All posts by Jeff Dunsavage

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Severe Convective Storm, Tornado, Wind

Industry, Universities Team Up to Study Convective Storms

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Research Writer, Triple-I

In a year marked by severe convective storm-induced damage across the United States, timely and accurate data is more essential than ever to understand, predict, and prevent these evolving weather perils. Though federal cuts to weather monitoring and modeling have raised concerns about the industry’s capacity for risk mitigation, a new research center backed by insurers and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) aims to help bridge the gap.

Directed by Dr. Victor Gensini, a professor at Northern Illinois University and a Triple-I non-resident scholar, the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Convective Storms (CIRCS) will leverage the expertise of nearly two dozen scientists to develop research focused on advancing resilience against severe convective storms, which range from thunderstorms with lightning to tornadoes, straight-line winds, and hail.

Northern Illinois University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison launched CIRCS with $1.5 million in funding from NSF, as part of a joint initiative with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to create an Industry-University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) that can support the insurance sector.

Beyond funds under the IUCRC model, CIRCS also receives “funding for research, students, and lab equipment” from private industry members, most of whom are “insurance and reinsurance companies interested in research on convective storms,” said Gensini, who teaches in NIU’s Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Environment. He added that CIRCS includes actuarial scientists within its panel of experts to “approach this specific peril from multiple directions.”

Rising in both frequency and severity, convective storms accounted for $42 billion in global insured losses during the first half of 2024 alone, driven by 12 U.S. storms with $1 billion or more in losses each, according to a Swiss Re report. Large U.S. thunderstorms contributed to the second-costliest half-year ever for global insured losses in 2025, triggering a surge in flash flooding that highlights the growing flood protection gap in inland areas.

Paradigm-setting research

In addition to the center’s launch, Gensini recently celebrated a major data haul gathered during the largest hail study ever conducted, known as ICECHIP – short for In-situ Collaborative Experiment for Collection of Hail in the Plains. Funded with an $11 million grant from NSF, the field study sent Gensini and more than 100 other scientists and students across the Great Plains to chase and analyze hailstorms, which facilitate as much as 80 percent of severe convective storm claims in any one year.

Collecting more than 10,000 stones for study, the researchers hope to reduce hail risk through improved forecasting, enabling residents to better protect themselves and their belongings before a hailstorm hits. As the first field campaign dedicated to studying hail since the 1970s, ICECHIP’s participants expect their data to inform research analysis for years to come, NIU reported.

“We recovered tennis-ball-sized hail or greater in about half of our instrument deployments,” Gensini said. “You hope and dream for these kinds of observations in order to push forward hail science.”

By partnering academia with industry and government agencies, CIRCS and ICECHIP showcase the kinds of collaborative, data-driven solutions needed to address climate risks in ways that respect the unique needs of all affected groups, fostering risk management strategies that can build resilience at a community level.

Learn More:

Storm-Resistant Roof Efforts Gain Ground

2025 Tornadoes Highlight Convective Storm Losses

Severe Convective Storm Risks Reshape U.S. Property Insurance Market

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

Triple-I/Milliman: Severe Convective Storms Restrain P&C Growth

2024’s Nat Cats: A Scholarly View

Affordability, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Homeowners Insurance, Hurricane, Insurers and the Economy, Roof Condition, Severe Convective Storm, Tornado, Wind

Storm-Resistant Roof Efforts Gain Ground

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Research Writer, Triple-I

Severe convective storms cost insurers an estimated $46 billion in the first three quarters of 2025, Gallagher Re has reported, marking the third straight year of U.S. claims from these events through September exceeding $40 billion. Total losses from these storms – which include tornadoes, hail, straight-line winds, and drenching thunderstorms – reflect growing impacts from inland flooding and, in particular, the vulnerability of roofs to damage from these storms.

Approximately 70 to 90 percent of total insured residential catastrophic losses arise from roof-related damage, according to Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) estimates. Though poorly maintained roofs contribute to this finding, outdated building codes exacerbate the risk, leading insurance industry leaders to advocate for widespread adoption of FORTIFIED roof standards.

