Excess Casualty Insurance Fundamentals And Strategic Applications

Oil & Gas Sector Risk Management Flowchart

• Layer 1: Primary Commercial General Liability (CGL)
  • Covers first-party property damage and third-party bodily injury up to policy limits (typically $1M–$5M per occurrence).
  • Excludes pollution liability, which requires separate coverage (e.g., Environmental Impairment Liability).
• Layer 2: Excess Casualty (First Excess Layer)
  • Attaches after CGL limits are exhausted, providing $5M–$20M in additional coverage.
  • Focuses on:
    • Workers’ compensation excess (for claims exceeding state-funded benefits).
    • Contractual liability for joint ventures or drilling partnerships.
• Layer 3: Umbrella/Surplus Liability
  • Extends coverage to $50M–$100M+ for catastrophic events (e.g., offshore rig explosions).
  • Includes:
    • Environmental liability (e.g., oil spills under CERCLA).
    • Regulatory fines and penalties for non-compliance.
• Layer 4: Captive or Self-Insured Retention (SIR)
  • High-net-worth entities retain a deductible (e.g., $25M) to fund initial claims before excess layers activate.
  • Used for self-insured risks like historical contamination or known future liabilities.

Key Insight: In the oil & gas sector, excess casualty layers often include a "pollution exclusion waiver" to ensure coverage for spills, which are typically excluded in primary policies.

Pharmaceutical Sector Risk Management Flowchart

• Layer 1: Product Liability Insurance
  • Covers claims from defective drugs or medical devices up to $10M–$30M per occurrence.
  • Excludes punitive damages and certain clinical trial liabilities.
• Layer 2: Excess Casualty (Drug-Related)
  • Provides $20M–$50M in additional coverage for:
    • Mass tort claims (e.g., opioid lawsuits, vaccine injuries).
    • Recall-related expenses (e.g., contaminated drug batches).
• Layer 3: Umbrella Liability
  • Extends to $100M+ for systemic failures (e.g., global supply
    

    

    Structuring Excess Casualty Policies: Clauses, Limits, and Triggers

    Excess casualty insurance policies are designed to provide financial protection beyond primary layers, requiring careful structuring to balance risk transfer, cost efficiency, and coverage alignment. The policy framework—including trigger mechanisms, clause interpretations, and retention negotiations—directly influences how claims are processed and how financial exposure is managed. This section examines the foundational elements of policy design, focusing on trigger mechanisms, contentious clauses, and strategic negotiation of self-insured retentions (SIRs), alongside real-world applications for global operations.
    

    Trigger Mechanisms in Excess Casualty Policies

    The selection of a trigger mechanism determines when excess coverage becomes operational and how claims are aggregated or separated. Three primary triggers—occurrence-based, claims-made, and aggregate—each present distinct advantages and challenges for insurers and policyholders.

    Occurrence-Based Triggers
    Occurrence-based policies activate coverage when an event or incident occurs, regardless of when the claim is reported or settled. This mechanism is favored in industries with long-tail liabilities (e.g., manufacturing, construction) where claims may surface years after the incident. For insurers, it simplifies reserving but exposes them to extended tail risks if claims emerge decades later. Policyholders benefit from retrospective certainty but may face higher premiums due to the insurer’s prolonged exposure.

    Claims-Made Triggers
    Claims-made policies activate coverage only when a claim is formally reported during the policy period. This trigger is common in professional liability (e.g., legal malpractice) and directors and officers (D&O) insurance, where claims timing is unpredictable. Insurers prefer this structure as it limits tail risk, but policyholders must maintain continuous coverage (via tail coverage or extended reporting periods) to avoid gaps. The primary drawback is the administrative burden of tracking claims reporting deadlines.

    Aggregate Triggers
    Aggregate triggers apply when cumulative losses from a single event or series of related events exceed a predefined threshold, often used in catastrophic or systemic risk scenarios (e.g., mass torts, environmental disasters). This mechanism is critical for industries with high-frequency, low-severity exposures (e.g., retail, hospitality) but requires precise definition of "related events" to avoid disputes. Insurers may exclude certain perils (e.g., pollution) to mitigate moral hazard, while policyholders must ensure aggregate limits align with their risk appetite.
    

