Monthly Archives: September 2024

Emerging Risks, Insurance Industry, Market Conditions

Prodigious growth continues for the excess and surplus market, but how long will it last?

Leave a comment

The Excess and Surplus (E&S) market has grown for five consecutive years by double-digit percentage rates. While expansion appears to have slowed, ample growth likely to continue if major trends persist, according to Triple-I’s latest issue brief, Excess and Surplus: State of the Risk.

As reported by S&P Global Intelligence, total premiums for 2023 reached $86.47 billion, up from $75.51 billion in 2022. The growth rate for direct premiums in 2023 climbed to 14.5 percent, down from the peak year-over-year (YoY) increase of 32.3 percent in 2021 and 20.1 percent in 2022. The share of U.S. total direct premiums written (DPW) for P/C in 2023 grew to 9.2 percent, up from 5.2 percent in 2013.

The brief summarizes how these outcomes are driven by the niche segment’s capacity to take advantage of coverage gaps in the admitted market and quickly pivot to new product development in the face of emerging or novel risks. Analysis and takeaways, based on data from US-based carriers, highlight dynamics that may support continued market expansion:

  • The rising frequency of climate disasters and catastrophes that overwhelm the admitted market
  • The increasing number and amount of outsized verdicts (awards over $10 million)
  • The sustainability of amenable regulatory frameworks
  • Outlook for the reinsurance segment

These factors can also converge to enhance or aggravate conditions.

For example, some states, such as Florida and California, are dealing with significant obstacles to P/C affordability and availability in the admitted market posed by catastrophe and climate risk while also experiencing large respective shares of outsized verdict activity. Also, 13 of the 15 largest U.S. E&S underwriters for commercial auto liability experienced a YoY increase in 2023 direct premiums written. In contrast, eight of the largest 15 underwriters of commercial auto physical damage coverage experienced a decline. Given 2023 research from the Insurance Information Institute showing how inflationary factors from legal costs amplify claim payouts for commercial auto liability, it appears that E&S is flourishing off the struggles of the admitted market.              

At the state level, the top three states based on E&S property premiums as portion of the total property market were Louisiana (22.7 percent), Florida (21.1 percent), and South Carolina (19.4  percent) in 2023. The states experiencing the highest growth rates in E&S share of property premiums were South Carolina (9.0 percent), California (8.8 percent), and Louisiana (8.3 percent).

Since the publication of Triple-I’s brief, AM Best released its 2024 Market Segment Report on U.S. Surplus Lines. One of the key updates: after factoring in numbers from regulated alien insurers and Lloyd’s syndicates, the E&S market exceeded the $100 billion premium ceiling for the first time, climbing past $115 billion. The share size in the P/C market has more than tripled, from 3.6 percent total P/C DPW in 2000 to 11.9 percent in 2023. Findings also indicate that DPW is concentrated heavily within the top 25 E&S carriers (ranked by DPW), with about 68% of the total E&S market DPW coming from this group.

The E&S market typically provides coverage across three areas:

  • Nonstandard risks: potential liabilities that have unconventional underwriting characteristics
  • Unique risks: admitted carriers don’t offer a filed policy form or rate, or there is limited loss history information available
  • Capacity risks: the customer to be insured seeks a higher level of coverage than most insurers are willing to provide

Thus, E&S carriers offer coverage for hard-to-place risks, stepping in where admitted carriers are unwilling or unable to tread. It makes sense that the policies typically come with higher premiums, which can boost DPW.

However, the value proposition for E&S policyholders hinges on the lack of coverage in the admitted market and the insurer’s financial stability – especially since state guaranty funds don’t cover E&S policies. Therefore, minimum capitalization requirements tend to higher for E&S than for admitted carriers. Ratings from A&M Best over the past several years indicate that most surplus insurers stand secure. Robust underwriting and strong reinsurance capital positions will play a role in the market’s capacity for continued expansion.