Developed by IBHS, FORTIFIED standards can reduce severe weather damage in new or retrofitted homes through construction methods like sealing roof decks and anchoring roofs to wall framing using stronger nails. While such standards remain voluntary, Louisiana has modelled the proactive approach needed to facilitate adoption with the recent expansion of its Louisiana Fortify Homes Program, which began offering homeowners thousand-dollar grants to retrofit their houses along these guidelines in 2023, incentivizing roughly 40 percent of the now 10,000 FORTIFIED roofs in the state.

“FORTIFIED roofs are the long-term solution for affordable insurance in South Louisiana,” said state insurance commissioner Tim Temple, noting that his office aims to implement bigger and more standardized insurance discounts for FORTIFIED homeowners to reinforce the state’s already improved insurance rates.

An emerging trend

Though Louisiana became the “fastest-growing state” to adopt FORTIFIED standards, Alabama pioneered incentivizing them through its own Strengthen Alabama Homes program, financed by the insurance industry with more than $86 million in grants since 2016. Designed to enhance community resiliency while also lowering insurance rates, completed retrofits qualify residents for premium discounts ranging from 25 to 55 percent.

A May 2025 study from the Alabama Department of Insurance, in collaboration with the University of Alabama Center for Insurance Information and Research, showcases the program’s success, highlighting that FORTIFIED homes suffered less property damage and fewer insurance claims than homes built using other construction methods when Hurricane Sally made landfall in the state.

“The Center’s Hurricane Sally report doesn’t just quantify the effectiveness of the FORTIFIED program, it clearly demonstrates that homes can be built to survive storms, making them eminently more insurable,” said IBHS CEO Roy Wright. “This report should be a clarion call to communities across the country, urging them to implement Alabama’s multipronged approach to promoting disaster mitigation.”

Insurers answered the call in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and South Carolina, all of which boast similar programs backed by the insurance sector and accompanying premium reductions. Mississippi nearly joined their ranks before state funding for the grant program was suspended earlier this year, though insurance discounts remain available. States such as Florida, Georgia, and Minnesota also offer comprehensive insurance discounts for FORTIFIED properties, with the latter poised to fully replicate a grant program in response to mounting hailstorms.

Addressing cost concerns

While 75 percent of homeowners express willingness to invest in weather-resistant features, only 18 percent have reinforced or replaced their roofs with those materials, a recent Nationwide survey reveals. Grants help lower the cost of entry to FORTIFIED roofs for many homeowners, but it is worth noting the relative affordability of such upgrades, which can cost as little as $500 for a 2,000 sq. ft. home.

Describing the benefits of FORTIFIED standards as “measurable and increasingly essential,” Nationwide Property & Casualty president and COO Mark Berven emphasized the crucial role insurance agents play in raising consumer awareness of these risk reductions and their broad accessibility.

“Our industry needs to remind homeowners they have control in the face of severe weather events,” Berven wrote. “By investing in resilience, they can take an active role in protecting their homes, their valuables and their memories – giving them the peace of mind they’re looking for.”

Learn More:

Why Roof Resilience Matters More Than Ever

Study Touts Payoffs From Alabama Wind Resilience Program

Resilience Investment Payoffs Outpace Future Costs More Than 30 Times

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

FEMA Highlights Role of Modern Roofs in Preventing Hurricane Damage

Louisiana Senator Seeks Resumption of Resilience Investment Program

Lightning

Commercial Lightning Losses: You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure

Leave a comment

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

Lightning strikes costs homeowners more than $1 billion a year – but it’s unclear how much businesses lose through lightning-related damage. This is because many fires at commercial properties are recorded simply as “general fire damage”, making it hard to quantify lightning-specific losses or understand true commercial exposure.

In some jurisdictions, fire inspection forms lack a designated field for lightning. Further, inspectors may not be trained nor instructed to identify lightning as a cause. As a result, lightning-related fires often go unrecognized.

Insurers can help address these gaps by collaborating with fire service professionals.

Properly designed and installed lightning protection systems (LPS) significantly reduce risk and mitigate losses. To support accurate risk assessment, encourage mitigation, and appropriately value these systems, lightning must be identified as a distinct cause of loss in claims data.

