Reporting Templates

From all of EIOPA's comments on the new column C0245, it seems the intention of S.30.03 C0245 is to indicate if, and to what extent, any layer is not 100% "covered" i.e. does C0245 equal C0230 or not (which is our understanding of EIOPA's answer to Insurance Europe Q&A document "ECO-SLV-23-165": Coverage of a layer covered by reinsurance - C0245: Clarification is requested regarding what is meant by "amount of maximum coverage for a layer of a treaty" as the scope of the layer is reported in field C0210: Limit (The amount specified as the limit in the reinsurance treaty) EIOPA: In some non-proportional treaties, the excess is only partially covered. For example, an XL treaty may cover up to 200 in excess of 150, but providing a limited coverage of the excess, e.g., 80%. Therefore, C0210 would be 200, but C0245 would be 80% * 200 = 160. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This answer contradicts the LOG guidance and Q&A#2692 which states that “in the case the treaty only includes one layer, this cell will be equal to C0240”. But this should not be the case where a treaty/layer has not been 100% placed (ie sum S.30.04 C0100 for this treaty/layer/section is 1) because S.30.03 C0240 is supposed to show the 100% allocation (as per LOG files for S.30.03 C0240) but C0245 may not be the 100% allocation amount, as the EIOPA example shows.