To learn more, read our issue brief and follow our blog for the latest insights.

Auto Insurance, ESG, Homeowners Insurance, Regulation, Technology

Actuarial Studies Advance Discussion
on Bias, Modeling, and A.I.

Leave a comment

The Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) has added to its growing body of research to help actuaries detect and address potential bias in property/casualty insurance pricing with four new reports. The latest reports explore different aspects of unintentional bias and offer forward-looking solutions.

The first  – “A Practical Guide to Navigating Fairness in Insurance Pricing” – addresses regulatory concerns about how the industry’s increased use of models, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) may contribute to or amplify unfair discrimination. It provides actuaries with information and tools to proactively consider fairness in their modeling process and navigate this new regulatory landscape.

The second new paper — “Regulatory Perspectives on Algorithmic Bias and Unfair Discrimination” – presents the findings of a survey of state insurance commissioners that was designed to better understand their concerns about discrimination. The survey found that, of the 10 insurance departments that responded, most are concerned about the issue but few are actively investigating it. Most said they believe the burden should be on the insurers to detect and test their models for potential algorithmic bias.

The third paper – “Balancing Risk Assessment and Social Fairness: An Auto Telematics Case Study” – explores the possibility of using telematics and usage-based insurance technologies to reduce dependence on sensitive information when pricing insurance. Actuaries commonly rely on demographic factors, such as age and gender, when deciding insurance premiums. However, some people regard that approach as an unfair use of personal information. The CAS analysis found that telematics variables –such as miles driven, hard braking, hard acceleration, and days of the week driven – significantly reduce the need to include age, sex, and marital status in the claim frequency and severity models.

Finally, the fourth paper – “Comparison of Regulatory Framework for Non-Discriminatory AI Usage in Insurance” – provides an overview of the evolving regulatory landscape for the use of AI in the insurance industry across the United States, the European Union, China, and Canada. The paper compares regulatory approaches in those jurisdictions, emphasizing the importance of transparency, traceability, governance, risk management, testing, documentation, and accountability to ensure non-discriminatory AI use. It underscores the necessity for actuaries to stay informed about these regulatory trends to comply with regulations and manage risks effectively in their professional practice.

There is no place for unfair discrimination in today’s insurance marketplace. In addition to being fundamentally unfair, to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation – or any factor that doesn’t directly affect the risk being insured – would simply be bad business in today’s diverse society.  Algorithms and AI hold great promise for ensuring equitable risk-based pricing, and insurers and actuaries are uniquely positioned to lead the public conversation to help ensure these tools don’t introduce or amplify biases.

Learn More:

Insurers Need to Lead on Ethical Use of AI

Bringing Clarity to Concerns About Race in Insurance Pricing

Actuaries Tackle Race in Insurance Pricing

Calif. Risk/Regulatory Environment Highlights Role of Risk-Based Pricing

Illinois Bill Highlights Need for Education on Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance Coverage

New Illinois Bills Would Harm — Not Help — Auto Policyholders

Insurance News

Agents Skeptical of AI but Recognize Potential for Efficiency, Survey Finds

Leave a comment

Despite the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in the insurance industry, only 6% of agency principals have implemented an AI solution, with many expressing concerns about its impact on their agency’s operations, according to the 2024 Agent-Customer Connection Study by Liberty Mutual and Safeco Insurance.

The study — which surveyed more than 1,000 independent agency leaders, agency staff members, and consumers — reveals a complex relationship between AI and the insurance sector, indicating a need for effective strategies to harness AI’s potential and address prevalent concerns about AI accuracy and data privacy.

Low current adoption but growing interest

So far, AI tools remain on the fringes in most independent agencies, according to the report. While only 6% of agency principals surveyed said they have already implemented an AI solution in their agency, more than one-in-three (36%) said they are likely to be using AI in their business in the next five years.