Lightning damage also extends well beyond fire. Electrical surges can destroy wiring, controls, and electronic infrastructure, resulting in expensive business interruption. Illustrative cases reveal the scale of potential loss:

• A furniture manufacturer on the East Coast incurred over $1 million in insured damages from a single strike, including structural harm, inventory losses, production downtime, and lost revenue.
• A Midwestern apartment complex experienced over $50 million in claims for structural and electrical damage, as well as the displacement of residents.

These incidents demonstrate the high stakes of lightning events and the importance of mitigation. However, because consistent data across commercial properties is scarce, insurers, risk managers, and building owners lack a full picture of exposure, highlighting the need for better claims tracking to inform risk assessment and mitigation strategies.

A lightning protection system is far more than a single rod and cable. It is a coordinated network designed to intercept and safely redirect lightning energy away from structures and equipment. A compliant LPS includes five essential components:

  • Strike termination devices (air terminals/”rods”): metal rods that intercept a lightning strike.
  • Conductors: heavy braided cables that carry current toward the ground.
  • Grounding (earth termination): electrodes/loops that disperse energy into the earth.
  • Bonding / potential equalization: connecting metal and internal systems (ie. water, fire, security) so they rise/fall in voltage together, preventing side-flash.
  • Surge protective devices (SPDs): protect power/data/controls from transient over voltages.

Systems missing any of these elements, or not installed to national standards, are insufficient. Compliance with NFPA 780, UL 96A, andLPI 175 ensures thorough protection.

Proper installation, inspection, and maintenance are critical. Systems should be installed by certified lightning protection contractors and inspected/certified through independent third-party inspection programs. Ongoing maintenance and re-inspection, particularly after roof or structural changes or severe storms, helps ensure that the system continues to operate as intended.

Lightning protection systems, installed according to the standards, defend against both direct and indirect strikes. Direct strikes occur when a lightning bolt hits a building, potentially causing fire, structural damage, or electrical failure. Air terminals intercept the strike, and conductors safely route energy to the ground. Indirect strikes happen when nearby lightning induces surges through utility lines, piping, or the ground. SPDs, bonding, and grounding systems manage these surges, helping to protect life-safety systems, critical operations, and business continuity.

By addressing both direct and indirect risks, lightning protection systems protect property, minimize downtime, and reduce potential claims/costs.

Effective loss control begins with risk assessment. NFPA 780 provides a straightforward methodology that considers local lightning frequency, building height and footprint, occupancy, and operational continuity needs. Facilities where downtime carries high costs — or where electrical or operational systems are vital to the community — should be prioritized. When risk assessment is paired with certified installation, third-party inspection, and routine maintenance, the result is fewer and less severe claims, along with more resilient operations.

Lightning damage is preventable, but tracking is not as consistent as it is for other hazards, such as flooding. Standards-compliant lightning protection systems mitigate risks and improve resilience.

Insurers can reduce claims severity and gain better insights into lightning losses by tracking incidents, incentivizing mitigation and supporting standards-based protection. In addition, there is an opportunity to collaborate with fire service professionals to address gaps in fire inspection reporting and ensure lightning-related fires are accurately identified. 

For more resources, visit the Lightning Protection Institute.

Learn More:

The Importance of Protecting Critical Facilities From Lightning Strikes

Assess, Measure, Mitigate Your Lightning Risk

Lightning: Quantifying a Complex, Costly Peril to Support Resilience

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Hurricane, Parametric, Risk Management

Jamaica Payout Spotlights Potential of Parametric

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Research Writer, Triple-I

Jamaica will receive a $150 million payout following devastation from Hurricane Melissa from its parametric catastrophe policy. Though one of the largest such payouts in recent years, the loss “had very little impact” on investors in the bonds backing the policy.

Investors in insurance-linked securities (ILS) “understand that these risks are part of what they cover,” said Jean-Louis Monnier, head of ILS Alternative Capital Partners at Swiss Re.

Among the strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever recorded, Hurricane Melissa became the most powerful cyclone to make landfall in the island’s history, causing an estimated $6 billion to $7 billion in damages and at least 75 deaths across the Caribbean. With a minimum central pressure of 892 millibars, the storm met the parametric thresholds for a full payout. The policy was backed by a bond issued in 2024 by the World Bank through its International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and structured by Aon Securities and Swiss Re Capital Markets.

