I'm working on a life insurance problem: trying to simulate the total dollar amount of claims in a year. To do this, I have a record for each person that contains their amount of insurance and an estimate of the probability that they will make a claim during the next year. I have run thousands of one-year simulations and developed the range of outcomes.
Unfortunately, the real historical experience is far more volatile than my analysis suggests. Almost every year looks like a 1-in-100 year. I used the binomial distribution (thinking simplistically that either a person does or doesn't make a claim), but I have been advised that my data suffers from over-dispersion. That sounds possible, because obviously we do not really know each person's precise probability of making a claim. Our estimate is wrong for any particular individual, but reasonably accurate for each sub-group. The recommended solution was to use a negative binomial distribution so that the variance can be calibrated separately from the mean.
Certainly this property would be helpful, but literature on the negative binomial distribution focuses on applications of counting successes and failures. That doesn't seem relevant to what I'm trying to do. Is this really a good probability distribution to use in this context, and why?