All posts by Jeff Dunsavage

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Insurers and the Economy, Regulation, Technology, Wildfire

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

Leave a comment

California’s Department of Insurance last week posted long-awaited rules that remove obstacles to profitably underwriting coverage in the wildfire-prone state. Among other things, the new rules eliminate outdated restrictions on use of catastrophe models in setting premium rates.

The measure also extends language related to catastrophe modeling to “nature-based flood risk reduction.” In the original text, “the only examples provided of the kinds of risk mitigation measures that would have to be considered in this context involved wildfire. However, because the proposed regulations also permit catastrophe modeling with respect to flood lines, it was appropriate to add language to this subdivision relating to flood mitigation.”

The relevant language applies “generally to catastrophe modeling used for purposes of projecting annual loss,” according to documents provided by the state Department of Insurance.

Benefits for policyholders

As a result, the department said in a press release, “Homeowners and businesses will see greater availability, market stability, and recognition for wildfire safety through use of catastrophe modeling.”

For the past 30 years, California regulations – specifically, Proposition 103 – have required insurance companies to apply a catastrophe factor to insurance rates based on historical wildfire losses. In a dynamically changing risk environment, historical data alone is not sufficient for determining fair, accurate insurance premiums. According to Cal Fire, five of the largest wildfires in the state’s history have occurred since 2017. 

The state’s evolving risk profile, combined with the underwriting and pricing constraints imposed by Proposition 103, has led to rising premium rates and, in some cases, insurers deciding to limit or reduce their business in the state.

With fewer private insurance options available, more Californians have been resorting to the state’s FAIR Plan, which offers less coverage for a higher premium. This isn’t a tenable situation.

“Put simply, increasing the number of policyholders in the FAIR Plan threatens the solvency of insurance companies in the voluntary market,”  California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara explained to the State Assembly Committee on Insurance. “If the FAIR Plan experiences a massive loss and cannot pay its claims, by law, insurance companies are on the hook for the unpaid FAIR Plan losses…. This uncertainty is driving insurance companies to further limit coverage to at-risk Californians.”

“Including the use of catastrophe modeling in the rate making process will help stabilize the California insurance market,” said Janet Ruiz, Triple-I’s California-based director of strategic communication. “Homeowners in California will be able to better understand their individual risk and take steps to strengthen their homes.”

The new measure also requires major insurers to increase the writing of comprehensive policies in wildfire-distressed areas equivalent to no less than 85 percent of their statewide market share. Smaller and regional insurance companies must also increase their writing.

Requirements for insurers

It also requires catastrophe models used by insurers to account for mitigation efforts by homeowners, businesses, and communities – something not currently possible under existing outdated regulations today.

Moves like this by state governments – combined with increased availability of more comprehensive and granular data tools to inform underwriting and mitigation investment – will go a long way toward improving resilience and reducing losses.

Learn More:

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: California’s Risk Crisis

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: Proposition 103 and California’s Risk Crisis

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

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

Risk Management, Technology

JIF 2024: Panel Highlights Human-Centered Use
of Advanced Technology

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

Technological innovations — particularly generative AI — are revolutionizing insurance operations and risk management more quickly than the industry can fully accommodate them, necessitating more proactive involvement in their implementation, according to participants in Triple-I’s 2024 Joint Industry Forum.

Such involvement can ensure that the ethical implications of AI remain integral to its continued evolution.

Benefits of AI

Increasingly sophisticated AI models have expedited data processing across the insurance value chain, reshaping underwriting, pricing, claims, and customer service. Some models automate these processes entirely, with one automated claims review system – co-developed by Paul O’Connor, vice president of operational excellence at ServiceMaster – streamlining claims processing through to payment, thereby “removing the friction from the process of disputes,” said O’Connor. 

“We’re at an inflection point of seeing losses dramatically reduced,” said Kenneth Tolson, global president for digital solutions at Crawford & Co., as AI promises to “dramatically mitigate or even eliminate loss” by enabling insurers to resolve problems more efficiently.

Novel insurance products also cover more risk, said Majesco’s chief strategy officer Denise Garth, who pointed to usage-based insurance (UBI) as more appealing to younger buyers. UBI emerged from telematics, which can leverage AI to track actual driving behavior and has been found to encourage significant safety-related changes.

Alongside lower operational costs resulting from AI efficiency gains, such policies suggest a possibility for reduced premiums and, consequently, a diminished protection gap, Garth said.

Utilizing AI presents “the first time in decades that we have the opportunity to truly optimize our operations,” she added.