    "The choice of trigger mechanism is not merely technical—it defines the entire risk transfer ecosystem, from premium allocation to claims handling efficiency. Aggregate triggers, while innovative, demand rigorous loss scenario modeling to avoid unintended coverage gaps."

    Contentious Policy Clauses in Excess Casualty Insurance

    Excess casualty policies often include clauses that are prone to disputes due to their ambiguity or conflicting interpretations. Understanding these provisions is essential for preemptive negotiation and litigation avoidance.

    Severability Clauses
    Severability clauses determine whether a policy’s invalidation affects other layers or the entire program. In excess casualty policies, a severable clause may allow one layer to remain valid even if another is challenged, preserving coverage continuity. Policyholders often push for broader severability to avoid domino effects, while insurers may limit its scope to prevent overreach.

    Priority of Layers
    This clause dictates the order in which insurers contribute to claims, particularly in multi-layered programs. Conflicts arise when primary insurers deny coverage, forcing excess insurers to pay prematurely. Policyholders should specify explicit layering protocols (e.g., "drop-down" provisions) to ensure seamless transitions, while insurers may insert "follow-form" exclusions to align excess coverage with primary terms.

    Anti-Stacking Provisions
    Anti-stacking clauses prevent policyholders from aggregating limits across multiple policies for the same claim, which is critical in excess casualty programs where layers may be issued by different insurers. Policyholders must negotiate exceptions for related claims (e.g., global operations) to avoid coverage erosion, while insurers use these clauses to cap exposure.

    Other Notable Clauses
    

  • Duty to Defend: Excess insurers may reserve the right to defend claims without admitting liability, requiring policyholders to coordinate defense strategies across layers.
  • Loss Payment Conditions: Specifies how and when excess insurers reimburse primary insurers, often tied to settlement approvals or reserve adjustments.
  • Jurisdictional Carve-Outs: Addresses variations in legal standards across regions, particularly in global excess programs.

  "The most litigated clauses—severability, priority of layers, and anti-stacking—often hinge on drafting nuances rather than substantive risk. Pre-underwriting due diligence on these provisions can reduce disputes by 40% or more, according to industry arbitrage reports."

  Negotiating Self-Insured Retentions (SIRs) in Excess Casualty Policies

  Self-insured retentions (SIRs) represent the policyholder’s first layer of financial responsibility before excess coverage attaches. Negotiating SIRs requires alignment with risk tolerance, cash flow projections, and loss history. Below is a structured approach to optimizing SIRs, including financial modeling considerations.

  Step 1: Risk Assessment and Loss Projection
  Begin with a historical analysis of claims data (frequency, severity, and tail trends) to project future exposures. Use tools like probabilistic loss modeling or Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the probability of exceeding SIR thresholds. For industries with volatile risk profiles (e.g., energy, healthcare), stress-test scenarios (e.g., regulatory changes, cyber incidents) should be incorporated.

  Step 2: Financial Capacity Analysis
  Evaluate the policyholder’s ability to absorb SIR payments without disrupting operations. Key metrics include:
  

  • Liquidity Ratios: Current assets vs. short-term liabilities to ensure SIR payments won’t strain working capital.
  • Insurance-to-Sales Ratio: Benchmark SIR costs against revenue to avoid disproportionate financial burdens.
  • Catastrophe Reserves: For high-risk sectors, ensure dedicated funds cover potential SIR triggers (e.g., mass torts).

  Step 3: Layering Strategy
  Align SIRs with the policy structure to optimize cost efficiency. Common approaches include:
  

  • Progressive SIRs: Higher retentions in lower layers to incentivize risk mitigation (e.g., $1M in primary, $5M in excess).
  • Per-Occurrence vs. Aggregate SIRs: Per-occurrence SIRs cap exposure per incident, while aggregate SIRs apply to cumulative losses, requiring careful balancing based on claim patterns.
  • Deductible vs. Retention: Clarify whether SIRs are true retentions (no reimbursement) or deductibles (reimbursable after claims exceed a threshold).

  Step 4: Negotiation Levers
  Leverage the following strategies to reduce SIRs or introduce flexibility:
  

  • Loss Portfolio Transfers: Propose transferring high-severity risks to captive insurers or reinsurers to lower SIRs.
  • Claims Cooperation Clauses: Insert provisions requiring insurers to share loss mitigation strategies, reducing the need for high SIRs.
  • Phased SIRs: Implement graduated SIRs tied to performance metrics (e.g., safety record improvements).
  • Reinsurance Backstops: Secure reinsurance for SIR excesses to create a hybrid risk-sharing model.

