Insurance Coverage Calculator

Three request blocks matter: customerData.propertyValue sets the package tier, riskAssessment.areaRiskLevel qualifies it, and the additionalRisks array of type and level pairs feeds the supplemental coverage loop.

Package selection reads customerData.propertyValue against riskAssessment.areaRiskLevel with a first hit policy. Homes worth >= 500000 in a 'high' risk area get the 'premium' package, the same value in a 'medium' area drops to 'standard', >= 300000 splits between 'standard' and 'basic' depending on the area, >= 200000 in a 'low' area still earns 'basic', and the blank row defaults everything else to 'minimal'.

Pairing value with territory reflects that exposure, not price alone, should set coverage richness: an expensive home in a hazardous area needs the fullest package, while the same home in a calm territory is well served by standard limits. The 200000 to 500000 breakpoints are sensible template values an agency would tune to its local housing market.

Formulas rather than constants fill most of the output columns here: the 'premium' row insures the full propertyValue with personal property at propertyValue * 0.5, liability of 500000, medical payments of 10000, and a 1000 deductible, while lower tiers step the dwelling multiplier down through 0.9, 0.8, and 0.7 and push the deductible up to 2500. Each basePackage value matches exactly one row, so the tier fully determines all five coverageLevels fields.

Setting personal property at 35 to 50 percent of dwelling value tracks the homeowners convention of contents limits around half the dwelling limit, and liability between 100000 and 500000 with small medical payments limits is the standard shape of an HO policy. The inverse relation between package richness and deductible is realistic too: buyers of fuller coverage usually want lower retentions.

Running in loop execution mode over the additionalRisks array, this table evaluates each type and level pair separately and writes one result per risk to additionalCoverageRecommendations. 'flood' at 'high' or 'medium' level recommends coverage at 25 or 20 percent of coverageLevels.dwellingCoverage, 'earthquake' at 'high' goes to 30 percent, and both perils at 'low' level, like the blank catch-all, return false with an amount of 0.

Flood and earthquake are the textbook perils excluded from standard homeowners forms and bought as separate policies or endorsements, so surfacing them as supplemental recommendations rather than folding them into the base package matches real placement practice. Sizing the recommendation as a fraction of dwelling coverage is a reasonable simplification of what would otherwise come from flood zone maps and seismic ratings, which is exactly what the level field abstracts.