I am now confused by the answers to Q93 and Q137 about how the S.21.01 should be completed. A93 said that one should use "the sum of the claims paid during the financial year plus RBNS at the end of the financial year". A137 gave an example : if paids in 2016 were £20 and RBNS at 31/12/16, the incurred is £120. In 2017, the paid is £10 and the RBNS at 31/12/17 is now £80 so the incurred for 2017 is £90.

What the example hasn't made clear is whether or not the £10 in 2017 is an additional payment (thus making the cumulative payments £30); or if the cumulative payments are now £10 (after having processed a refund of £10 in 2017). Although A137 does say that "the claim in question has been revised down by £10 in 2017" so it sounds like the former.

If it is the former - that one only looks at the claims in 2017 when completing the 2017 S.21.01 - then the incurred value - £80 - is conceptually meaningless. It is neither the cumulative incurred value on the claim (which must be £20 + £10 + £80 = £110) nor is it the incurred in the financial year 2017 (£10 -£100 +£80 = £-10).

Personally I would have thought you wanted the template to show cumulative paids plus the latest RBNS.

Furthermore, I note the comment to A80 that there can never be a negative incurred claim value. But if we are to only look at paid claims in the reporting year we could. Take the following scenario. In 2016 : paids £20 and RBNS £100. Incurred £120. In 2017 paids (ie purely paid in 2017) £10, RBNS £80. Incurred on the basis of A93) is £90. In 2018, the claim was closed at a further cost of £15 and the insurer also made salvage recoveries of £30. RBNS nil. Incurred is (+15-30+0) -£15. Having salvage and subrogation in a different reporting year to the paids is very common.

On a cumultaive basis, I agree the the incurred can never be less than nil (here 90+10+15-30). And I think the answer to Q80 was adopting this approach. A137 seems to be a change in approach.