The trusted source of unique, data-driven insights on insurance to inform and empower consumers. Insurance Information Institute
Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Homeowners Insurance, Insurers and the Economy

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

Natural catastrophe perils’ rising frequency and severity may be impossible to fully abate, but Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. President and CEO Mark Berven believes modern building codes could dramatically reduce their costly destructiveness.

In a recent article for PropertyCasualty360, Berven wrote that inconsistent building codes create alarming safety disparities from state to state and that improved codes are essential to reducing risk and post-disaster recovery costs.

“Extreme weather events like heat waves, large storms, landslides and more are becoming more frequent and intense,” Berven writes. “The U.S. has already experienced at least 24 confirmed weather disaster events through October with losses exceeding $1 billion each.”

 “Building Codes Save” — a landmark report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) –found that universal enforcement of modern building codes could prevent more than $600 billion in disaster losses by 2060. In states where stricter codes have been implemented, the report says, billion-dollar savings already have been realized.

Virginia and Florida, for example, have long-modeled robust building code systems, leading both to consistently top code adoption rankings – especially after the latter saved an estimated $1 billion to $3 billion in averted damages during Hurricane Ian through its modern Florida Building Code.

By contrast, fewer than one-third of hazard-prone jurisdictions have adopted modernized building codes, and some states – such as Delaware and Alabama – lack mandatory statewide building code systems entirely.

Perceived cost an obstacle

Barriers to adoption include the perceived expenses of enforcement. Conforming existing structures to the same standards as new buildings can be costly, as can rebuilding communities in non-hazardous areas. Navigating these concerns in tandem with an ongoing affordable housing shortage will require a coordinated effort on local, state, and federal levels.

But as the annual average of billion-dollar disasters in the U.S. trends upward, improving building codes must take precedence for policymakers at every level of government, Berven explained, adding that the research organization Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) has already provided a versatile and relatively affordable outline for safer construction standards.

Known collectively as the FORTIFIED method, such standards reinforce the durability of homes against severe weather, involving, for example, anchoring roofs to wall framing using stronger nails. The FORTIFIED method is, at present, completely voluntary, though the insurance industry-funded Strengthen Alabama Homes incentivizes homeowners to retrofit their houses along these guidelines via thousand-dollar grants. Completed retrofits reduce post-disaster claims and qualify grantees for substantial insurance premium discounts, prompting flood-prone Louisiana to replicate the program.

Given the programs’ demonstrated success, “updating our building codes to align with proven frameworks like IBHS’s FORTIFIED standards is not just an option — it’s a necessity,” Berven wrote. “The time for action is now, and the cost of inaction is far too high.”

Many consumers are unaware of the current absence and potential benefits of building code regulations, he continued, emphasizing an industry need for greater public outreach. Building codes play an indispensable role in enhancing resilience against evolving climate and weather risks, but any “revolution” in their regulation cannot advance without the collaboration of all relevant stakeholders.

Learn More:

IBHS Ranks Building Codes as Above-Average Hurricane Season Approaches

Modern Building Codes Would Prevent Billions In Catastrophe Losses

California Earthquakes: How Modern Building Codes Are Making Safer, More Resilient Communities

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Floods, Homeowners Insurance, Market Conditions, Risk Management, Wildfire

JIF 2024: Collective,
Data-Driven Approaches Needed to Address Climate-Related Perils

Leave a comment

The need for collective action to address the property/casualty risk crisis was a recurring theme throughout Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum in Miami – particularly during the panel on climate risk and  resilience. The discussion focused heavily on what’s currently being done to address this evolving area of peril.

The panel, moderated by Veronika Torarp – a partner in PwC Strategy’s insurance practice – consisted of subject-matter experts representing a cross section of natural perils, from hurricanes and floods to wildfires and severe convective storms. They were:

  • Dr. Philip Klotzbach, research scientist in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University;
  • Matthew McHatten, president and CEO at MMG Insurance and chairman of Triple-I’s Executive Leadership Committee;
  • Emily Swift, sustainable business framework senior manager at American Family Insurance; and
  • Heather Kanzlemar, consulting actuary at Milliman.

Part of the reason for this need to build coalitions is the diverse and overlapping causes of climate-related events and the related losses. Torarp cited a PwC study that projects the global protection gap in 2025 at $1.9 trillion, though she acknowledged that number may turn out to be “an understatement”.

Warmer, wetter, riskier

Running through the discussions of the various perils was the dynamic nature of evolving threats and the protection gap. Examples included increased inland flooding, such as the devastation caused in the rural southeast by Hurricane Helene, and damage inflicted by surprisingly intense tornadoes spun off by Hurricane Milton.

Dr. Klotzbach discussed the “very busy” 2024 Atlantic Hurricane season with its surprising impact on Asheville, N.C., and surrounding communities from Helene.

“It’s important to understand that the inland flooding threat is extremely problematic,” he said.

MMG’s McHatten emphasized the complexity of addressing flood risk, given the environmental forces driving it.

“Warmer planet, warmer ocean, more precipitation, more wind,” he said, “as well as this dynamic of atmospheric rivers and what happens to them as they start to hit higher elevations.” He pointed out how such conditions – which led to cataclysmic rains in Ashville as well as in MMG’s home state of Maine and the mountains of Vermont – are exacerbated by population trends.

