sardinaconsal's comments

I think that at the core of this problem is: 1.) Separate evaluation is done in absolute terms. 2.) Join evaluation is done in relative terms in a specific model. Which specific model? The model that only takes into account the union of features of both items. So this is similar to a relative comparison with conditional probability of occurrence.

The relative evaluation is done thinking about: In which situations would item B be more valuable than item A. All those situations are weighted according to the avaiability heuristic: easy to recall situations seem more frequent or important. To give a simple example: Perhaps a dictionary with 20000 words is enough for you, and you don't need a greater dictionary. But you can think than may words are in the 40000 words dictionary but not in the 20000 word dictionary, so the difference seems to be more important that what really is for you.

The best solution I can think of to tackle this problem is to design a probabilistic model that include a confidence level for future risk and payment for k&r, if the risk is increased the maximal payment is decreased in such a way that the mean risk is kept constant. So if you communicate that you are covered and your probability of kidnapping increase ten fold then the maximum payment is divided by ten.

This problem could be related to asymmetric information. In case that a huge converage of K&R is known you become a valuable target for kidnappers so the cost of the coverage should increase, so if the coverage is known the insurance company could negate payment allegating that the ground rules has changed.

I think that answers is equivalent to the company not convering ransom and kidnapping, is the employee who establish and pay such coverage. So technically is a different problem.

I think is not possible, because the purpose of such legal measure is to avoid increasing ransom and kidnapping, and that would happen if the criminals knew that they would get the ransom from the coverage company. Hence any way to prove that the insurance exists goes against the legal reason to hide the existence of such coverage. To overcome this the following clause could be included: You are covered but if you communicate explicitely or implicitely to someone that you are covered then you are automatically excluded from this coverage.