (O). It isn't possible to output Buildings and Contents losses combined as Property Damage (PD).
Property Damage is the sum of Buildings and Contents losses. I'm unsure if Other would need to be included (though it seems to be very infrequently used).
Several end users have requested this capability, and presently are manually producing results from event losses per coverage.
Example data / logs
Currently "coverage_type_id" allows output per individual coverages:
1: Buildings
2: Other
3: Contents
4: Business Interruption
Perhaps it's possible to add an additional coverage type of:
5: Property Damage (PD)
This could potentially be problematic as coverage_type_id=5 duplicates the loss given in coverage_type_id=[1,3]. There may be other (better) ways to allow this output, above suggestion is mostly to help explain desired outcome.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: