The formation of nine large wildfires this week—three in Washington, two in California and Oregon, and one each in Idaho and Montana—highlight the importance of having an evacuation plan and the right coverage.
“Insurers are fulfilling their traditional role as the nation’s financial first responders as thousands of Americans evacuate in the West,” said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. “Wildfires are actively burning millions of acres, and as we are seeing these regions becoming more populated, it will be critical to focus on rebuilding communities in a more resilient manner, as well as make changes to public policies that are hindering the ability to clean and remove tinder which are fueling the devastation.”
Triple-I’s Resilience Accelerator demonstrates the power of insurance as a force for resilience. It does so by telling the story of how insurance coverage helps governments, businesses, and individuals recover faster and more completely after catastrophes. The Resilience Accelerator also links to HazardHub, an organization that assesses the wildfire risks individual properties face nationwide.
The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) reported yesterday that 1.95 million acres have burned in the U.S. during 2021. California’s Antelope, Dixie, McFarland, and Monument Fires grew by thousands of acres over the past few days, the NIFC added.
Oregon’s Bootleg fire, which has been burning along the Oregon and California border since July 6, continues to challenge firefighters while new blazes emerge.
“We are running firefighting operations through the day and all through the night,” said Joe Hessel, incident commander. “We are looking at sustained battle for the foreseeable future.”
A standard homeowners insurance policy covers wildfire-caused property damage to a home’s structure and its outbuildings (e.g., garage), as well as the personal belongings housed on the premises. A renter’s insurance policy covers the renter’s personal belongings. If a residence has been rendered temporarily uninhabitable by a wildfire, standard homeowners and renters insurance policies provide additional living expenses (ALE).
Triple-I offers the following tips to those who live in a wildfire-prone community.
Have an evacuation plan
Check with your insurer to see if you’re eligible to collect ALE. Some states allow ALE claims to be filed in the event of mandatory evacuations. Be sure to save hotel and restaurant receipts
File a claim with your insurer as soon as you are aware of damages to your property
Take photos of damage prior to making repairs
When making either temporary or permanent repairs, save receipts to give to your insurance claim adjuster
Only use licensed contractors to make repairs and beware of contractor fraud
Colorado State University (CSU) hurricane researchers have slightly reduced their forecast for 2021 Atlantic hurricane activity in an August 5 update.
The CSU Tropical Meteorology Project team, led by Triple-I non-resident scholar Dr. Phil Klotzbach, predicts 18 named storms this year (down from 20 in the previous forecast), eight of which are expected to become hurricanes (down from nine). Four of the hurricanes are expected to be “major” (Category 3, 4, or 5).
Despite the slight drop in the number of storms, the 2021 hurricane season – which runs from June 1 to November 30 — is forecast to be above average and follows a record-breaking 2020 season. An average season has 14 named storms, seven hurricanes and three major hurricanes.
By Loretta Worters, Vice President, Media Relations, Triple-I
Despite the prevalence of cyber threats and the increasing number and severity of incidents, directors, officers, and C-suite executives remain too much in the dark when it comes to cyber risk and insurance, Risk & Insurance writer Alex Wright describes in this month’s cover story, Vigilance Demanded.
While specific policies are available to cover the risk, many policyholders still expect to be covered under their property and liability policies — but are not. Risk & Insurance, an affiliate of the Institutes and the Triple-I’s sister organization, notes that commercial insurance policies still suffer from a lack of clarity regarding damage from cybercrimes.
Confusion around coverage can lead policyholders to experience unexpected coverage gaps.
“In a best-case scenario, a cyber incident may trigger coverage under multiple insurance policies and increase the available total limit to respond to a covered event,” said Adam Lantrip, CAC Specialty’s cyber practice leader. “In a more common scenario, multiple insurance policies may be triggered but not coordinate with one another, and the policyholder spends more on legal fees than the cost of having purchased standalone cyber insurance in the first place.”
Of particular concern to insurers is silent – or “non-affirmative” – cyber risk, in which potential cyber-related events or losses are not expressly covered or excluded within traditional policies. In such cases, insurers can end up having to pay unexpected claims for which the policies weren’t adequately priced.
“Cyber risk is present in just about every insurance policy now,” said Tracie Grella, AIG’s global head of cyber insurance. “But because it hasn’t been factored into the underwriting of standard policies such as property, or properly identified, assessed, priced for and put into the aggregation model, it presents a huge systemic risk that can’t simply be ignored.”
Silent cyber first manifested in the WannaCry, Petya and NotPetya cyber-attacks of 2017, which devastated everything from shipping ports and supermarkets to advertising agencies and law firms, the article explains. The resulting losses from the encryption of master files and subsequent Bitcoin ransom demands for restoring access were the costliest on record, surpassing $3 billion.
Underwriters, brokers, and policyholders need to understand how ever-evolving risks and legal frameworks will affect their policies. They also need to keep themselves appraised of the scale of the problem and understand the most common misconceptions and coverage disputes around silent cyber.
Lower-risk drivers should pay less for auto insurance, and premiums have closely tracked broader U.S. economic trends for decades, Triple-I told the U.S. Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office (FIO) this week.
In a letter responding to a federal Request for Information, Triple-I said U.S. auto insurers accurately price their policies by using a wide variety of rating factors. All these factors must conform to the laws and regulations of the state in which the auto insurance policies are sold.
“There is no credible evidence that insurers charge more than they should, either across the broad market or in specific subsegments, such as neighborhood, race, income, education or occupation,” the Triple-I stated. The letter also said the rating factors U.S. auto insurers use to price their policies not only serve their purpose but are constantly retested to ensure their accuracy and reliability.
“If rating factors do their job well, they make insurance relatively inexpensive for some people and quite expensive for others,” the letter said. “In both cases, the assessment is correct. Drivers who present less risk pay less for coverage.”
The response to FIO’s information request highlighted how the appropriate price for an insurance policy varies greatly from customer to customer and from state to state. Insurance is regulated by state governments.
“Insurance companies and their actuaries have focused on finding factors that make sure every customer pays the appropriate rate,” the Triple-I said. Rates are based on historical loss experience for similar risks. Premiums constitute the price customers pay for insurance coverage.
Critics of U.S. auto insurer pricing practices have expressed concerns that certain rating factors, such as credit-based insurance scores and the geographic location of the customer’s residence, discriminate against lower-income drivers and minority groups. Triple-I explained that eliminating any rating factor – for whatever reason – forces those with less risk to overpay for auto insurance and allows those with greater risk to pay less than they should for auto insurance.
Interventions can backfire
“Eliminating factors does not affect the truth that they reveal, and if factors reveal that costs need to be high for a customer, banning them does nothing to change the underlying costs that are the reason the rate is high,” the Triple-I stated.
Regulators occasionally intervene in the rating process to make insurance less expensive for certain groups, citing the need to make insurance “affordable.”
“These interventions, however well-intentioned, can backfire in a spectacular way,” the Triple-I letter says, “raising the overall costs and severely reducing availability, as well as impeding innovations that could address the issue.”
Real problems need real solutions
Real solutions exist to make insurance more affordable, Triple-I says: “These solutions come not from tinkering with how insurers set prices but by addressing the costs that insurance covers.”
Improving the transportation environment and addressing societal issues that often force minorities and low- and moderate-income individuals to live and drive in circumstances where auto insurance costs the most are among the solutions suggested.
Extensive Triple-I research shows that rising claims costs have been the primary factor generating increased auto insurance rates.
Wildfire is a critical risk facing California, but at least one insurance industry leader argues that the state government isn’t taking it seriously enough.
“Yes, the governor has committed some $2 billion dollars to wildfire budget items,” writes John Norwood of Norwood Associates LLC in an Insurance JournalOp-Ed piece. “These include $404.8 million to hire staff and purchase firefighting equipment; $1.128 billion for forest management, such as thinning and prescribed burns; and $616 million to community investments.”
“However,” the Op-Ed continues, “if you compare that commitment of dollars to the list of other budget allocations the governor has just signed, it appears the administration and the Legislature determined the wildfire problem was only as worthy as some of the lower-priority budget allocations, like cleaning up trash ($1.5 billion) and paying-off delinquent water and electrical bills ($2 billion).”
Norwood is one of California’s top legislative advocates and managing partner of Norwood Associates. He is considered the leader in the state’s insurance, financial services, and small business sector.
Rising insurance costs
Wildfires over the past five years have burned millions of acres in California, destroyed entire towns, wiped out well over 10,000 homes, killed scores of residents, and blanketed the state with unhealthy air.
“California homeowners and businesses are paying five- and six-figure premiums for property insurance, and that is only when they can find insurance at any price,” Norwood writes. “California’s largest industries – agriculture and wine production – are being devastated by the lack of available insurance.”
And yet, he continues, “the $2 billion dollars committed to wildfire risks doesn’t even make it into the top five issues in the state based on the budget allocation committed to the fight.”
Role of reinsurance
Reinsurers — which insure insurers — are crucial to how the world handles natural disasters. As the frequency and severity of small-scale disasters increase, they’re having to pay more attention. S&P Global observes that “around one-half of the reinsurers we rate reduced their exposure in absolute terms, with very few players taking on additional catastrophe risk.”
It adds that this “de-risking trend” among reinsurers has been particularly visible in North America in recent years.
Without reinsurance, primary insurance rates must rise as properties in some areas become uninsurable.
Norwood argues that availability and affordability of property insurance are unlikely to change until the global reinsurance market believes California is serious about addressing its wildfire risks and there are demonstrable results in reducing the number and severity of wildfires in the state.
Without the reinsurance market backing California property/casualty insurance companies, there will continue to be an availability crisis in the state for property insurance and prices for such coverage will continue to increase substantially to the detriment of California’s homeowners and businesses.
Insurance is essential for individuals, businesses, and communities to recover quickly from natural catastrophes – but perils have evolved to a point at which risk transfer, though necessary, isn’t enough to ensure resilience.
Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan said during a that better insured communities recover more quickly but “the long-term resilience of both the communities impacted by natural catastrophes and of the industry itself depend on preparedness and improved risk mitigation.” He was one of three panelists participating in the webinar.
“Something’s Got to Give”
Insured U.S. natural catastrophe losses totaled $67 billion in 2020 after an Atlantic hurricane season which included 30 named storms, record-setting wildfires in California, Colorado, and the Pacific Northwest, and a severe derecho in Iowa. This year’s hurricane season looks to be more severe; the Bootleg wildfire in Oregon – so large and intense it has begun to create its own weather and is affecting air quality as far east as New York City – isn’t expected to be fully contained until late November; and these disasters are taking place on the heels of devastating winter storms in the first quarter.
As Kevelighan put it in his panel remarks, pointing to a 700 percent increase in insurer loss costs since the 1980s, “Something’s got to give.”
“As the country’s financial first responders,” he said, “insurers are not just responsible for providing relief to the communities affected by natural disasters, but also planning for potential catastrophes to come.”
One of the ways insurers do this, he said, is by building the industry’s cumulative policyholders’ surplus—the amount of money remaining after insurers’ collective liabilities are subtracted from their assets. At year-end 2020, the U.S. policyholders’ surplus stood at a record-high $914.3 billion.
Mitigate and educate
The role of the insurance industry has grown beyond merely taking on risks to educating the public, regulators, and corporate decision makers on the changing nature of risk and driving a resilience mindset characterized by a focus on pre-emptive mitigation and rapid recovery. Triple-I and a host of other insurance industry organizations have played a key role in promoting public-private partnerships and using advanced data and analytics to understand and address hazards in advance.
For example, Triple-I’s online Resilience Accelerator provides access to data and risk maps that empowers the public to assess and prepare for risks specific to their own communities.