  Step 5: Documentation and Approvals
  Finalize SIR agreements with explicit definitions of:
  

  • Trigger Events: Clearly define what constitutes an "occurrence" or "claim" to avoid disputes.
  • Payment Terms: Specify timelines for SIR payments (e.g., 30/60/90-day installments) and interest penalties for delays.
  • Audit Rights: Ensure insurers can audit loss reserves to validate SIR applicability.

  "A well-structured SIR negotiation can reduce excess premiums by 15–25% while maintaining adequate risk transfer. The key lies in treating SIRs as a financial instrument—not just a cost center—but as a tool for aligning risk appetite with insurer underwriting."

  Customized Excess Casualty Structures for Global Operations

  Global enterprises face jurisdictional variations in liability laws, claim processes, and insurer appetites, necessitating multi-layered excess casualty structures. Below are three examples of tailored approaches addressing cross-border challenges.

  Example 1: Multi-Jurisdictional Layering for Manufacturing
  A global manufacturer operating in the U.S., EU, and Asia may structure excess casualty coverage as follows:
  

  • Primary Layer: Local policies in each region with jurisdiction-specific exclusions (e.g., product liability in the EU vs. strict liability in Japan).
  • First Excess Layer: A follow-form excess policy covering all regions but with higher SIRs for high-risk jurisdictions (e.g., $2M in the U.S., $500K in Singapore).
  • Second Excess Layer: An aggregate-triggered policy for catastrophic events (e.g., supply chain disruptions) with a $50M limit, ensuring consistency across regions.
  • Umbrella Layer: A global excess umbrella with a $100M limit, providing a unified response

  Claim Handling and Litigation Support in Excess Casualty Cases

  Excess casualty insurance operates within a layered risk transfer framework where claims management extends beyond standard primary policies due to their high severity, complex liability structures, and prolonged resolution timelines. Effective claim handling in excess casualty requires specialized reserve management, cross-insurer coordination, and strategic litigation support to mitigate financial exposure while preserving policyholder rights. The process integrates actuarial assessments, legal scrutiny, and subrogation recoveries to optimize outcomes for all stakeholders.

  Reserve management in excess casualty claims is governed by principles of prudence and predictive modeling, ensuring insurers account for both reported and anticipated liabilities. The assessment of Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) liabilities—claims that have occurred but remain unreported—relies on historical claim trends, industry benchmarks, and claims development triangles. These triangles project future claim costs by analyzing the progression of claim payments over time, adjusting for inflation, legal settlements, and emerging liabilities. For excess layers, IBNR reserves are particularly critical due to the delayed reporting of high-severity incidents, such as environmental liabilities or multi-party tort claims, where exposure may not surface for years.
  

  Reserve Management Process and IBNR Assessments

  The reserve management process for excess casualty claims follows a structured methodology to balance accuracy with regulatory compliance. Chain-ladder techniques and Bornhuetter-Ferguson models are commonly employed to estimate ultimate claim costs, with excess-specific adjustments for tail factors (e.g., asbestos-related claims) and policy limits. Actuaries collaborate with claims teams to:
  
  • Segment claims by severity tiers (e.g., single-limit vs. per-occurrence excess) to apply tailored reserve factors.
  • Incorporate external data sources, such as court rulings, regulatory changes, or industry loss development studies, to refine projections.
  • Conduct scenario analyses for catastrophic events (e.g., mass torts, cyber incidents) where traditional models may underestimate exposure.

  IBNR Reserve Calculation Framework
  Ultimate Reserve = Reported Claims + IBNR (Incurred but Not Reported) + Case Reserve Adjustments IBNR is derived from:
  1. Reported but Unpaid Claims Development (using historical loss ratios).
  2. Industry-Specific Lag Factors (e.g., medical malpractice claims may take 3–5 years to manifest).
  3. Regulatory Filing Requirements (e.g., NAIC Annual Statement for U.S. insurers).

