Kenya’s biggest publicly traded insurer by market value is planning expan
sion in African nations with low insurance penetration to augment and diversify revenue.
Britam Holdings Ltd., which already has operations in seven African nations, will mostly focus on acquisitions rather than greenfield operations, Chief E
xecutive Officer Tom Gitogo said Friday. The insurer also intends to grow the revenue streams in the countries it currently operates in, he said.
“It’s public that we’re looking” at the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gitogo said during a briefing. “We intend to c
ose this up as soon as possible because the opportunities that exist in the insurance space in DRC are enormous.”
The insurance penetration rate of some Africa countries is about 1%, according to Chairman Kuria Muchiru.
“We are not yet even scratching the surface,” he said during the
briefing. “Let’s say we targeted a penetration of 15% the next five years, that will still be more than 10 times what we have in some countries.”
Britam’s net income dropped by more than a tenth in the first half to 1.74 billion shillings ($13.5 million), even as in
surance revenue rose 11%. Its shares have surged 57% this year to 9 shillings by 10.28 a.m. in the capital, Nairobi.
Photograph: An advertisement for Britam Kenya General Insurance Co. in Nairobi, Kenya. Photo credit: Patrick Meinhardt/Bloomberg
Watch More Image Part 2 >>>
In 2007, one of the first filings (CF-2007-OFR07) made by Insurance Services Office (ISO) included changes to endor
sement CP 03 21 – Windstorm Or Hail Percentage Deducti
ble. Without elaborating, several Katrina lawsuits alleged that the language in this form implied that wind-related storm
surge was subject to windstorm perils and not the Water damage exclusion. According to the filing:
“Language is added to make it explicit that this endorsement does not affect the impact of the policy’s Water Excl
usion or any other exclusion in the policy; and does not affect the application of a Flood Deductible if the policy (or another policy) provides coverage for Flood.”
The filing goes on to state that “There is no change in coverage.” This is an important point, as we’ll see later i
n the Katrina-related changes made to the Water damage exclusion. When ISO made those changes, a number of policyholder attorneys alleged that the mor
e restrictive language related to storm surge, levee breaks, etc. were proof that, without such language, there was coverage under forms in effect at the time of Katrina.
In 2008, ISO made a countrywide filing (CF-2008-OWEFO) that introduced new Water Exclusion Endorsements for both its countrywide Commercial Property (CP 10 32 08 08) and BusinessOwners Program (BP 01 59 08 08) lines, as well as two other lines of business. (Note: Some reference materials indicate that the new CP 10 32 form replaced a CP 10 31 form introduced in 2007, though I can find no reliable documentation of that.)