The research found that agent sentiment on AI is split. Sixty-four percent of agency principals said they are interested in how AI can improve their business, but only 17% of agents said they trust AI technology, and 27% view AI as a threat.

“I’m still learning a lot about the impact that AI will have,” said one of the agents surveyed, “but from what I’ve learned so far, it could revolutionize the way we service clients and bring many new efficiencies to our service platform.”

For many agents, a lack of understanding about AI is holding back adoption. Forty-five percent of the agents surveyed said they don’t know enough about AI to make business decisions about the technology.

Concerns about AI accuracy and data privacy are also prevalent. Nearly one in three agents say they are unlikely to implement AI into their business practices in the next five years, citing a lack of trust and concerns about data privacy as the top reasons.

Potential Benefits of AI for Insurance Agencies

AI technology has the potential to drive significant efficiency gains and time savings for insurance agencies, the Liberty Mutual/Safeco report’s authors stated. AI-powered chatbots alone could save businesses up to 30% in customer support costs. The report cited a recent survey by Section, which found that among professionals who are adept at working with AI, they reported saving up to 12 hours per week by leveraging the technology.

Half of agency principals said they believe AI can make their business more efficient, and 43% of agency principals surveyed said using AI will help their agency better serve customers and grow the business in the future.

The top five areas where agents envision AI providing a boost include:

  • Identifying cross-selling opportunities, cited by 58%
  • Assisting with marketing content creation, 53%.
  • Automating routine service tasks, 52%.
  • Creating personalized customer communications, 46%.
  • Automating administrative tasks, 44%.

The efficiency and service enhancements enabled by AI will be key to meeting the rising expectations of insurance customers in the digital age, according to the report. Seventy-seven percent of independent agency customers said it’s very valuable or critical for their agent to be highly responsive to requests, and 67% want their agent to proactively understand their needs. The ability to contact an agent 24/7, something AI can help facilitate, would make 39% of customers more likely to choose a particular agent over another.

View the complete Liberty Mutual/Safeco survey report here.

Cyber Risk, Insurance Industry

FBI: Elder Fraud Up; Bolsters Case for Personal Cyber Insurance

Leave a comment

By Neil Rekhi, Personal Cyber Product Lead, HSB

Targeting of the demographic with the most to lose increases.

In 2023, total losses reported to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) by people over the age of 60 topped $3.4 billion, an almost 11 percent increase in reported losses from 2022. The number of complaints, the highest attributed to a single age group, increased by 14 percent. The average dollar loss per complaint was $33,915, with nearly 6,000 people losing over $100,000 per claim.

The IC3 report outlined several common cyber fraud activities that impact individuals over 60, including:

  • Call Center/Tech Support Scam
  • Confidence/Romance Scams
  • Cryptocurrency Scams
  • Investment Scams

The IC3 notes the actual figures around these and other cyber crimes targeting the elderly may be higher since only about half of the more than 880,000 total complaints it received (with total losses exceeding $12.5 billion) included age data.

A major reason for the proliferation of elder fraud may simply be that members of this age group are plentiful while also having comparatively the most to steal. Adults 65 and up are expected to make up 22 percent of the US population by 2024. Federal Reserve data indicates that their asset accumulation outpaces that of other age groups, with median and average net worth figures for adults 65-74 at $409,900 and $1.8 million, respectively, and for adults 75 and over, $335,600 and $1.6 million respectively. 

Increasing digital lives and advancing technology create new threats.

The transition to the smart mobile and app economy, along with the rise of big data and predictive analytics/AI, and (due to the pandemic) remote working, have transformed the way we engage with the world on a social, professional, and financial level. The Internet of Things (IoT) and each person’s expanding network of personal devices — smart TVs, video game consoles, appliances, home climate control systems, etc. — have propelled the digitization of our existence. All these advancements can make life easier but also increase points of cybersecurity vulnerability for people of all ages.