Second post in a serieson social inflation and litigation funding
Litigation funding – in which third parties assume all or part of the cost of a lawsuit exchange for an agreed-upon percentage of the settlement – is often cited as contributing to social inflation. But, like so much else associated with social inflation, it’s unclear how widespread the practice is.
With historical roots in Australia and the United Kingdom, funding of lawsuits by investors has taken hold in the United States in recent years. On the positive side, it can let plaintiffs employ experts to develop effective strategies – options once only available to large corporate defendants.
But it also can contribute to cases making it to court based more on investor expectations than on plaintiffs’ best interests.
Erosion of common-law prohibitions
Litigation finance was once widely prohibited. The relevant legal doctrine – called “champerty” or “maintenance” – originated in France and arrived in the United States by way of British common law. The original purpose of champerty prohibitions – according to an analysis by Steptoe, an international law firm – was to prevent financial speculation in lawsuits, and it was rooted in a general mistrust of litigation and money lending.
There’s an irony here, in that a major societal force driving social inflation today – distrust of corporations and litigation – once motivated the prohibition of a practice now widely associated with the phenomenon.
These bans have been eroded in recent decades, leading to increases in litigation funding.
“If you are trying to understand how we got here, I would say start in the 1990s,” says Victoria Shannon Sahani, a professor of law at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. “The United States isn’t really a big player on the scene yet, but you’ve got Australia and the United Kingdom independently making moves in their legislatures that paved the way for litigation funding to become more prevalent.”
Between 1992 and 2006, Sahani says, “It was sort of the Wild West of Australian law in the sense that if you engaged in litigation funding, you always ran the risk that your agreement might be challenged.”
In 2006, the High Court of Australia provided clarity, saying litigation funding was permitted in jurisdictions that had abolished maintenance and champerty as crimes and torts. It was even acceptable for a funder to influence key case decisions.
The practice took time to gain traction in the United States because champerty prohibitions are left to states. Some have abandoned their anti-champerty laws over the past two decades. Some, like New York, have adopted “safe harbors” that exempt transactions above a certain dollar amount from the reach of the champerty laws.
“Given the stakes involve in many cases, it will be interesting to see whether litigation funders refrain from direct involvement.”
– David Corum, vice president, Insurance Research Council
Uncertainty as to market size
There is no consensus as to how much investors spend on U.S. lawsuits each year, according to Bloomberg law, “but it is not $85 billion, a number recently put forward as the ‘addressable market’ for litigation finance by a publicly traded litigation financier.”
That’s because the industry spent only about 2.7% of $85 billion during a 12-month span that started in mid-2018, according to a Westfleet Advisors survey.
“Does that low penetration rate portend explosive growth ahead?” Bloomberg Law asks. “Or is it an indication that litigation finance is a niche product most plaintiffs and lawyers find unnecessary?”
A key determinant of growth may be the willingness of funders to remain uninvolved in managing cases, said David Corum, vice president with the Insurance Research Council: “Given the stakes involve in many cases, it will be interesting to see whether litigation funders refrain from direct involvement.”
Benefit, bane, or both?
While funders tout the “David versus Goliath” aspect of helping small plaintiffs against corporations, opponents worry about introducing profit into a process that is supposed to aim at a just outcome. A settlement may be rejected because of pressure exerted by profit-seeking funders, and a plaintiff may walk away with nothing if the trial goes against them, opponents say.
Laura Lazarczyk, executive vice president and chief legal officer for Zurich North America, called litigation funding “abusive” and said harm “will be largely borne by insurers in defense costs and indemnity payments and by policyholders in uncovered losses and higher premiums.”
Critics also decry a lack of transparency. While the U.S. District Court for New Jersey held that third-party funding must be disclosed, attempts to pass federal disclosure legislation have been unsuccessful.
“It’s a multibillion industry with no regulation and no requirements for transparency,” said Page C. Faulk, senior vice president of legal reform initiatives at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It is essentially turning our U.S. courtrooms into casinos, which is why the chamber is calling for disclosure.”
