Risk Committee Adviser — Climate Risk, General Insurance

The mandate

The committee's recurring question is how physical climate risk should alter present underwriting and reinsurance decisions when long-range models are uncertain and historical loss curves are weakening. Existing sustainability narratives do not resolve portfolio-level choices.

Two days are reserved monthly for an actuarial-underwriting review and committee preparation, with attendance at each scheduled Risk Committee included. Written scenario or wording questions receive acknowledgement within two business days and a reasoned response inside five.

The ten-month appointment concludes after the following planning and treaty-renewal cycle. A single two-month renewal may be approved by the board chair following a formal independence assessment; the adviser has no line authority, reserved-matter vote, underwriting licence or executive accountability.

Concurrent service is capped at three non-competing institutions. Retainers with another Indian general insurer, a lead reinsurer on the programme, a catastrophe-model provider or a broker placing the treaties must be disclosed and may prevent appointment.

Why the board wants this voice

Actuarial, underwriting and sustainability teams use different horizons and vocabularies. The committee lacks a practitioner who can translate hazard evidence into current risk appetite without overstating model precision. It wants sharper challenge ahead of portfolio and reinsurance commitments.

What you will own

• Test the geographic and peril assumptions behind management's climate-loss scenarios for property, motor and agriculture books.
• Challenge where technical pricing, deductibles, exclusions or capacity limits should respond before claims experience fully emerges.
• Shape questions linking catastrophe accumulation, reinsurance exhaustion and solvency headroom under correlated events.
• Press management to separate climate adaptation evidence from unverified customer declarations.
• Guide the committee's interpretation of model ranges, tail dependence and data-quality limitations.
• Examine whether investment-portfolio climate discussion is consistent with the liabilities directors are accepting.
• Advise on decision thresholds for commissioning independent model validation or portfolio remediation.

Candidate qualifications

• 22–28 years in insurance risk, actuarial, underwriting or reinsurance leadership.
• Personal involvement in catastrophe-exposed portfolio decisions across at least two Indian peril regions.
• Board-level experience explaining model uncertainty, tail risk and capital implications without false precision.
• Working knowledge of treaty structures, accumulation management, solvency and climate-scenario design.
• Evidence of changing an underwriting appetite or reinsurance decision using forward-looking hazard analysis.
• Independence from the insurer's brokers, lead reinsurers and catastrophe-model suppliers.

Non-negotiables

• Availability for the full ten-month planning and treaty cycle, including scheduled Mumbai committee dates.
• No simultaneous advisory mandate with a direct Indian general-insurance competitor.
• Transparent disclosure of broker, reinsurer, model-vendor and investment interests.
• Acceptance that all underwriting and capital decisions remain solely with authorised management and the board.

1. 49 words maximum. Which climate or catastrophe analysis materially changed an underwriting or reinsurance decision you presented to a board?
2. 49 words maximum. Identify any insurer, broker, reinsurer or modelling-provider relationship this committee would need to evaluate for conflict.
3. 49 words maximum. How would you use two advisory days monthly during the three months preceding treaty renewal?