However, data indicates that different age groups can be susceptible to different methods of targeting by cyber scammers. For example, phishing, which relies on the human tendency to repay what another person has provided, can be more effective for targeting older vs younger adults. Also, today’s consumer under age 25 may never have the need to write a paper check, but many over 65 today have spent a significant portion of their lives handling their financial affairs that way. Thus, the trust placed in tech support people and other personnel whom they are supposed to rely on for assistance is understandable.

Unfortunately, according to the IC3, people over 60 lost more to call center and tech support scams than all other age groups combined, with this group reporting 40% of these incidents and 58% of the related financial losses (about $770 million). Common schemes involved using phone calls, texts, emails, or pop-up windows (or a combination of these) to connect with victims, manipulating them to download malicious software, reveal private account information, or transfer assets. The fallout included remortgaged homes, emptied retirement accounts, and, in some cases, suicide.

New tools and methods increase cyber security threats.

A financial services professional at a Hong Kong-based firm sent US$25 million to fraudsters after she believed she was instructed to do so by her chief financial officer on a video call that also included other colleagues. Deepfakes, one of 2024’s increasingly common cyber risks for businesses and organizations, is on track to become a major threat to personal cyber liability. A technology known as “deep” learning (hence the name) can generate images, videos, texts, or sound files specifically designed to be highly convincing despite being entirely made up.

This content can turn up anywhere on social media, the internet, or even in emails and phone calls, fooling unsuspecting humans, and, all too often, even detection software. Deepfakes aren’t always produced for malicious activities; some are used widely for entertainment. However, the growing sophistication of deepfakes and the availability of the technology needed to make it may have serious implications for cyber risk.

Cyber criminals can leverage this technology to trick victims into divulging sensitive information, transferring money, or performing other activities. Reputations can be damaged by fabricated images of victims engaged in illegal or controversial acts. This type of deep fake can also enable blackmail in exchange for not releasing the material. In addition to impersonating individuals, cyber criminals can use deep fakes to bypass biometric verification or create false advertising.

The options for managing personal cyber risk can differ in crucial ways.

Personally identifiable information (PII) is the primary driver of identity theft and most other cyber fraud. Major data breaches are becoming common place, such as the incident that happened in 2023 (but wasn’t reported until August 2024) that credit exposed 2.7 billion records. Bad actors exploit this kind of information to directly engage in fraudulent transactions or create trust with their targets in more complex schemes.

Thanks to heavy marketing and wide availability from banks and card issuers, consumers tend to be familiar with Identity Theft Protection (ITP). As the name implies, such plans revolve around the risk of stolen identity and can alleviate some of the work and costs related to monitoring and mitigating the fallout from identity theft.

In contrast, Personal Cyber Insurance (PCI) offers coverage for a broader range of losses. Covered risks, in addition to ITP, can include cyber extortion, online fraud and deceptive transfers, data breaches, cyberbullying, and more. An important aspect of PCI is that it can help provide financial reimbursment from covered “cyber scams” or related social engineering risk not directly tied to identity theft, cyber crimes which are on the rise. It also offers assistance and financial reimbursment for compromised devices. For example, if a policyholder is hacked, personal cyber insurance may help cover the costs of hiring a professional to reformat the hard drive, reinstall the operating system, and restore data from the backup.

“Social engineering and other cyber-related threats against consumers continue to grow and evolve, and insurance carriers are offering affordable personal cyber coverage that can be easily added to a homeowners or renters insurance policy,” says James Hajjar, Chief Product Officer at Hartford Steam Boiler (HSB).

HSB, which has been offering personal cyber insurance since 2015, has evolved its coverage multiple times over the years to stay ahead of cyber risk trends and the dynamic threat landscape. Given the increasing complexity of cyber risks and the rise of sophisticated scams — such as phishing and ransomware — that kind of protection shouldn’t be limited to identity theft. Robust PCI coverage safeguards against a range of other cyber-related issues and provides critical support to ensure policyholders aren’t left to deal with the financial aftermath of a cyber incident alone.