Such concerns led the American Bar Association last year to approve best practices for firms engaging in litigation funding. The resolution is silent on disclosure, but it urges lawyers to be prepared for scrutiny. It also cautions them against giving funders advice about a case’s merits, warning that this could raise concerns about the waiver of attorney-client privilege and expose lawyers to claims that they have an obligation to update this guidance as the litigation develops.
It has been said the best way to eat an elephant is “one bite at a time.” Social inflation is an elephantine topic, so we’re launching a series of blog posts dedicated to each piece of it in turn, starting with litigation funding.
“Social inflation” refers to rising litigation costs and their impact on insurers’ claim payouts, loss ratios and, ultimately, how much policyholders pay for coverage. It’s an important issue to understand because – while the tactics associated with it typically affect businesses perceived as having “deep pockets” – social inflation has implications for individuals and for businesses of all sizes.
The insurance lines most affected are commercial auto, professional liability, product liability, and directors and officers liability. There also is evidence that private-passenger car insurance is beginning to be affected. As increased litigation costs drive up premiums, those increases tend to be passed along to consumers and can stifle investment in innovation that could create jobs and otherwise benefit the economy.
Much of what is discussed and published on the topic has been more anecdotal than data based. Reliably quantifying social inflation for rating and reserving purposes is hard because it’s just one of many factors pressuring pricing. We’ve found that the most meaningful way to think about social inflation and its components is to compare their impact on claims losses over time with growth in inflation measures like the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Litigation Funding
It’s been said that the best way to eat an elephant is “one bite at a time.” Because of the diversity and complexity of social inflation’s causes and effects, we’re launching a series of blog posts dedicated to each one in turn. The first set of posts will look closely at litigation funding: the practice of third parties financing lawsuits in exchange for a share of any funds the plaintiffs might receive.
Litigation funding was once widely prohibited, but as bans have been eroded in recent decades, the practice has grown, spread, and become a contributor to social inflation.
Litigation funding seemed a good place to begin this series because it’s a distinct legal strategy with a clear history that doesn’t involve a lot of the sociological subtleties inherent in other aspects of social inflation. We’ll look the emergence of the practice, how it came to the United States from abroad, and track its evolution with that of social inflation. We’ll also discuss the current state of litigation finance, along with ethical concerns that have been raised around it within the legal community.
This series will be led by IRC Vice President David Corum with support from our partners at The Institutes and input from our members, as well as experts beyond the insurance industry. As befits any discussion of a complex topic, we look forward to your reactions and insights.
Natural disasters create opportunities for unethical contractors, and consumers need to be on the alert.
Post-disaster repair scams typically start when a contractor makes an unsolicited visit to a homeowner and pressures the homeowner to pay the contractor their insurance claim money – then disappear without doing the work.
Before hiring any contractor, consumers affected by a natural disaster should call their insurer. There’s no need to rush into an agreement. Homeowners should inspect all work and make sure they are satisfied before paying. Most contractors will require a reasonable down payment, but no payments should be made until a written contract is in place.
The NICB offers these tips to homeowners before hiring a contractor:
Be wary of anyone knocking on your door offering unsolicited repairs to your home.
Be suspicious of any contractor who rushes you or says the government endorses them.
Shop around for a contractor by getting recommendations from people you trust.
Get three written estimates for the work and compare bids.
Check a contractor’s credentials with the Better Business Bureau.
Always ask for a written contract that clearly states everything the contractor will do.
Never sign a contract with blank spaces because it could be altered afterward.
Never pay for work up front and avoid paying with cash; use either a check or credit card.
The NICB Post-Disaster Contractor Search Checklistexplains the contractor hiring process step by step. Anyone with information concerning insurance fraud or vehicle theft can report it anonymously by calling toll-free 800-TEL-NICB (800-835-6422) or submitting a form to the NICB.
“Acting as communities’ financial first responders, insurers rebuild damaged homes, cars, and lives after a natural disaster,” said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. “The Insurance Information Institute is proud to join forces with the NICB to educate consumers and communities about how to best prepare and recover economically.”