Industry hurdles

For Patrick Davis, senior vice president and general manager of Data & Analytics at Majesco, developing effective AI strategies hinges not on massive budgets or teams of data scientists, but on the internal organization of existing data.

AI models fail when base datasets are inaccessible or ill-defined, he explained. This is especially true of generative AI, which encourages decision-making by producing new data via conversational prompting.

 “Extremely well-described data” is essential to receiving meaningful, accurate responses, Davis said. Otherwise, “it’s garbage in, garbage out.”

Outdated technology and business practices, however, impede successful AI integration throughout the insurance industry, Davis and Garth agreed.

“We have, as an industry, a lot of legacy,” Garth said. “If we don’t rethink how we’re going about our products and processes, the technology we apply to them will keep doing the same things, and we won’t be able to innovate.”

Beyond frustrating innovation, cultural resistance to change within organizations can delay them in preemptively balancing their unique risks and goals with the likely inevitable influence of AI, leaving themselves and insureds at a disadvantage.

“We’re not going to stop change,” said Reggie Townsend, vice president and head of the data ethics practice at SAS, “but we have to figure out how to adapt to the pace of change in a way that allows us to govern our risk in acceptable ways.”

Ethical implications

Responsible innovation, Townsend said, entails “making sure, when we have changes, that they have a material benefit to human beings” – benefits which an organization clearly defines while being considerate of potential downsides.

Improperly managed data facilitates such downsides from using AI models, contributing to pervasive bias and privacy concerns.

Augmenting base datasets with demographic trend information, for example, may be “tempting,” O’Connor explained, “but where does this data go, once it gets outside our boundaries and augmented elsewhere? Vigilance is absolutely required.”

Organizational oversight committees are crucial to ensuring any major technological advancements remain intentional and ethical, as they encourage innovators to “overcommunicate the ‘why,’” said discussion moderator Peter Miller, president and CEO of The Institutes.

Tolson reaffirmed this point in discussing how his organization’s AI counsel holds him accountable by fostering “diligence and openness” around an “articulated vision,” further fueling collaborative sharing of data cross-organizationally. Collaboration and transparency around AI are key, he stressed, “so that we don’t have to learn the same lesson twice, the hard way twice.”

Looking ahead

Though they do not currently exist in the U.S. on a federal level, AI regulations have already been introduced in some states, following a comprehensive AI Act enacted earlier this year in Europe. With more legislation on the horizon, insurers must help lead these conversations to ensure that AI regulations suit the complex needs of insurance, without hindering the industry’s commitments to equity and security.

A recent report by Triple-I and SAS, a global leader in data and AI, centers the insurance industry’s role in guiding conversations around ethical AI implementation on a global, multi-sector scale. Defending this position, Townsend explained how the industry “has put a lot of rigor in place already” to eradicate bias and preserve data integrity “because [its] been so highly regulated for a long time,” creating an opportunity to educate less experienced businesses.

Immeasurable mountains of data produced from rapid technological advancement indicate more and more underinformed industries will turn to AI to assess them, making assuming an educational responsibility even more imperative.

Learn More:

Insurers Need to Lead on Ethical Use of AI

JIF 2024: What Resilience Success Looks Like

Changing Risks, Rising Costs Drive Insurance Transformation for 2025: Majesco

Executive Exchange: Using Advanced Tools to Drill Into Flood Risk

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods, Insurers and the Economy, Market Conditions, Regulation, Risk Management

JIF 2024: What Resilience Success Looks Like

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

The efficacy of collaboration and investment by “co-beneficiaries” in resilience initiatives was a dominant theme throughout Triple-I’s 2024 Joint Industry Forum – particularly in the final panel, which celebrated leaders behind recent real-world impacts of such investments.

Moderated by Dan Kaniewski, Marsh McLennan (MMC) managing director for public sector, the panelists discussed how their multi-industry backgrounds inform their innovative mindsets, as well as their knowledge on the profound ripple effects of targeted resilience planning.

The panel included:

  • Jonathan Gonzalez, co-founder and CEO of Raincoat;
  • Bob Marshall, co-founder and CEO of Whisker Labs;
  • Dawn Miller, chief commercial officer of Lloyd’s and CEO of Lloyd’s Americas; and
  • Lars Powell, director of the Alabama Center for Insurance Information and Research (ACIIR) at the University of Alabama and a Triple-I Non-Resident Scholar.