“People live near water because that’s where economy and commerce was,” he said. “The ability to adapt to dynamic conditions that are changing rapidly is super-difficult. We can’t just say, ‘Raise every house six feet’ that’s near a body of water.”

Hope amid the perils

American Family’s Emily Swift discussed the state of severe convective storm risk, which she said is tending to migrate from its historic domain of the U.S. Midwest toward the Southeast.

“As we’re seeing the impact of hurricanes move further west and severe convective storms move further east, that means a lot more risk exposure to our customers who are living in those regions,” she said. “However, I think there’s a lot of hope.”

Swift talked about emerging partnerships between the insurance industry and academia — particularly work being done through Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC) funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to better understand severe convective storms and develop innovative ways of addressing the risks they pose.

“I’m optimistic that, although we don’t know quite the direction where severe convective storms are heading, we at least have diversified our risks to better manage them” – thanks, in part, to the learnings derived from these partnerships, Swift said.

Kanzlemar reinforced Swift’s optimistic tone in discussing Milliman’s work around wildfire risk. In the midst of a growing insurance availability and affordability crisis in fire-prone states – particularly California – Milliman is partnering with the Insurance Institute for Building and Home Safety (IBHS) and and stakeholders in its Wildfire Prepared Home program to gather data to help inform insurance underwriting, as well as mitigation and prevention at the community level.

“Most insurers have data on type of structure, what the roof material is, the number of stories,” Kanzlemar said, “but a lot of the granular data around eave enclosures, ember-resistant vents, that data is typically not available, and almost no insurers had that data at a community level to account for adjacent risk.”

That’s the bad news, she said, but “the good news is in the kinds of solutions we’re working toward. Most insurers were willing to consider a contributory data model like a comprehensive loss-underwriting exchange for [wildland-urban interface (WUI)] data as long as there’s sufficient participation and reciprocity. That’s an effort that we’re calling the ‘WUI Data Commons’. ”

All the panelists agreed that such collaborative, data-driven approaches that respect consumer needs and interests at the community level were going to be key to solving natural catastrophe risk in our rapidly changing future.

Learn More:

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Flood

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Wildfire

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Hurricane

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Convective Storms

Resilience Investments Paid Off in Florida During Hurricane Milton

Hail: The “Death by 1,000 Paper Cuts” Peril

Accurately Writing Flood Coverage Hinges on Diverse Data Sources

Auto Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Regulation

JIF 2024: What’s In a Name? When It Comes to Legal System Abuse, A Lot

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

From “social inflation” to “tort reform” to, simply, “fraud,” settling upon uniform terminology to describe  litigation trends that drive up costs – including insurance premiums – for all Americans is a primary challenge to addressing them, according to participants at Triple-I’s 2024 Joint Industry Forum.

“As we’re trying to raise awareness of this problem with consumers, ‘social inflation’ doesn’t work,” said discussion moderator and Triple-I’s Chief Insurance Officer Dale Porfilio. Though Triple-I previously favored “social inflation,” consumer testing was done that suggested a better name was needed. “That’s when we landed on ‘legal system abuse.’”

“The name absolutely matters,” said Viji Rangaswami, senior vice president and chief public affairs officer for Liberty Mutual. “When you talk to a legislator, whether that’s in Kansas or in Washington, D.C., and you say the words, ‘social inflation,’ they don’t know what you’re talking about. But when you say the words ‘legal system abuse,’ you see the lightbulb go off.”

Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple – a self-described “unicorn” among insurance regulators, given his decades-long background in the industry as an agent, broker, and company president – even renamed programs to address “legal system abuse” when he assumed office in January. This shift exemplifies Temple’s commitment to using his experience to shape a regulatory and statutory environment that enhances the attractiveness of Louisiana’s insurance market.

“We’re getting more buy-in now, people understand it,” Temple said. “That’s part of transparency – talking about what it truly is.”

Clear communication is key

Opaque, ill-defined language empowers predatory “billboard attorneys” to define these terms themselves, contributing to pervasive policyholder distrust, said Jeff Sauls, Farmers Insurance head of legislative affairs.

“There’s this perception of the insurance industry amongst the public – and plaintiffs’ attorneys help portray this – as a high-margin business,” he said, when, in reality, “we compete with grocery stores for who can make less money in an average year.”

Attorney advertising – estimated to total over $2.4 billion across the U.S. last year – has commandeered the messaging once associated with insurers, noted Temple, who encouraged the industry to “take back that high ground” of providing “dependability and stability during the worst days of people’s lives” without overuse of brand mascots or jingles.

“We have to remind the public why we exist,” Rangaswami added. “We want to pay claims as expeditiously as possible…. We’re on the side of the consumer, whereas the plaintiffs’ attorney is often on their own side or the investor’s side.”

Third-party litigation funding

With her reference to “investors,” Rangaswami took aim at a little-known, rapidly growing practice called third-party litigation funding (TPLF), in which investors with no stake beyond potential profit step in to fund lawsuits against corporate entities perceived as having deep pockets. As of last year, such investors retained an estimated $15.2 billion in assets for U.S. litigation alone.