Unlike traditional indemnity insurance, parametric insurance covers risks without sending adjusters to evaluate post-catastrophe damage. Rather than paying for damages incurred, policies pay out if certain conditions are met – for example, if wind speeds or rainfall measurements meet an established threshold. Speed of payment and reduced administration costs can ease the burden on insurers while expediting recovery for policyholders.

Determining appropriate parametric triggers is no easy task. Just a year earlier, the same policy did not pay out after air pressure levels narrowly missed the predefined minimum during Hurricane Beryl, despite widespread destruction. The ensuing backlash generated greater public and industry scrutiny over parametric coverage, including an intergovernmental “examination” into the ILS market broadly.

Monnier explained that this specific bond was designed to respond to larger events like Melissa, as part of the country’s extensive risk management strategy that encompasses many layers of protection. Parametric coverage from Skyline Partners and Munich Re, for instance, offered a partial payout after Beryl, as did the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility Segregated Portfolio Company, which issued its largest single payout in history at $70.8 million after Melissa.

In a press release on the payout, World Bank vice president and treasurer Jorge Familiar emphasized the “proactive approach” of Jamaica’s disaster risk management, noting it could “serve as a model for countries facing similar threats and seeking to strengthen their financial resilience to natural disasters.”

Estimated to reach $34.4 billion by 2033, the global parametric insurance market is growing at a rapid pace, driven by increasingly severe climate and weather-related risks. Yet many industry leaders identify parametric structures as less comprehensive – and therefore not a substitute for – traditional indemnity risk transfers. By design, parametric insurance correlates to measurable events rather than actual damages, leading to an innate basis risk when the two do not perfectly align.

Whereas indemnity coverage is “generally preferable,” parametric structures can “complement other forms of insurance” and are particularly beneficial for sovereigns, which tend to lack the granular data needed to inform underwriting and pricing of indemnity catastrophe bonds, according to Monnier.

“Many countries use both instruments, and they can be very complementary,” Monnier concluded. “There is a large global protection gap, and Swiss Re advocates for reducing that gap, whether through traditional reinsurance or by structuring capital-market solutions.”

Learn More:

Parametric Insurance Gains Traction Across U.S.

Hurricane Delta Triggered Coral Reef Parametric Insurance

Mangrove Insurance: Parametric + Indemnity May Aid Coastal Resilience

Affordability, Homeowners Insurance, Insurers and the Economy, Market Conditions

Triple-I Chief Economist Testifies on NYC Measure On Short-Term Rentals

Leave a comment

By Loretta Worters, Vice President – Media Relations, Triple-I

Triple-I Chief Economist and Data Scientist Dr. Michel Léonard provided insurance insight to the New York City Council’s Committee on Housing and Buildings as they consider Local Bills 948-A and 1107-A. The measures aim to address New York City’s housing-affordability challenges by expanding homeowners’ ability to earn income through short-term rentals.

Léonard’s testimony focused on helping policymakers understand the protection gaps that can arise when residential dwellings are used for commercial purposes. He began by emphasizing Triple-I’s role as a nonprofit research and education organization, not a lobbying entity.

Many homeowners, Léonard noted, are unaware that standard homeowners’ policies generally exclude commercial activity, meaning hosts who fail to update their coverage may face denied claims, inadequate liability protection, or higher out-of-pocket costs if a loss occurs. Because short-term rentals fall under commercial use, homeowners who rent out their homes — whether occasionally or regularly — may inadvertently operate without appropriate coverage.

Operating a short-term rental typically requires:

  • Notifying their insurer,
  • Adhering to policy terms, and
  • Obtaining short-term rental-specific or commercial coverage.

Committee Chair Pierina Ana Sanchez asked what the cost impact might be for homeowners who must shift to a commercial policy. Léonard explained that, while costs vary, the more pressing issue is that many homeowners are unaware they have gaps in coverage.

This means homeowners, renters, and residents could all face significant financial or liability risks if an incident occurs. These risks are especially complex in multi-unit buildings, where short-term rental activity can affect both an individual unit’s policy and the building’s master policy—potentially increasing premiums and liability exposure for all residents. The result can be large uncovered losses, disputes, or claims that ripple throughout buildings and neighborhoods.