“Victims of disasters are under tremendous stress as they are often pulled from their homes, fight heavy traffic attempting to get to safety, all while leaving their home and belongings behind,” said NICB President and CEO David Glawe. “When they go home, they are exhausted and strained, a time when they are most susceptible to these fraudulent schemes.”
Among the many things we’ve missed since the start of the pandemic, travel has been one of the most notable. Whether for business, to visit distant family members, or just get away from our now-too-familiar surroundings, many of us have been keenly anticipating a return to air travel.
Flying is among the safest activities people can engage in (see infographic). But new concerns are being raised about risks emerging in a post-COVID-19 world.
The risks highlighted in a recent report from Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS) include “rusty” pilots, “air rage”, new aircraft, and even insect infestations.
The industry is slowly rebounding, and AGCS notes that the airline teams have stepped up to ensure that air travel remained safe, despite layoffs, financial struggles, and the pressures attending an overnight shift to remote working.
“But as more aircraft return to the skies,” the report says, “there has been much discussion about the hazards that may arise from such an unprecedented period, as well as some of the changes the sector will see.”
Earlier this year it was reported that dozens of pilots had notified the Aviation Safety Reporting System about making mistakes after climbing back into the cockpit. Operated by NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) watchdog system enables pilots and crew members to anonymously report mechanical glitches and human errors.
“Many of the pilots cited ‘rustiness’ as a reason for the incidents after returning to the skies following months of lockdown,” AGCS reports. “While there have been no reported incidents of out‑of‑practice pilots causing accidents injuring passengers, mistakes reported included: forgetting to disengage the parking brake on takeoff, taking three attempts to land the plane on a windy day, choosing the wrong runway, and forgetting to turn on the anti‑icing mechanism that prevents the altitude and airspeed sensors from freezing.”
Condition of aircraft
At the peak of the first wave of the crisis, airlines parked around two thirds of the total global fleet. More than a year later, many are still mothballed.
“This unprecedented situation has resulted in a host of new challenges,” AGCS writes. “Loss exposures do not just disappear when airplanes are parked.”
Rather, the risks and their costs change. AGCS cites fears of damage among grounded aircraft during thunderstorms in Texas that pelted the region with golf ball‑sized hail.
Aircraft are large and tricky to maneuver on the ground, and ground incidents can result in costly claims. When operators transferred fleets from the runways to storage facilities at the start of the pandemic there were a number of collisions. It would not be surprising, therefore, to see more such incidents as planes are moved in preparation for reuse.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has reported “an alarming trend…of unreliable speed and altitude indications” related to accumulations of foreign objects, such as insect nests in areas of aircraft that provide flight-critical air data information.
“This has led to a number of rejected take-off and in-flight turn back events,” the agency reports.
On the other hand, as many airlines have retired larger aircraft earlier than planned due to COVID-19, there will be many newer planes on the runways and in the air, which presents its own challenges from an insurance coverage perspective. As we’ve written previously, more modern planes are more expensive to repair or replace when there is an incident, leading to more expensive claims.
Air rage on the rise
In May 2021, an attendant on a Southwest Airlines flight attendant had two teeth knocked out after an altercation with a passenger over wearing a mask – the latest in a spate of highly publicized incidents that moved the FAA to issue a warning about a spike in unruly or dangerous behavior. More recently, an American Airlines flight to the Bahamas was canceled when some among a group of high school students refused to wear masks.
In a typical year in the United States, there tend to be no more than 150 reports of serious onboard disruption, the AGCS report says – but by June 2021 that number had already reached about 3,000, including about 2,300 involving passengers who refused to comply with the federal mandate to wear a mask while traveling.
Few COVID-19 claims
The aviation industry has seen few claims directly related to the pandemic to date, AGCS says, also noting a decline in slip-and-fall and lost-baggage claims at airports because of the reduced number of passengers during the pandemic. Such claims are expected to return to more typical levels as people resume traveling, and insurers will need to be mindful of new hazards that could affect claims experience.