Only a handful of states require mandatory disclosure of TPLF, which enables hedge funds and other foreign funders to compound and profit from protracted and even fraudulent U.S. court cases. Secrecy surrounding TPLF prevents insurers and regulators from identifying, let alone mitigating, the risks of increased costs and time to resolve claims disputes.

Preventing adversaries to the U.S. from exploiting TPLF to influence settlement outcomes and access sensitive defense information is another concern.

“We’re looking at TPLF as potentially exacerbating national security risk,” said Jerry Theodorou, policy director for finance, insurance, and trade at the R Street Institute. “Most people don’t know what TPLF is and the way it can insidiously impact the economy, our businesses, our jobs.”

Everyone is affected

Legal system abuse costs the highly litigious states Louisiana and Georgia over 175,000 jobs combined and thousand-dollar “tort taxes” for each resident per year, earning both states recurring spots on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s list of “Judicial Hellholes.” They also rank among the least affordable places for auto and homeowners’ insurance by the Insurance Research Council – an affiliate of The Institutes, like Triple-I.

Louisiana recently enacted a law enforcing some oversight over TPLF, Temple noted, as well as repealed a unique “three-year rule” that impeded actuarially-sound underwriting. But as the state’s bodily injury claims climb well over the national average, more reform is needed to return insurance profitability to the state.

“One thing I would look to is importing some of the good things Florida has done,” Theodorou suggested, explaining that reform curtailing contingency and one-way attorneys’ fees “have brought down the number of lawsuits against insurance companies by 24 percent” for the second consecutive three-quarter period. “Notice of intention to sue is also down by double digits. It’s working, so let’s learn from that.”

Considering the fact that the former “poster child” for legal system abuse generated over 70 percent of all homeowners insurance litigation nationally in 2022 – despite accounting for only about 15 percent of total homeowners claims – Florida’s reduced premium growth and nine new property insurers this year reveal the likely efficacy of such reforms in other states.

Education and coalition building

But such reform requires advocacy, which requires consumer education and coalition building across diverse stakeholder groups, Rangaswami pointed out.

Fixing “an economy-wide problem,” she explained, requires an “economy-wide coalition.”

The end goal is not a “tilted playing field,” Sauls emphasized. “We’re trying to get to a place where we are all on level footing, without being exploited by plaintiffs’ attorneys.”

Legal system abuse “is going to be a pressure point for the industry moving forward,” stressed Fred Karlinsky, shareholder and global chair of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. “No state is immune from what we’ve seen in Florida.”

Karlinsky emphasized that spreading normalization of “nuclear” (over $10 million) and an emergent class of “thermonuclear” (over $100 million) verdicts will stall reform in newly targeted states.

Rangaswami pointed out that not all the news has been bad.

“We had some great wins in 2024,” she said, citing Florida’s improved insurance market and legislation introduced at both the federal and state levels as movement in a promising direction. “But we have to keep this momentum up.”

Learn More:

Triple-I Issues Brief: Legal System Abuse

Agents Play Critical Role in Navigating Impacts of Legal System Abuse on Customers

Legal System Abuse/Social Inflation Adds Costs and Challenges for US Casualty Insurance: AM Best

Who’s Financing Legal System Abuse? Louisianans Need to Know

Legal Reforms Boost Florida Insurance Market; Premium Relief Will Require More Time

How Georgia Might Learn From Florida Reforms

U.S. Consumers See Link Between Attorney Involvement in Claims and Higher Auto Insurance Costs: New IRC Report

Inflation Continues to Drive Up Consumers’ Insurance CostsTriple-I Launches Campaign to Highlight Challenges to Insurance Affordability in Georgia

Business Risk, Cyber Risk, Floods, Insurance Industry

RiskScan 2024 reveals risk priorities across the insurance marketplace

Leave a comment

By Mary Sams, Senior Research Analyst

Cyber incidents, changes in climate, and business interruption are the chief risk concerns among key marketplace segments in the insurance industry, according to RiskScan 2024, a new survey from Munich Reinsurance America Inc. (“Munich Re US”) and the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) reveals.

RiskScan 2024 provides a cross-market overview of top risk concerns among individuals across five key market segments: P&C insurance carriers, P&C agents and brokers, middle-market business decision makers, small business owners, and consumers. The survey explores not only P&C risks, but also how economic, political, and legal pressures shape risk perceptions. 

Methodology

To produce a compelling snapshot of cross-market views, Munich Re US and Triple-I engaged independent market researcher RTi Research in the summer of 2024 to survey 1,300 US-based individuals.

Market surveys typically focus on a single audience, but RiskScan 2024 is a multi-segment survey offering a comprehensive view of risk perceptions and yielding comparative results between audiences. The key insights present a variety of commonalities and disparities across the five distinct target segments, covering the full range of insurance buyers and sellers across the United States.

This online survey was conducted across gender, age, geographic region, household income, business revenue, and company size. 

Two primary cohorts make up five segments of participants in the RiskScan research:

  1. consumers and small business owners (n=700) and
  1. Insurance industry participants, which included carriers, agents, and brokers as well as middle market businesses (n=600). 

Research participants were presented with various risks across five segments and then asked to select their top three risk concerns. 