Homeowners insurance in New York City is significantly different from New York State. In written testimony to the New York Senate Committees on Investigations and Government Operations, Insurance, and Housing, Construction, and Community Development on Tuesday, November 18, Triple-I Chief Insurance Officer Patrick Schmid cited data from the Insurance Research Council (IRC), saying New York ranks 29th in its homeowners’ affordability study, with a 2.11 percent ratio of homeowners’ insurance expenditure to median household income. This is a lower percentage than a decade earlier for the state. According to IRC, New York’s homeowners’ insurance expenditures equal 0.39 percent of median.

Insurance in New York City is complicated, influenced by high property values, dense construction, and a challenging legal and claims environment. Rising labor and construction costs also contribute to higher premiums and more severe claims.

Coverage gaps and denied claims, even when policies are applied correctly, can lead to public misunderstandings about insurance. As Allstate CEO Tom Wilson recently noted, trust between consumers and companies is at a “tipping point” and must be reinforced through reliability and clear communication.

With its independent insight, Triple-I gave policymakers a clear understanding of the potential insurance consequences of expanding short-term rentals in residential buildings, helping them make informed decisions that balance affordability, consumer protection, and risk management.

Learn More:

Triple-I Testifies on New York Insurance Affordability

IRC: Homeowners’ Insurance Rate Filing Growing Less Efficient

Allstate, Aspen Initiative Seeks to Ease Trust Gap

IoT Solutions Offer Homeowners, Insurers Value — But How Much?

Disasters, Litigation Reshape Homeowners’ Insurance Affordability

JIF 2025: U.S. Policy Changes and Uncertainty Imperil Insurance Affordability

Insurance Affordability, Availability Demand Collaboration, Innovation

Tariff Uncertainty May Strain Insurance Markets, Challenge Affordability

Affordability, Insurers and the Economy, Market Conditions

Triple-I Testifies on
New York Insurance Affordability

Leave a comment

By Jeff Dunsavage, Senior Research Analyst, Triple-I

New Yorkers – like residents of all U.S. states – have been struggling with rising costs in recent years, including the cost of home and auto insurance coverage. This week, Patrick Schmid, Triple-I’s chief insurance officer, testified to New York lawmakers about why homeowners’ insurance premiums are rising and where New York policyholders stand relative to other states.

“New York’s homeowners’ insurance market is, in fact, functioning well and remains affordable when properly contextualized,” Schmid said in written testimony to the New York Senate Committees on Investigations and Government Operations, Insurance, and Housing, Construction, and Community Development. “While premiums may appear high in absolute dollars, they are relatively average and reasonable as a percentage of household income.”

Citing data from the Insurance Research Council (IRC), Schmid said New York ranks 29th in its homeowners’ affordability study, with a 2.11 percent ratio of homeowners’ insurance expenditure to median household income ratio. This is a lower percentage than a decade earlier for the state. According to IRC – like Triple-I, an affiliate of The Institutes – New York’s homeowners’ insurance expenditures equal 0.39 percent of median home value.

“When a home costs $413,588 and insurance costs $1,602 annually (0.39% of the home’s value), the insurance premium is not necessarily the driver of unaffordability within the region,” Schmid said. “The underlying property cost, and associated replacement costs, are likely a key challenge.”

He compared New York with:

  • Louisiana, with a ratio of 1.18 percent (more than three times New York’s)
  • Mississippi, at 1.04 percent (nearly three times New York)
  • Alabama, at 0.78 percent (twice New York)
  • Florida, at 0.4 percent (1.7 times New York)

“Only 20 states have more efficient insurance costs relative to home values,” Schmid said. “This contradicts the narrative of an affordability crisis in New York’s homeowners insurance market. Our market is delivering coverage at rates that are among the most competitive in the nation when measured against the value of assets being protected.”

New Yorkers face significant cost burdens that are structural and related to a variety of factors outside of insurance, Schmid said.