Productive partnership

Kaniewski – who spent most of his career in emergency management, previously serving as the second-ranking official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the agency’s first deputy administrator for resilience – kicked off the panel by raising the question “how do we define success?”

He characterized success as “putting theory into practice” and “having elected officials taking steps to reduce risk and transfer some of this risk from federal, state, or local taxpayers.”

But, as participants in earlier panels and this one made clear, government efforts can only go so far without private-sector collaboration. 

“It doesn’t matter who makes that investment, whether it’s the homeowner, the business owner, or the government,” Kaniewski explained. “The reality is we all benefit from that one investment. If we can acknowledge that we benefit from those investments, we should do our best to incentivize them.”

Kaniewski and Raincoat’s Gonzalez were both integral in the development of community-based catastrophe insurance (CBCI), developed in the wake of Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

“A lot of the neighborhoods that experienced flooding due to Sandy didn’t have access to insurance prior to the flooding – and then, post flooding, the government really had to step up to figure out how to keep those families in those houses,” Gonzalez said.

In collaboration with the city, a nonprofit called the Center for NYC Neighborhoods developed the concept of buying parametric insurance on behalf of these communities, with any payouts going toward helping families stay in their homes after disasters. Unlike traditional indemnity insurance, a parametric policy pays out if certain agreed-upon conditions are met – for example, a specific wind speed or earthquake magnitude in a particular area – regardless of damage.  Parametric insurance eliminates the need for time-consuming claim adjustment. Speed of payment and reduced administration costs can ease the burden on both insurers and policyholders.

In this case, Kaniewski said, success was reflected in the fact that the pilot program received sufficient funding not only for renewal but expansion, bringing needed protection to even more vulnerable communities.

Powell reinforced this sentiment in explaining ACIIR’s research on the FORTIFIED method, a set of voluntary construction standards created by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) for durability against severe weather. The insurance industry-funded Strengthen Alabama Homes program issues grants and substantial insurance premium discounts to homeowners to retrofit their houses along these guidelines, prompting multiple states to replicate the program.

Such homes in Alabama sustained 54 to 76 percent reduced loss frequency from Hurricane Sally compared to standard homes, Powell reported, and an estimated 65 to 73 percent could have been saved in claims if standard homes were FORTIFIED.

Incentivizing contractors to learn FORTIFIED standards was especially critical, Powell explained, because they further advertised these skills and expanded the presence of FORTIFIED homes beyond the grant program.

“A lot of companies have said for several years, ‘we don’t know if we’re comfortable writing these…we haven’t seen it on the ground,’” Powell said. “Well, now we’ve seen it on the ground. We need to have houses that don’t burn down or blow over. We know how to do it, it’s not that expensive.”

Addressing concerns to drive adoption

Miller described how Lloyd’s Lab works to ease that discomfort by creating a space for businesses to nurture and integrate novel insights and products without fear. With mentor support, companies are encouraged to test new ideas while free from the usual degree of financial and/or intellectual property risks attached to innovation investments.

“It’s about having an avenue out to try,” Miller said. “Having that courage, as we continue to work together, to try to understand what’s working, what’s not, and being brave to say, ‘this isn’t working, but we can course correct.’”

Whisker Labs’ Marshall noted that numerous insurance carriers have taken a chance on his company’s front-line disaster mitigation devices, Ting, by paying for and distributing them to their customers.

Ting plug-in sensors detect conditions that could lead to electrical fires through continuous monitoring of a home’s electrical system. Statistically preventing more than 80 percent of electrical fires, communities benefit – not only by preventing individual home fires but also by providing data about the electrical grid and potentially heading off grid-initiated wildfires.

“There are so many applications for the data,” Marshall said, but “to have a true impact on society…we have to prove that we’re preventing more losses than the cost, and we have to do that in partnership with insurance carriers.”

Everyone wins if everyone plays

Cultivating innovative solutions is pivotal to enhancing resilience, the panelists agreed – but driving them forward requires more than just the insurance industry’s support.

He pointed to a project last year – funded by Fannie Mae and developed by the National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) – that culminated in a roadmap for resilience investment incentives, focusing on urban flooding. 

The co-authors of the project, including Triple-I subject-matter experts, represented a cross-section of “co-beneficiary” groups, such as the insurance, finance, and real estate industries and all levels of government, Kaniewski said.

Implementation of the roadmap requires participation from communities and multiple co-beneficiaries. Triple-I and NIBS are exploring such collaborations with potential co-beneficiaries in several areas of the United States.