Key Insights

More than one-third of respondents chose economic inflation, cyber incidents, and climate change as their top three concerns based on insurance risks and market dynamics. All three of these reflect post-pandemic news topics. Economic inflation has increased over the last several years.  Consumers and small business owners have experienced direct impacts with increased costs and industry participants have seen these impacts on increased replacement costs and P&C insurance premiums.

There are significant disparities in the ranking results between the two primary cohorts within the research. Insurance professionals tend to identify a variety of risks and have significant awareness of all risk categories, including emerging technologies. As expected, these audiences exhibit broader knowledge and awareness of risk transfer and mitigation of new and emerging risks. Consumers identified a smaller number of risks associated with more immediate and direct impacts on themselves. 

The structure of RiskScan 2024 research yields a more complete understanding of the “white space” that exists between risk perception and action. The gaps were identified along three key risk areas: 

  • Flood risk
  • cyber risks, and
  • legal system abuse

Flood risk was also indicated as one of the chief concerns for each audience. However, consumers lack awareness that flood events are typically excluded from homeowner’s policies. Industry professionals are more aware of flood coverage exclusions, the importance of purchasing flood coverage before a flood event, and the likelihood of these events occurring.

Cyber incidents are a primary concern in all five market segments. Most audiences in the research, both consumer and commercial, feel unprepared as this threat vector is constantly emerging, expanding, and changing. Many people are knowledgeable about cyber risks and are concerned about how to mitigate new cyber threats. Troubling stories have come to light as the frequency and severity of cyber threats grow.

“The knowledge gap about insurance risks demonstrates the continued need for education of consumers and businesses, especially about flood, cyber, and legal system abuse,” says Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. “Increasing knowledge will be instrumental for the collective work needed to better manage and mitigate future risks.”

The report includes additional results for each of the five primary audiences: consumers (n=500), small business owners (n=200), insurance carriers (n=200), insurance agents and brokers (n=200), and middle market businesses (n=200).

Download the full RiskScan 2024 report to review the details. Triple-I aims to empower stakeholders by driving research and education on this and other key insurance topics. Follow our blog to keep abreast of these essential conversations.

Disaster Resilience, Insurance Industry, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Risk Management

Climate Resilience and Legal System Abuse Take Center Stage In Miami

Leave a comment

Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum this week in Miami brought together subject-matter experts from across insurance, academia, government, and the nonprofit space to discuss climate resilience, legal system abuse, and – most important – what is being done and must continue to be done to ensure insurance availability and affordability during this period of evolving perils and policy challenges.

The insight-rich and engaging panels and “Risk Takes” will be generating Triple-I blog content for weeks to come. The following is a brief wrap-up.

While our times are “riskier than ever,” Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan pointed out that the U.S. property/casualty insurance industry “is well poised to manage these risks.” At the same time, he and many participants noted that collaboration and coalition building are critical for long-term success.

With respect to climate resilience, such collaboration is already taking place. Veronika Torarp, a partner in PwC Strategy’s insurance practice and moderator of the Climate Resilience panel, discussed the multi-industry coalition PwC is developing with Triple-I and other partners. Marsh McLennan’s managing director for public sector Dan Kaniewski – who moderated the Success Stories panel – discussed a project funded last year by Fannie Mae and managed by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) that culminated in a roadmap to incentivize investment in urban flood resilience across “co-beneficiary” groups.. Triple-I played an integral role in the NIBS project, which is currently seeking communities and partners for implementation of the roadmap.

In the area of legal system abuse, there was much conversation around the benefits to Florida of recent reforms in terms of making the Sunshine State more attractive to insurers again by discouraging excessive and fraudulent litigation. Legal system abuse is a multi-headed monster that drives up costs for everyone – from home and car owners to businesses and taxpayers – and, although progress has been made to fight it in Florida and elsewhere, it is expanding as quickly as those states are able to advance in tamping it down. Triple-I’s Dale Porfilio moderated a lively panel on the topic that included Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple; Farmers Insurance head of legislative affairs Jeff Sauls; Viji Rangaswami, senior vice president and chief public affairs officer for Liberty Mutual; and Jerry Theodorou, policy director for finance, insurance, and trade at the R Street Institute.

Peter Miller, president and CEO of The Institutes, moderated the Innovation panel, which included Denise Garth, chief strategy officer at Majesco; Paul O’Connor, vice president of operational excellence at ServiceMaster; Kenneth Tolson, global president for digital solutions at Crawford & Co.; and Reggie Townsend, vice president and head of the data ethics practice at SAS. These subject-matter experts discussed how generative AI and other technologies are transforming insurance strategy and operations and increasing opportunities to improve and advance this most human-centered industry.

All four panels – as well as the Risk Takes and the “Fireside Chat” featuring Kate Horowitz, executive vice president of The Institutes, and Casey Kempton, president of personal lines for Nationwide Insurance – will be reported on in greater detail in subsequent posts.

Insurance Industry

New IRC Report:
Personal Auto Insurance
State Regulation Systems

Leave a comment

By William Nibbelin, Senior Research Actuary, Triple-I 

According to a new study by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), the rate filing process for personal auto insurance has become more inefficient and ineffective, taking longer to achieve rate approval with higher occurrence of approved rate impact lower than filed rate impact and a larger disparity between the rate impact approved and the rate impact filed.