The fundamental driver of insurance costs is the cost to rebuild homes, most notably:

  • Labor costs: Skilled trades in NY metro areas command premium wages;
  • Material costs: Transportation, storage, and compliance add to expenses;
  • Building codes: Stricter standards increase rebuilding costs but improve long-term resilience and reduce future losses; and
  • Land values: Property values include expensive land that doesn’t require insurance, making the actual structure component even more valuable proportionally.

Schmid cautioned against lawmakers following the temptation to intervene in insurance markets – as some states have attempted to do in recent years — emphasizing that “targeting insurance premiums would address a symptom rather than the cause, potentially destabilizing a well-functioning, competitive market without improving overall housing affordability for New York residents.”

Learn More:

Triple-I Brief Explains Benefits of Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance

Calls for Insurance-Price Legislation Would Hurt Policyholders, Not Help

Illinois Lawmakers Reject Risk-Based Pricing Challenge

Calif. Risk/Regulatory Environment Highlights Role of Risk-Based PricingIllinois Bill Highlights Need for Education on Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance Coverage

Artificial Intelligence, Technology

Global Insurtech Funding: Fewer,
Bigger Deals, Led by A.I.

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Research Writer, Triple-I

Global insurtech funding hit $1.01 billion in the third quarter of 2025, marking three consecutive years of average quarterly funding near $1.1 billion, according to a recent Gallagher Re report. Raising $751.72 million, A.I.-based insurtechs accounted for almost 75 percent of all funding across 49 deals, raising $751.72 million, largely attributed to the commercial insurance industry’s evolving risk profile.

Fewer, bigger deals

Though down 7.3 percent from the previous quarter, third-quarter results reflected less quarterly volatility compared to the preceding three-year period, which fluctuated with greater uncertainty around a higher average of $2.7 billion. Deal count also dropped to 76 – the lowest total count since the second quarter of 2020 – as average deal size rose from $12.83 million in the second quarter of 2025 to $15.70 million.

Property/casualty insurers financed eight of the quarter’s 10 largest deals, propelling the industry’s total third-quarter funding to $690.28 million – a 90.5 percent increase from its seven-year low in the prior quarter.

Reinsurers led another dramatic market shift by backing a record sector high of 51 tech investments, suggesting “the appetite for pure venture risk is alive and well” even as investors place fewer “massive, high-risk bets” in favor of “a more balanced approach,” said Andrew Johnston, global head of InsurTech at Gallagher Re.

A.I. takes center stage

With over 25 percent of commercial lines now sold through digital channels, the report outlines how insurers can meet the demands of changing customer expectations and business practices – particularly the digital collection and storage of customer data – by leveraging A.I.

By improving data extraction, pattern identification, and fraud detection, A.I. tools streamline routine decision-making while freeing up underwriters’ capacity to build client relationships and assess complicated, high-value risks, the study found. On a concrete level, such efficiency gains include high-resolution aerial imagery to quickly verify property damages, dashcams to monitor real-time driving behaviors, and wearable IoT solutions to prevent workplace injuries, demonstrating the utility of A.I.-powered insurtechs across commercial lines.

Effective integration, however, transcends simple adoption. Freddie Scarratt, Gallagher Re’s global deputy head of InsurTech, emphasized the enduring challenges of applying A.I. to legacy administration systems and of an emerging talent gap to bridge data and A.I.  literacy expertise with traditional underwriting.

Business leaders expressed similar concerns in a Gallagher Re survey released earlier this year, highlighting a skills shortage and pervasive ethical implications as barriers to A.I.  adoption.

Underscoring the industry’s goal to “supercharge” underwriting judgement rather than replace it, Scarratt concluded that “the most successful (re)insurers of the future will be those that combine their expertise in relationship management, complex deal structuring, and cycle management with the speed, scale, and analytical power of A.I.”

Learn More:

JIF 2025: Litigation Trends, Artificial Intelligence Take Center Stage

Tech — Especially A.I. — Is Top of Mind for Global Insurance Executives

Insurers Need to Lead on Ethical Use of AI

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Insurers and the Economy

End of Federal Shutdown Revives NFIP — For Now

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Research Writer, Triple-I 

With last week’s end of the longest U.S. government shutdown in history, Congress reauthorized FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  

During the shutdown, the NFIP continued to pay claims using available funds, but it could not sell or renew policies until reauthorized. These restrictions affected an estimated 1,300 property sales each day, as prospective property owners must purchase flood coverage in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), where private flood options – despite gaining traction – are still limited. 