“It’s crucial that cyber insurance is specifically designed to help individuals protect themselves against these evolving threats and provides financial security and additional programs and services if someone is hacked,” Hajjar says.

Historically, ITP has been widely offered through banks, credit unions, credit card issuers, and credit reporting agencies. Either product type may be purchased as either standalone or optional add-on coverage for homeowners, rental, or condo insurance policies.

The IC3 says it receives about 2,412 complaints daily, but many more cybercrimes likely go unreported for various reasons. Complaints tracked over the past five years have impacted at least 8 million people. The 2023 Data Breach Report, which details the larger dataset of cyber crime complaints to the FBI’s Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC), reveals that last year delivered a bumper crop of cybersecurity failures – 3,205 publicly reported data compromises, impacting an estimated 353,027,892 individuals.

A new conversation about personal cyber insurance begins.

Triple-I and HSB are teaming up to uncover ways to enhance support and resources for insurance agents while improving personal cyber insurance options for policyholders. If you are an agent, please take three minutes to help by participating in our survey. Your contribution will be invaluable in shaping the future of personal cyber insurance.

Corporate Social Responsibility, Legal Environment, Regulation, Technology, Webinars

Insurers Need to Lead
on Ethical Use of AI

Leave a comment

 

Every major technological advancement prompts new ethical concerns or shines a fresh light on existing ones. Artificial intelligence is no different in that regard. As the property/casualty insurance industry taps the speed and efficiency generative AI offers and navigates the practical complexities of the AI toolset, ethical considerations must remain in the foreground.  

Traditional AI systems recognize patterns in data to make predictions. Generative AI goes beyond predicting – it generates new data as its primary output.  As a result, it can support strategy and decision making through conversational, back-and-forth “prompting” using natural language, rather than complicated, time-consuming coding.

A recently published report by Triple-I and SAS, a global leader in data and AI, discusses how insurers are uniquely positioned to advance the conversation for ethical AI – “not just for their own businesses, but for all businesses; not just in a single country, but worldwide.” 

AI inevitably will influence the insurance sector, whether through the types of perils covered or by influencing how insurance functions like underwriting, pricing, policy administration, and claims processing and payment are carried out. By shaping an ethical approach to implementing AI tools, insurers can better balance risk with innovation for their own businesses, as well as for their customers.

Conversely, failure to help guide AI’s evolution could leave insurers — and their clients — at a disadvantage. Without proactive engagement, insurers will likely find themselves adapting to practices that might not fully consider the specific needs of their industry or their clients. Further, if AI is regulated without insurers’ input, those regulations could fail to account for the complexity of insurance – leading to guidelines that are less effective or equitable.

“When it comes to artificial intelligence, insurers must work alongside regulators to build trust,” said Matthew McHatten, president and CEO of MMG Insurance, in a webinar introducing the report. “Carriers can add valuable context that guides the regulatory conversation while emphasizing the value AI can bring to our policyholders.” 

During the webinar, Peter L. Miller, CPCU, president and CEO of The Institutes, noted that generative AI already is helping insurers “move from repairing and replacing after a loss occurs to predicting and preventing losses from ever happening in the first place,” as well as enabling efficiencies across the risk-management and insurance value chain.

Jennifer Kyung, chief underwriting officer for USAA, discussed several use cases involving AI, including analyzing aerial images to identify exposures for her company’s members. If a potential condition concern is identified, she said, “We can trigger an inspection or we can reach out to those members and have a conversation around mitigation.”

USAA also uses AI to transcribe customer calls and “identify themes that help us improve the quality of our service.”  Future use cases Kyung discussed include using AI to analyze claim files and other large swaths of unstructured data to improve cost efficiency and customer experience.

Mike Fitzgerald, advisory industry consultant for SAS, compared the risks associated with generative AI to the insurance industry’s early experience with predictive models in the early 2000s. Predictive models and insurance credit scores are two innovations that have benefited policyholders but have not always been well understood by consumers and regulators.  Such misunderstandings have led to pushback against these underwriting and pricing tools that more accurately match risk with price.