The report, Rate Regulation in Personal Auto Insurance: A Comparison of State Systems, analyzes Personal Auto Insurance industry data from 2010 through 2023 across all states and the District of Columbia. Key findings:

  • There were approximately 10,200 rate filings each year without much variance during the period.
  • The average number of days to approval grew from 39 to 54 days.
  • The number of filings withdrawn increased from 1,900 to 3,200.
  • The percentage of filings receiving less rate impact than requested grew 10 points.
  • The disparity in approved rate impact grew by more than 2 points.
  • Market concentration (as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, or HHI) increased by 9 percent.
  • A strong-to-moderate correlation exists between net underwriting losses and premium shortfalls within states and across time.
  • Filing process measures and market outcomes vary by regulatory systems.

During this same period from 2010 through 2023, the personal auto insurance industry experienced a direct combined ratio over 100 in 11 of the 14 years. Combined ratio is a key measure of underwriting profitability for insurance carriers, calculated as losses and expenses divided by earned premium plus operating expenses divided by written premium. A combined ratio over 100 represents an underwriting loss. The report includes the determination of a strong correlation between underwriting loss and premium shortfalls, defined as the potential dollar difference between the effective filed rate impact and approved rate impact.

Overview of Rate Regulation

Insurance is regulated by the states. This system of regulation stems from the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which describes state regulation and taxation of the industry as being in “the public interest” and clearly gives it preeminence over federal law.

While the regulatory processes in each state vary, three principles guide every state’s rate regulation system (Regulation | III): that rates be adequate (to maintain insurance company solvency) but not excessive (not so high as to lead to exorbitant profits) nor unfairly discriminatory (price differences must reflect expected claim and expense differences).

According to the NAIC (NAIC Auto Insurance Database Report, p. 193), the primary regulatory approaches include:

  • Prior Approval System: Insurance companies must file their rates and get approval from the state insurance department before using them.
  • Flex Rating: States allow insurers to change rates within a pre-established range (often a percentage increase or decrease) without needing approval. Larger changes, however, require prior approval.
  • File-and-Use System: Insurers can file rates with the state and begin using them immediately or after a set period. The rates can still be reviewed by regulators, but they do not require prior approval.
  • Use-and-File System: Insurers can implement new rates without prior approval but must file them with the state within a certain period after they start being used. Regulators can review and potentially disapprove them later.
  • No Filing: In some states, insurers do not have to file rates for certain lines of insurance. The idea is that competition among insurers will keep rates in check. However, regulators still have authority to intervene if rates are deemed unreasonable.

Regulatory Systems

IRC used National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) definitions to segment states into four regulatory systems: Prior Approval, File and Use, Use and File (including No Filing states), and an additional segment, Rate Cap, for Flex Rating states and any state with an explicit rate impact cap on rate filings per state regulations.

The report then highlights key findings and other market outcomes across these four regulatory environment systems. For example, the study determined underwriting profitability in personal auto insurance was weakest in Rate Cap states across the period from 2010 through 2023 with the highest average direct combined ratio of any regulatory environment system in 2023. Prior Approval states had the second highest.

Below are some of the results of this study for California personal auto, which performs worse on several key rate filing process measures.

California

California has an explicit rate cap of 7 percent (California Insurance Code Article 161.05) and is therefore classified as a Rate Cap regulatory environment system in the IRC study. California only rivals Colorado for the highest average number of days to approval over the past seven years and has the highest average number of days to approval for 2023 at 246 compared to the next highest, Colorado, at 167.

California also has the highest average withdrawn rate across all states at 14.1 percent from 2010 to 2023. From 2010 to 2023, California achieved a Direct Combined Ratio under 100 four times, and the most recent three-year direct combined ratio is 110.4, compared to the countrywide 106.4. The residual market has grown in California from 0.01 percent in 2010 to 0.09 percent in 2021 which is higher than the countrywide average of 0.07 percent.

Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Regulation

How Georgia Might Learn From Florida Reforms

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

Georgia – frequently featured on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s list of “Judicial Hellholes” – may want to consider imitating its neighbor Florida in pursuing legal system abuse reforms, Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan suggested in a recent  interview for WBS News/Talk Radio. 

In 2022 – the year Category 4 Hurricane Ian tore through the southeast United States – over 70 percent of all homeowners insurance litigation nationally was generated in Florida, when the state accounted for only about 9 percent of total homeowners claims.

“We actually saw six insurers go insolvent even before Ian hit,” Kevelighan said. 

An exodus of insurance carriers, paired with an estimated $10 billion loss in post-Ian litigated claims, prompted Florida policymakers to enact laws targeting excessive one-way attorney fees and prohibiting assignment of benefits (AOB) to curtail gratuitous or fraudulent litigation.

Legal system abuse drives up costs for everyone

Such litigation increases the costs and time to settle insurance claims, which insurers must account for when predicting loss trends and setting rates. 

“The price of insurance is the price of the risk,” Kevelighan explained. “If you have a high-litigation area, that’s risky, and it’s going to be more expensive.” 

Costly, protracted claims disputes – especially ones involving unnecessary judicial intervention – can outprice consumers and insurers, leading many to cease offering coverage in the state or to declare insolvency.

Insurance costs in Florida have stabilized since legislators passed legal system abuse reforms in 2022 and 2023, reducing premium growth and attracting nine new property insurers to the market this year, Kevelighan said.