With millions of homeowners and countless communities relying on the NFIP, many organizations across the risk and insurance industry sent a letter urging congressional leaders to reauthorize NFIP ahead of its expiration, writing that a lapse “could further impact affordable housing, create additional challenges for small businesses, unnecessarily further increase the cost of homeownership, and must be avoided.” 

While reauthorization allows NFIP insurers to retroactively issue policies for applications received during the shutdown, the measure extends their authority only through Jan. 30, 2026, leaving the program’s fate an open question. Absent a long-term NFIP authorization bill, Congress has now reauthorized the program 34 times since fiscal year 2017. 

Incentivizing risk reduction 

Flood risk was long considered untouchable by private insurers, which is a large part of the reason NFIP exists. While private participation in the flood market has grown in recent years, NFIP remains a critical source of protection for this growing and underinsured peril. 

Beyond providing economic protection for policyholders, the NFIP also plays a critical role in promoting climate resilience, particularly through its Community Rating System (CRS). A voluntary program, the CRS rewards homeowners with premium discounts when their communities invest in floodplain management practices that exceed the NFIP’s minimum standards, with the program’s highest rating qualifying residents for a 45 percent premium reduction. 

After the cancellation of other FEMA-managed initiatives like BRIC, the CRS can help provide relief where still needed. For instance, Jefferson Parish homeowners displaced following Hurricane Ida in 2021 had secured BRIC grants to elevate and reconstruct their homes shortly before the program ended, leaving these projects in limbo. But the CRS now offers residents and businesses more than $12 million in flood insurance savings annually after the parish secured a Class 3 rating – the first of its kind in Louisiana. 

By incentivizing improved building codes, citizen awareness campaigns, and other resilience solutions, the CRS can ensure that vulnerable communities “will continue to benefit from a comprehensive floodplain management and mitigation plan that helps make us more resilient in the face of disasters,” said Jefferson Parish President Cynthia Lee Sheng in a statement. Notably, however, the parish earned its rating mere weeks ahead of the NFIP lapse, which delayed the discounts from appearing in new and renewed policies. 

As climate and weather-related events become increasingly frequent and severe, the success of these investments will depend on proactive strategies informed by timely, granular data. Though NOAA announced it would cease tracking the country’s costliest disasters earlier this year, nonprofit Climate Central aims to fill the gap by rebuilding NOAA’s database and expanding it to track smaller catastrophes, providing insurers and other stakeholders more reliable information to understand individual disasters. 

Taken together, such efforts can help insurers accurately reflect rising risks in insurance pricing while engaging with communities and businesses in solutions to keep coverage accessible. Sustaining this balance involves continuous collaboration between public and private sectors. 

Learn More: 

JIF 2025: Federal Cuts Imperil Resilience Efforts 

Some Weather Service Jobs Being Restored; BRIC Still Being Litigated 

Louisiana Senator Seeks Resumption of Resilience Investment Program 

Nonprofit to Rescue NOAA Billion-Dollar Dataset 

BRIC Funding Loss Underscores Need for Collective Action on Climate Resilience 

Hurricane Helene Highlights Inland Flood Protection Gap 

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 

Coastal New Jersey Town Regains Class 3 NFIP Rating 

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Floods

Storms Slam California, Raising Mudslide Risk

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Research Writer, Triple-I

An atmospheric river system dumped up to six inches of heavy rains and claimed multiple lives in California last weekend, with thunderstorms on the horizon posing outsized risks for communities still recovering from January’s devastating wildfires.

Triggering mudflows and flash flooding across streets and highways, the multiday storm highlights the added complexity of insuring and preventing disasters in the state’s many wildfire-prone areas.

Coverage confusion

Californians grappling with this destruction may be unaware that homeowners and commercial policies typically exclude flood, mudslide, debris flow, and similar catastrophes, or of the distinctions between these events. Though media outlets may use these terms interchangeably, insurers differentiate between mudflows and mudslides for coverage eligibility.