Fitzgerald advised insurers to “look back at the implementation of predictive models and how we could have done that differently.”

When it comes to AI-specific perils, Iris Devriese, underwriting and AI liability lead for Munich Re, said, “AI insurance and underwriting of AI risk is at the point in the market where cyber insurance was 25 years ago. At first, cyber policies were tailored to very specific loss scenarios… You could really see cyber insurance picking up once there was a spike of losses from cyber incidents. Once that happened, cyber was addressed in a more systematic way.”

Devriese said lawsuits related to AI are currently “in the infancy stage. We’ve all heard of IP-related lawsuits popping up and there’ve been a few regulatory agencies – especially here in the U.S. – who’ve spoken out very loudly about bias and discrimination in the use of AI models.”

She noted that AI regulations have recently been introduced in Europe.

“This will very much spur the market to form guidelines and adopt responsible AI initiatives,” Devriese said.

The Triple-I/SAS report recommends that insurers lead by example by developing their own detailed plans to deliver ethical AI in their own operations. This will position them as trusted experts to help lead the wider business and regulatory community in the implementation of ethical AI. The report includes a framework for implementing an ethical AI approach.

LEARN MORE AT JOINT INDUSTRY FORUM

Three key contributors to the project – Peter L. Miller, Matthew McHatten, and Jennifer Kyung — will share their insights on AI, climate resilience, and more at Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum in Miami on Nov. 19-20. 

Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods

Executive Exchange: Using Advanced Tools
to Drill Into Flood Risk

Leave a comment

Analysis based on precise, granular data is key to fair, accurate insurance pricing – and is more important than ever before in an era of increased climate-related risks. In a recent Executive Exchange discussion with Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan, a co-founder of Norway-based 7Analytics discussed how his company’s methodology – honed by use in the oil and gas industry – can help insurers identify opportunities to profitably write flood coverage in what might seem to be “untouchable” areas.

7Analytics uses hydrology, geology, and data science to develop high-precision flood risk data tools.

“We are four oil and gas geologists behind 7Analytics,” said Jonas Torland, who also is the company’s chief commercial officer, “and between us we’ve spent 100 years chasing fluids in the very complicated subsurface.”

Torland believes his firm can bring a new level of refined expertise to U.S. insurers seeking to pinpoint pockets of insurability against flood.

“Instead of analyzing faults and carrier beds, we’re now analyzing streams and culverts and changing land-use features,” Torland told Kevelighan. “I think the approach we bring is brilliant for problems related to climate and population migration and urban pluvial flooding in particular.”

Torland said he hopes his company can help close the U.S. flood protection gap by giving private insurers the comfort levels and incentives they need to write the coverage. While more insurers have been covering flood risk in recent years, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) still underwrites the lion’s share of flood risk.

NFIP’s recently reformed pricing methodology, Risk Rating 2.0 – which aims to make the government agency’s premium rates more actuarially sound and equitable by better aligning them with individual properties’ risk – has created concerns among policyholders whose premiums are rising as rates become more aligned with principles of risk-based pricing.

As the cost of participating in NFIP rises for some, it is reasonable to expect that private insurers will recognize the market opportunity and respond by applying cutting-edge data and analytics capabilities and more refined pricing techniques to seize those opportunities. This is where Torland believes 7Analytics can help, and he noted that the company had already had some positive test results in flood-prone Florida.

Kevelighan agreed that solutions like those provided by 7Analytics are what is needed to help private insurers close the flood insurance gap. Insurers are telling Triple-I as much.

“I think we can all agree that the current way we review flood risk is antiquated,” Kevelighan said. “So we’ve got to bring that new technology, that new innovation to begin changing behaviors and changing how and where we develop and how we live.”

Learn More:

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

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