Under these reforms, “the risk level is getting lower and that allows the cost of insurance to go down,” he said. Underwriting losses in 2023 reflected this trend, as Florida’s property insurance market recorded a much smaller loss than in recent years. Most Florida carriers have filed for no rate increases – or even decreases – this year, Kevelighan said.

Though Hurricanes Helene and Milton will likely constrain Florida’s 2024 underwriting profitability, insurers are well-equipped to settle claims more quickly, with some industry experts suggesting the market could sufficiently cover another hurricane later this season.

Lessons for Georgia

Plaintiffs’ attorneys who profited from claim fraud in Florida have transferred their exploitative practices and billboard marketing to states with fewer and/or antiquated regulations – especially Georgia, recently ranked one of the least affordable states for auto insurance by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), a division of The Institutes.

“The litigation is just creeping across the border into Georgia,” he said. “It’s estimated that the GDP of legal system abuse impacts the economy about $13 billion annually in Georgia alone.”

In Georgia, Kevelighan said, unfettered anchoring tactics – which “anchor” juries to extraordinary non-economic damage awards as a baseline – propel Georgia’s abnormally high rate of excessive verdicts.

Profuse and inflated litigation impedes coverage affordability and availability and creates undue “tort taxes” that cost individual Georgians $1,372 per year, even as trial attorneys in the state invested hundreds of millions into advertising in 2023.

A new IRC survey supports a positive correlation between consumers who consult attorneys and those who are exposed to attorney advertising. Though most consumers believe this advertising increases the cost of auto insurance, most also remain impartial. Greater public outreach and tort reform are needed to stop and prevent legal system abuse.

While amending a court system hostile to defendants requires extensive coordinated efforts, Florida’s recent legislative reforms have already improved the state’s insurance landscape, demonstrating the efficacy of passing similar laws in other areas. To advocate for tort reform in Georgia, the Triple-I recently launched a multi-faceted campaign that includes highway and digital bus shelter billboards promoting an educational consumer website.

“We want to inform consumers that litigation doesn’t need to be a first step in claim disputes, but should be more of a last resort,” Kevelighan said. “We’re trying to help raise awareness so that reform does pass, and that we can reduce the risk level, so that we can reduce the price levels.”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s interest in addressing tort reform during the 2025 Georgia General Assembly promises “more movement,” Kevelighan added.

It’s not too late to register for Triple-I’s “Joint Industry Forum” in Miami November 19th and 20th, where legal system abuse will be a major topic of conversation.

Learn More:

Triple-I Launches Campaign to Highlight Challenges to Insurance Affordability in Georgia

Georgia Is Among the Least Affordable States for Auto Insurance

U.S. Consumers See Link Between Attorney Involvement in Claims and Higher Auto Insurance Costs: New IRC Report

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods

Triple-I Brief Highlights Rising Inland Flood Risk

Leave a comment

The devastation wrought by Hurricane Helene in September 2024 across a 500-mile swath of the U.S. Southeast highlighted the growing vulnerability of inland areas to flooding from both tropical storms and severe convective storms, according to the latest Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief.

These events also highlight the scale of the flood-protection gap in non-coastal areas. Private insurers are stepping up to help close that gap, but increased homeowner awareness and investment in flood resilience across all co-beneficiary groups will be needed as more and more people move into harm’s way.

Helene dumped 40 trillion gallons of water across Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, and Tennessee, causing hundreds of deaths and billions in insured losses. Much of the loss was concentrated in western North Carolina, with parts of Buncombe County – home to Asheville and its historic arts district – left virtually unrecognizable. Less than 1 percent of residents in Buncombe County had federal flood insurance when Helene struck.

The experience of these states far inland echoed those of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in August 2021, when remnants of Hurricane Ida brought rains that flooded subways and basement apartments, with more than 40 people killed in those states.

“The whole swath going up the East Coast” that Hurricane Ida struck in the days after it made landfall “had less than 5 percent flood insurance coverage,” said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan at the time. 

Then, in July 2023, a series of intense thunderstorms resulted in heavy rainfall, deadly flash floods, and severe river flooding in eastern Kentucky and central Appalachia. Flooding led to 39 fatalities and federal disaster-area declarations for 13 eastern Kentucky counties. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), only a few dozen federal flood insurance policies were in effect in the affected areas before the storm. 

Low inland take-up rates largely reflect consumer misunderstandings about flood insurance. Though approximately 90 percent of all U.S. natural disasters involve flooding, many homeowners are unaware that a standard homeowners policy doesn’t cover flood damage. Similarly, many believe flood coverage is unnecessary unless their mortgage lenders require it. It also is not uncommon for homeowners to drop flood insurance coverage once their mortgage is paid off to save money.

Private insurers stepping up

More than half of all homeowners with flood insurance are covered by NFIP, which is part of FEMA and was created in 1968 – a time when few private insurers were willing to write flood coverage. In recent years, however, insurers have grown more comfortable taking on flood risk, thanks in large part to improved data and analytics capabilities.

The private flood market has changed since 2016, when only 12.6 percent of coverage was written by 16 insurers. In 2019, federal regulators allowed mortgage lenders to accept private flood insurance if the policies abided by regulatory definitions. The already-growing private appetite for flood risk gained steam after that. Private insurers are gradually accounting for a bigger piece of a growing flood risk pie.