Learn More:

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

Rising Interest Seen in Parametric Insurance

Community Catastrophe Insurance: Four Models to Boost Resilience

Attacking the Risk Crisis: Roadmap to Investment in Flood Resilience

Mitigation Matters – and Hurricane Sally Proved It

Catastrophes, Disaster Resilience, Floods, Risk Management, Technology, Webinars

2024’s Nat Cats:
A Scholarly View

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

Triple-I recently kicked off a new webinar series featuring its Non-Resident Scholars. The first episode focused on the rising severity of natural catastrophes and innovative data initiatives these scholars are engaged in to help mitigate the impact of these perils. 

Moderated by Triple-I’s Chief Economist and Data Scientist Michel Léonard, the panel included:

  • Phil Klotzbach, Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University;
  • Victor Gensini, meteorology professor at Northern Illinois University and leading expert in convective storm research;
  • Seth Rachlin, social scientist, business leader, and entrepreneur currently active as a researcher and teaching professor; and
  • Colby Fisher, Managing Partner and Director of Research and Development at Hydronos Labs.

“Wild and crazy”

Klotzbach discussed “the wild and crazy 2024 Atlantic hurricane season,” which he called “the strangest above-normal season on record.”

Abnormally fluctuating periods of activity this year created “a story of three hurricane seasons,” reflecting a broader trend of decreasing storm frequency and increasing storm severity, Klotzbach said.

While Klotzbach and his forecasting team’s “very aggressive prediction for a very busy season” was validated by Hurricane Beryl’s landfall as the earliest Category-5 hurricane on record — followed by Debbie and Ernesto — “we went through this period from August 20 to September 23 where we had almost nothing. It was extremely quiet.”

After extensive media coverage claiming the forecasts were a “massive bust,” along came Hurricane Helene, which developed into the “strongest hurricane to make landfall in the Big Bend of Florida since 1851.” Helene drove powerful, destructive flooding inland – most notably in Asheville, NC, and surrounding communities. Then came Hurricane Milton which was noteworthy for spawning numerous fatal tornadoes.

“Most tornadoes that happen with hurricanes are relatively weak – EF0, EF1, perhaps EF2,” Gensini – the panel’s expert on severe convective storms (SCS) – added. “Milton had perhaps a dozen EF3 tornadoes.”

Costly and underpublicized

Severe convective storms – which include tornadoes, hail, thunderstorms with lightning, and straight-line winds – accounted for 70 percent of insured losses globally the first half of 2024. And in 2023, U.S. insured SCS-caused losses exceeded $50 billion for the first time on record for a single year.

Hailstorms are especially destructive, behind as much as 80 percent of SCS claims in any one year. Yet their relative brevity and limited scope compared to large-scale disasters earns them far less public and industry attention.

“We haven’t had a field campaign dedicated to studying hail in the United States since the 1970s,” Gensini explained, “so it’s been a long time since we’ve had our models updated and validated.”

Data-driven solutions

To rectify this knowledge gap, the In-situ Collaborative Experiment for the Collection of Hail in the Plains (or ICECHIP) will send Gensini and some 100 other scientists into the Great Plains to chase and collect granular data from hailstorms next year. Beyond developing hail science, their goal is to improve hail forecasting, thereby reducing hail damage.

Gensini pointed to another project, the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Convective Storms (or CIRCS), which is a prospective academic industry consortium to develop multidisciplinary research on SCS. Informed by diverse partnerships, such research could foster resilience and recovery strategies that “move forward the entire insurance and reinsurance industry,” he said.

Rachlin and Fisher echoed this emphasis on enhancing the insurance industry’s facilitation of risk mitigation in their presentation on Hydronos Labs, an environmental software development and consulting firm that utilizes open-source intelligence (OSINT).

The costs and variability of climate and weather information have created “a data arms race” among insurance carriers, and aggregating and analyzing publicly available information is an untapped solution to that imbalance, they explained.

The company’s end goal, Rachlin added, is to promote an insurance landscape centered around “spending less money on [collecting] data and more money using data.”

All panelists stressed the ongoing need for more reliable, comprehensive data to steer industry strategies for effective mitigation. Investments in this data now are less than the costs of post-disaster recovery that will continue to plague more and more communities in our rapidly evolving climate.

Register here to listen to the entire webinar on demand.

Learn More:

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

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

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

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

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

Climate Resilience and Legal System Abuse Take Center Stage in Miami

Triple-I Experts Speak on Climate Risk, Resilience

NAIC, FIO to Collaborate on Data Collection Around Climate Risk

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

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