RETRO-2026-01 — five loss blocks, one inception date
classifyContract — retroactivity turns on the EVENT date, not the reporting date
| Event date | Block | Amount | Side of inception |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-14 | 2022 storm season | $34.00m | retroactive |
| 2023-11-02 | 2023 liability block | $21.00m | retroactive |
| 2025-06-19 | 2025 attritional | $12.00m | retroactive |
| 2026-04-08 | post-inception, prospective | $18.00m | prospective |
| 2026-09-30 | post-inception, prospective | $9.00m | prospective |
Retroactive
$67.00m
Prospective
$27.00m
Retroactive share
71.3%
Accounted as
retroactive
Refused
The halves cannot be separated, so the WHOLE contract is retroactive — all $94.00m of it, including the $27.00m that is prospective on its own facts. Treating a mixed contract as prospective because most of it is prospective recognises a gain that belongs in restricted surplus, which is precisely the outcome the default exists to prevent.
The basis, as recorded
- •Mixed: 67000000 retroactive and 27000000 prospective (0.712766 retroactive), and the halves are NOT separable. The WHOLE contract is therefore accounted as retroactive. A contract that is mostly prospective is still not a prospective contract, and treating it as one recognises a gain that belongs in restricted surplus.
- •Retroactive blocks: 2022 storm season, 2023 liability block, 2025 attritional.
- •Classified on the EVENT date rather than the reporting date. A claim from an old event reported last week is retroactive cover, and reporting dates are what a claims table carries — which is what makes that the likely error.
Stated limit
The event date is what counts, and it is the one date most likely to be wrong in a loss extract. A claim from last year reported this month is retroactive; using the reporting date would classify it as prospective and quietly move a deferred gain into income.