Insurance necessary – but not sufficient

Insurance can play a major role in closing the protection gap, but, with increasing numbers of people moving into harm’s way and storms behaving more unpredictably, the current state of affairs is not sustainable. Greater investment in mitigation and resilience is essential to reducing the personal and financial losses associated with flooding.

Such investment has paid off in Florida, where the communities of Babcock Ranch and Hunters Point survived Hurricanes Helene and Milton relatively unscathed. Babcock Rance made headlines for sheltering thousands of evacuees from neighboring communities and never losing power during Milton, which devastated numerous neighboring cities and left more than three million people without power.

Both of these communities were designed and built in recent years with sustainability and resilience in mind.

Incentives and public-private partnership will be critical to reducing perils and improving insurability in vulnerable locations. Recent research on the impact of removing development incentives from coastal areas can improve flood loss experience in the areas directly affected by the removal of such incentives, as well as neighboring areas where development subsidies remain in place.

Learn More:

Executive Exchange: Using Advanced Tools to Drill Into Flood Risk

Accurately Writing Flood Coverage Hinges on Diverse Data Sources

Lee County, Fla., Towns Could Lose NFIP Flood Insurance Discounts

Miami-Dade, Fla., Sees Flood-Insurance Rate Cuts, Thanks to Resilience Investment

Milwaukee District Eyes Expanding Nature-Based Flood-Mitigation Plan

Attacking the Risk Crisis: Roadmap to Investment in Flood Resilience

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Lightning

The Importance
of Protecting
Critical Facilities
From Lightning Strikes

Leave a comment

By Kelley Collins, Director of Business Development and Communications, Lightning Protection Institute

We rely on critical facilities not only in our day-to-day lives but also during emergencies and natural disasters. As defined by government agencies, such as FEMA, critical facilities include fire stations, police stations, hospitals, and emergency operation centers, among others. But here’s the question: Are these essential facilities in your community adequately protected from the destructive impact of lightning?

The Impact of Lightning on Structures

Lightning, though less publicized than other weather events, is equally destructive and must be understood so we can take preventive measures. Lightning strikes happen continuously, with approximately 100 strikes per second globally. Each strike unleashes a tremendous amount of electricity, with millions of volts and temperatures soaring higher than the surface of the sun. When a structure is struck, the surge of electricity travels through its pipes, electrical systems, and infrastructure. While lightning often causes fires, the less visible damage can be just as severe. Computers, communication devices, security systems, and other critical electronics can be rendered useless, leading to loss of data, revenue, and the ability to provide vital services.

A strike to a critical facility can prevent essential services from being available when they’re needed most.

A single lightning strike can have devastating effects on individuals, homes, businesses, and entire communities, including critical facilities. A lightning strike to a critical facility can prevent essential services, such as emergency response or medical care, from being available when they are needed most. A well-designed and properly installed lightning protection system can prevent these consequences.

Whether you are a homeowner, business owner, or part of the design and construction industry, it’s essential to understand the impact of lightning and the steps necessary to mitigate the risk. The Lightning Protection Institute has started to advocate for stronger regulations for critical facilities, particularly in high-risk areas where the potential for lightning strikes is greater.

The Need for Regulatory Requirements

Despite the constant threat of lightning, regulatory requirements for lightning protection systems in critical facilities remain minimal. A historical look at other life safety actions could give us the foundation to protect critical facilities from lightning, which we know can create fires.

When looking to safeguard individuals and buildings from fire, fire alarms and sprinkler systems have been implemented. Fire alarms alert individuals of smoke and/or fire to ensure that they exit the building. Sprinkler systems were designed to minimize the spread of a fire and damage to the structure. Depending on states, either or both, fire alarms and sprinkler systems are required in commercial properties and/or homes.

Just as fire alarms and sprinkler systems are mandated to prevent building destruction and protect lives, lightning protection systems should be required for the same reasons. Lightning protection systems protect both lives and structures.

There are government documents that outline what is considered a critical facility and what structures are encompassed in our critical infrastructure. In addition, these federal agencies clearly see the need for higher standards in critical facilities and critical infrastructures due to their guidelines for protecting against potential flooding. Yet, there is not a mandate to protect either facilities or infrastructure from lightning strikes. 

Lightning: Second Only to Floods

Lightning is the second most damaging natural hazard after floods, impacting both individuals and communities. The same level of consideration given to flood prevention should apply to mitigating the risks of lightning. Installing lightning protection systems in critical facilities ensures these buildings remain operational during and after a strike, safeguarding the community.

Introducing regulatory requirements for lightning protection in high-risk areas would ensure that critical facilities continue to function during emergencies, providing vital services when they are needed most.

Conclusion: Lightning Deserves Our Attention

With the potential for destruction that lightning carries, it deserves as much attention as hurricanes, floods, and fires, which often dominate the headlines. We’ve taken significant steps to prepare for and protect against these natural disasters through regulations and personal actions.

The design and construction industries continue to innovate with new materials and techniques to increase the safety of individuals and communities when building new structures. Fire alarms and earthquake-resistant buildings are now standard safety measures, and hurricane-resilient homes are being built with new designs. These advancements result from collaboration across industries.