Essentially rivers of mud, mudflows are covered by flood insurance, which is available from FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and a growing number of private insurers. Mudslides – or masses of rock and earth pulled downhill by gravity – typically do not involve much liquid and remain ineligible for flood coverage.

But if recent perils covered by standard insurance policies either directly or indirectly cause any of these events, insurers must cover ensuing damages, as explained in a notice from California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara shortly before the storms. Such protections can help residents bracing for possible mudslides later this week – particularly those living in Southern California neighborhoods scorched by wildfires earlier this year.

Noting that “it is critical to prepare for flooding, mud, and debris flow when heavy wind and rain, also called atmospheric rivers, are forecast,” Janet Ruiz – Triple-I’s California-based director of strategic communication – advises policyholders to “check your insurance coverage, as you will need a separate flood policy for flooding and mudflow. Use sandbags – most communities provide them free of charge. Be safe, and don’t drive into flooded areas.”

These recommendations are especially vital for fire-scarred areas, where heat-damaged soil repels water and even minor showers can escalate into dangerous flash flooding and debris flows. An absence of vegetation to absorb rain exacerbates both, leaving nearby homes, businesses, and other infrastructure more vulnerable.

From one system to another

Beyond facilitating substantial flooding, the wet weather also weakened elevated fire conditions that emerged during the fall – a reoccurring interplay in California’s climate that complicates developing effective mitigation and resilience strategies. Within the Golden State alone, factors like temperature, humidity, wind, and topography vary too widely to apply a singular mitigation approach, underscoring the importance of property-specific data analysis.

Using case studies from three distinct California areas, research from Triple-I and Guidewire shows how granular data can help identify properties with attractive risk profiles despite these evolving risks. Noting “every property being assessed for wildfire risk is unique,” their report found that home hardening reduces wildfire damage by as much as 70 percent but emphasized proactive collaboration between insurers, regulators, and policyholders as key to long-term success.

With more people moving into the wildland urban interface and communities increasingly hit with inland flooding, such partnerships are crucial to bridge protection gaps while keeping insurance affordable and available.

Learn More:

Mudslides Often Follow Wildfire; Prepare, Know Insurance Implications

Despite Progress, California Insurance Market Faces Headwinds

California Insurance Market at a Critical Juncture

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

Homeowners Insurance, Industry Financials, Insurers and the Economy, Market Conditions

IRC: Homeowners’ Insurance Rate Filing Growing Less Efficient

Leave a comment

By William Nibbelin, Senior Research Actuary, Triple-I

The rate-filing process for homeowners’ insurance has become less efficient and effective, a new study by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) shows.

The report – Rate Regulation in Homeowners Insurance: A Comparison of State Systems – analyzed industry data from 2010 through 2024 across all states, including the District of Columbia. The study found that, not only is it taking longer for insurers to get rate increases approved, but the increases are lower than requested, with bigger gaps between the request and the granted amount than had previously been the case.

Key findings:

  • The number of rate filings is growing at a compound annual growth rate of 3.3 percent from 2018 to 2024 nationwide.
  • The average number of days to approval grew from 44 to 63 days.
  • The number of filings withdrawn increased from 2.9 percent of filings to 3.9 percent of filings.
  • The percentage of filings receiving less rate impact than requested grew by more than 10 points.
  • The disparity in approved rate impact grew by nearly 1 point.
  • Market concentration (as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, or HHI) decreased by 14.6 percent.
  • The residual share of direct written premium has grown at a compound annual growth rate of 10.5 percent from 2020 to 2024
  • 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 2024, the homeowners’ insurance industry experienced a net combined ratio over 100 in 10 of the 15 years. Combined ratio – calculated as losses and expenses divided by earned premium plus operating expenses divided by written premium – is a key measure of underwriting profitability. A combined ratio over 100 represents an underwriting loss.

The IRC 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.

In California, for example, the time to approval exceeds that of the next highest state – New York – by more than four months. California also has the second-fastest-growing residual market share from 2.1 percent in 2019 to 8.2 percent in 2024 and the second-fastest-growing excess and surplus homeowners market share from 0.3 percent in 2010 to 6.3 percent in 2024. This means that, at most, only 85 percent of California homeowners’ insurance is covered by a standard policy.

IRC, like Triple-I, is an affiliate of The Institutes.