  For excess casualty, IBNR reserves often account for 20–40% of total reserves, depending on the sector. For example, in environmental impairment liability (EIL), insurers may reserve 30% of premiums for IBNR due to the latency of pollution-related claims. The Triangle Method—a cornerstone of reserve estimation—is adapted for excess layers by:
  
  • Stratifying by policy year to isolate tail risks.
  • Applying excess-specific loss ratios (e.g., a 150% development factor for claims exceeding $10M).
  • Integrating subrogation recovery projections to offset reserve requirements.

  Role of Excess Casualty Adjusters in Claims Coordination

  Excess casualty adjusters serve as the linchpin between primary insurers, policyholders, and legal teams, ensuring seamless communication and alignment on claim strategy. Their responsibilities extend beyond traditional adjusting to include risk allocation, limit coordination, and dispute resolution. Key functions include:

  - Primary-Excess Interface Management
  Adjusters verify priority of payment under the other insurance clause, ensuring excess carriers are not prematurely triggered. For instance, in a $20M bodily injury claim with a $10M primary layer and $10M excess, the adjuster must confirm the primary insurer’s exhaustion before excess coverage applies. Misalignment here can lead to contribution disputes or bad faith claims.

  - Policyholder Advocacy and Documentation
  Excess adjusters liaise with policyholders to gather supplemental documentation (e.g., expert reports, subrogation files) that strengthens the claim file for excess carriers. This includes:
  

  • Loss Control Evidence: Pre-loss safety records or compliance histories that may reduce liability exposure.
  • Third-Party Liability Proof: Contracts or correspondence implicating negligent parties for subrogation purposes.
  • Legal Strategy Alignment: Coordinating with defense counsel to avoid admissions that could waive excess coverage (e.g., settling below policy limits without excess carrier consent).

  - High-Severity Claim Workflows
  For claims exceeding $5M, adjusters implement tiered review processes:
  

  • Initial Triage: Assessing whether the claim falls within excess limits and identifying potential exclusions (e.g., war clauses, known losses).
  • Reserve Validation: Collaborating with actuaries to challenge or support reserve estimates based on emerging evidence.
  • Dispute Resolution: Mediating between policyholders and excess carriers over reserve adequacy or coverage disputes (e.g., whether a claim qualifies as an "occurrence" under CGL policies).

  Subrogation Rights and Third-Party Recoveries in Excess Casualty

  Subrogation in excess casualty policies enables insurers to pursue recovery from negligent third parties, directly impacting reserve requirements and policyholder indemnity. The process is governed by contribution agreements, anti-subrogation clauses, and statutory limitations. Excess carriers prioritize subrogation to:
  
  • Offset claim payments by recovering amounts paid to policyholders.
  • Preserve policy limits for future claims by reducing net exposure.
  • Deter fraudulent claims through proactive litigation against responsible parties.

  Key Mechanisms of Subrogation in Excess Casualty
  

  • Assignment of Rights: Excess carriers often assume the policyholder’s rights against third parties upon payment, subject to policy terms. For example, if an excess insurer pays $15M to a policyholder for a product liability claim, it may subrogate against the manufacturer for $10M in damages.
  • Contribution Agreements: Excess carriers and primary insurers negotiate pro rata sharing of subrogation recoveries. A common structure is:
  • Primary Carrier: Receives first right to recover up to its paid limit.
  • Excess Carrier: Shares recoveries proportionally (e.g., 60% to excess if it paid 60% of the claim).
  • Anti-Subrogation Clauses: Some policies exclude subrogation for workers’ compensation or auto no-fault states, requiring adjusters to verify jurisdictional compliance.

  Real-World Example: Asbestos Litigation Subrogation
  In a $50M asbestos-related excess claim, an insurer may:
  1. Pay the policyholder $30M under the excess layer.
  2. Subrogate against multiple defendants (e.g., manufacturers, distributors) for $40M in collective settlements.
  3. Apply recoveries to reduce the net reserve by $30M, with the remaining $10M allocated to primary carriers per contribution agreement.
  

  Litigation Strategies for Excess Casualty Disputes

  Litigation in excess casualty cases differs significantly from primary claims due to higher stakes, jurisdictional complexities, and arbitration constraints. The following table compares key strategies, highlighting how excess-specific challenges shape dispute resolution.
  