The next collaboration should be the initiative to protect communities from the impact of a lightning strike. This initiative involves implementing regulatory measures for lightning protection systems to safeguard critical facilities. Lightning protection systems intercept a lightning strike and safely disperse the energy along the conductors to ground. When properly installed by certified lightning protection contractors, these systems are scientifically proven to mitigate risks for homes, businesses, and critical facilities and infrastructure.

Several industries have the opportunity to provide their insight and expertise to protect communities: Architects, Engineers, Insurance Providers, Risk Assessors, Weather Researchers, Local Governments as well as Lightning Protection Professionals. As experts in various fields, we can protect our communities by raising awareness of lightning risks and advocating for the installation of certified lightning protection systems.

The next time you pass by a fire station, police station, or hospital in your community, take a moment to look up. Is there a lightning protection system installed? It’s critical to ensure these essential facilities are protected, especially in high-risk areas, so they can continue serving individuals and communities during and after a storm.

Learn More:

Lightning-Related Claims Up Sharply in 2023

Assess, Measure, Mitigate Your Lightning Risk

Lightning: Quantifying a Complex, Costly Peril to Support Resilience

Beyond Fire: Triple-I Interview Unravels Lightning-Risk Complexity

Lightning Sparks More Than $1 Billion in Homeowners Claims Over Five Years

Catastrophes, Coastal Property, Disaster Resilience, Floods, Homeowners Insurance

Resilience Investments Paid Off in Florida
During Hurricane Milton

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

Babcock Ranch – a small community in southwestern Florida dubbed “The Hometown of Tomorrow” – made headlines for sheltering thousands of evacuees and never losing power during Hurricane Milton, which devastated numerous neighboring cities and left more than three million people without power.

Hunters Point, a subdivision on Florida’s Gulf Coast, remained similarly unscathed during both Hurricanes Helene and Milton. Though the development is only two years old, it’s already been through four major hurricanes. Its homes were designed with an elevation high enough to avoid severe flooding and materials that make them as sturdy as possible in high winds. When the power goes out, each home turns to its own solar panels and battery system.

For residents of both communities, this news comes as no surprise; their flood-resistant infrastructure and solar panel power systems have helped them survive several storms and hurricanes with only minor damages, demonstrating the utility of disaster resilience planning.

Such planning is expensive to implement. Homes in either community can run for over a million dollars. But, as the combined costs of Hurricanes Helene and Milton rise to the tens of billions, it’s hard to overstate the long-term benefits. Every dollar invested in disaster resilience could save 13 in property damage, remediation, and economic impact costs, suggesting risk mitigation and recovery strategies will become even more essential as natural catastrophe severity increases.

Incentivizing investment

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) – a voluntary program that rewards homeowners with reduced premiums when their communities invest in floodplain management practices that exceed NFIP minimum standards – aims to encourage resilience. Class 1 is the program’s highest rating, qualifying residents for a 45 percent reduction in their premiums. Of the nearly 23,000 participating NFIP communities, only 1,500 participate in the CRS. Of those 1,500, only two – Tulsa, Okla., and Roseville, Calif. – have achieved the highest rating.

High ratings are difficult to secure and maintain. Homeowners in Lee County, which borders Babcock Ranch, nearly lost their discounts earlier this year due to improper post-Hurricane Ian monitoring and documentation within flood hazard areas.

Discounts in lower-rated jurisdictions, however, still equate to large premium reductions. Miami-Dade County, Fla., for instance, earned a Class 3 rating after extensive stormwater infrastructure upgrades, saving the community an estimated $12 million annually. Residents sustained minimized flooding from Hurricane Milton under these improvements, further justifying their cost.

Local mitigation efforts offer targeted resilience solutions and resources to alleviate community risks. The insurance industry-funded Strengthen Alabama Homes provides homeowners grants to retrofit their houses along voluntary standards for constructing buildings resistant to severe weather. Completed retrofits reduce post-disaster claims and qualify grantees for substantial insurance premium discounts, prompting flood-prone Louisiana to replicate the program.

Other nature-based planning exploits local flora as a source of natural hazard protection. Previous studies support conserving natural wetlands and mangroves to impede the rate and flow of flooding, leading many communities – including Babcock Ranch, which is 90 percent wetlands – to invest in green infrastructure. Reforestation and wetland restoration projects undertaken by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) also promise to store or capture millions of gallons of storm and flood water, enabling risk management alongside improved quality of life for citizens.

Most resilience projects are impossible to fund or operate without stakeholder partnerships and advanced data and analytics. Insurers, who have long assessed and measured catastrophe risk utilizing cutting-edge data tools, are uniquely positioned to confront these evolving risks and present a framework for successful preemptive mitigation.

Learn More:

Hurricane Helene Highlights Inland Flood Protection Gap

Removing Incentives for Development From High-Risk Areas Boosts Flood Resilience

Executive Exchange: Using Advanced Tools to Drill Into Flood Risk

Accurately Writing Flood Coverage Hinges on Diverse Data Sources

Legal Reforms Boost Florida Insurance Market; Premium Relief Will Require More Time

Lee County, Fla., Towns Could Lose NFIP Flood Insurance Discounts

Coastal New Jersey Town Regains Class 3 NFIP Rating

Latest research and analysis