  Dispute Category	Primary Casualty Claims	Excess Casualty Claims	Excess-Specific Considerations
  Jurisdictional Challenges	Claims typically resolved under the policyholder’s primary jurisdiction or the incident location. Forum selection clauses in policies often default to state courts.	Multi-jurisdictional disputes arise from choice-of-law provisions in excess policies (e.g., New York vs. London market policies). Arbitration clauses are more common, with excess carriers favoring AAA or ICC arbitration to avoid jury trials. Insolvency risks of primary insurers may trigger reinsurance disputes under excess contracts.	Example: A $25M excess claim in Texas may be governed by New York law (per the excess policy) while the primary claim is litigated in Texas state court, requiring parallel proceedings.
  Coverage Disputes	Focus on occurrence vs. claims-made Market Trends and Innovations in Excess Casualty Underwriting Excess casualty insurance has evolved beyond traditional risk transfer mechanisms, driven by emerging threats, technological advancements, and shifting regulatory landscapes. Cyber liability and environmental risks now demand specialized underwriting approaches, while parametric triggers and insurtech solutions are redefining policy structures, claim efficiency, and underwriting precision. This analysis explores how these innovations are reshaping excess casualty markets, with a focus on cyber and environmental exposures, automated risk responses, and the impact of digital transformation on underwriting standards. Cyber Liability and Environmental Risks Reshaping Underwriting Standards The integration of cyber liability and environmental risks into excess casualty underwriting reflects broader societal and economic vulnerabilities. Cyber incidents, including data breaches and ransomware attacks, now account for a significant portion of excess casualty claims, particularly in sectors with high digital exposure. Underwriters are adapting by introducing dedicated cyber excess layers, often structured as follow-form policies that align with primary cyber coverage but with higher attachment points (e.g., $10M–$50M). For instance, post-SolarWinds breach (2020), excess casualty insurers began requiring cyber-specific exclusions in primary policies to mitigate cascading losses, while offering standalone excess cyber policies with tailored limits for regulatory fines, business interruption, and third-party liabilities. Environmental risks, particularly climate-related liabilities, are similarly transforming underwriting. The 2021 Texas freeze and 2022 European floods demonstrated how secondary perils can trigger excess casualty claims for property damage, supply chain disruptions, and contingent business interruption. Insurers now embed climate resilience clauses in excess policies, such as: Exclusion of non-natural perils unless explicitly covered under a parametric trigger (e.g., wind speed thresholds for hurricanes). Pollution liability extensions for excess layers, excluding gradual environmental degradation but covering sudden events like oil spills or chemical releases. Aggregate limits for cumulative environmental incidents (e.g., $250M per policy period for all pollution-related claims). Example Adaptations: Parametric cyber policies in excess casualty layers, where payouts are triggered by predefined metrics (e.g., number of affected records, downtime duration). Environmental excess layers with retroactive dates to cover legacy liabilities (e.g., asbestos claims) while excluding pre-existing conditions. Rise of Parametric Triggers in Excess Casualty Policies Parametric triggers automate payouts for predefined events, reducing disputes and accelerating claim settlements in excess casualty insurance. These triggers rely on objective, third-party data (e.g., weather indices, seismic measurements) rather than traditional loss assessment, making them ideal for high-frequency, low-severity events like natural disasters or cyberattacks. In excess casualty, parametric structures are increasingly used for: Natural disasters: Payouts tied to hurricane wind speeds (e.g., >120 mph) or earthquake magnitudes (e.g., >6.5 on the Richter scale), as seen in Florida’s parametric excess wind policies. Cyber events: Triggers based on ransomware attack confirmation (e.g., via CISA alerts) or data breach severity (e.g., >1M records exposed). Pandemic-related liabilities: Parametric excess layers for COVID-19 business interruption, where payouts activate if government lockdowns exceed a specified duration (e.g., 30+ days). Advantages in Excess Casualty: Speed: Claims settled within 48–72 hours post-event (vs. months for traditional claims). Capacity expansion: Insurers can offer higher limits without relying on reinsurance, as parametric triggers cap exposure. Reduced moral hazard: Payouts are event-driven, not claimant-dependent. Challenges: Data accuracy: Relies on real-time, verified sources (e.g., NOAA for weather, ISO for cyber threat intelligence). Basis risk: Mismatch between parametric triggers and actual losses (e.g., a hurricane causing minimal damage but still triggering a payout). Case Study: Following Hurricane Ian (2022), excess casualty insurers in Florida incorporated parametric excess wind layers with payouts based on National Hurricane Center wind speed models, allowing policyholders to access funds before traditional claims were processed. Insurtech Solutions Transforming Excess Casualty Underwriting Insurtech innovations are enhancing risk assessment, policy structuring, and claim handling in excess casualty insurance through AI, blockchain, and predictive analytics. These tools address longstanding inefficiencies, such as subjective loss reserving and fraud detection, while enabling more dynamic underwriting. Key Insurtech Applications: AI-Driven Risk Assessment: Natural Language Processing (NLP): Analyzes court rulings, regulatory filings, and historical claims data to predict excess casualty exposure (e.g., identifying emerging liabilities in ESG-related lawsuits). Predictive Modeling: Uses machine learning to forecast tail risk events (e.g., mass torts, cyber cascades) and adjust excess layers accordingly. Example: Guidewire’s AI tools help underwriters identify hidden correlations between cyber incidents and excess liability triggers, enabling proactive policy adjustments. - Blockchain for Claim Verification: Smart contracts automate excess casualty payouts when predefined conditions are met (e.g., parametric triggers or inspection results). Immutable audit trails: Blockchain records claim documentation, expert assessments, and payouts to prevent fraud and disputes. Example: IBM Blockchain for Insurance pilots in excess D&O policies where board member resignations (a common trigger) are verified via smart contract execution. - Automated Underwriting: Dynamic limit setting: AI adjusts excess layers in real-time based on market conditions (e.g., rising inflation increasing liability exposure). Usage-based pricing: Excess casualty policies now incorporate telematics for fleet risks or cyber hygiene scores to modulate premiums. Market Impact: Reduced underwriting cycles: AI-driven tools cut excess casualty policy issuance time from weeks to days. Improved loss prevention: Predictive analytics identify high-risk industries (e.g., energy, healthcare, tech) for targeted excess coverage structuring. Cost efficiency: Blockchain reduces administrative overhead by 30–50% in claim processing for parametric excess policies. Case Study: Lloyd’s Lab partnered with excess casualty insurers to deploy AI-powered catastrophe models that assess secondary perils (e.g., wildfires, supply chain disruptions) for excess layers, enabling more accurate reinsurance ceding decisions. Timeline of Major Excess Casualty Market Shifts The excess casualty market has undergone significant transformations in response to geopolitical events, economic crises, and technological disruptions. Below is a chronological overview of key shifts that reshaped underwriting standards, capacity, and policy structures. Pre-2001: Traditional Hard Market Excess casualty capacity was abundant, with soft market conditions driving competitive pricing. Policies primarily covered mass torts, product liability, and general liability with occurrence-based triggers. Reinsurance was readily available, and excess layers often attached at $10M–$25M per occurrence. 2001–2003: Post-9/11 Hardening Terrorism exclusions became standard in excess casualty policies, leading to the creation of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). Capacity tightened as insurers sought to limit exposure to catastrophic events, with excess layers often excluding war and civil commotion. Parametric triggers for terrorism emerged, though adoption was limited due to data availability challenges. 2008–2012: Financial Crisis and Reinsurance Scarcity The global financial crisis led to reinsurer insolvencies, reducing excess casualty capacity. Collateral requirements increased, and premiums rose by 30–50% for high-risk sectors (e.g., financial services, construction). Alternative risk transfer (ART) mechanisms (e.g., captives, sidecars) gained traction to fill capacity gaps. Excess casualty insurance stands as a cornerstone of proactive risk management, particularly for sectors where liability exposures extend beyond conventional coverage boundaries. Its strategic deployment—whether through tailored policy structures, claims-made triggers, or global jurisdictional adaptations—enables organizations to fortify their financial resilience against unforeseen catastrophes. As cyber risks and environmental liabilities continue to evolve, the integration of insurtech and parametric solutions further enhances the agility of excess casualty frameworks. By mastering its complexities—from legal compliance to claim optimization—businesses can transform potential liabilities into manageable assets, ensuring long-term sustainability in an increasingly volatile risk landscape.

  • excess casualty insurance
  • high-severity claims
  • insurance underwriting trends
  • liability coverage
  • risk management strategies

  Leave a Comment

  Name

  Comment

  Post Comment

  Comments are moderated before appearing. The data you submit is processed according to the Privacy Policy of viralcontentbee.com.