All posts by Jeff Dunsavage

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience

Community Catastrophe Insurance: Four Models to Boost Resilience

Leave a comment

Many households and small businesses don’t have sufficient savings to repair and rebuild after a natural disaster. Insurance is a vital source of recovery funds, but many are uninsured or insufficiently insured. This insurance gap doesn’t just reduce their resilience; its impact can slow the recovery of entire communities.

Community-based catastrophe insurance (CBCI) – arranged by a local government, quasigovernmental body, or a community group to cover individual properties in the community – may help close the coverage gap. A recent Marsh & McLennan report looks at such arrangements and how they can promote community resilience.

In addition to improving financial recovery for communities, CBCI can provide more affordable disaster insurance coverage and could be linked directly to financing for community-level hazard mitigation. It offers multiple delivery models so officials and risk managers can explore and implement CBCI as part of an integrated risk management strategy.

Four broad institutional structures for CBCI illustrate the different roles and responsibilities of the community and other partners:

• A facilitator model

• A group policy model

• An aggregator model

• Purchase through a community captive.

In these frameworks, the community’s role and responsibility increase from lowest to highest. In the first, the community is more of a facilitator and a negotiator. In the second, it takes on a role in distribution, choosing insurance options and collecting premiums. In the third, the community plays a dual role: as the insured on a contract with a reinsurer and as the disburser of claims funds.

The fourth model harnesses an existing structure — an insurance captive — that enables the community to provide disaster policies.

“In all cases, the community could offer the coverage for a property owner to voluntarily decide to purchase, or there may be a few instances where a community would compel residents to purchase coverage,” the Marsh report says. “When coverage is voluntary, however, a community would likely need to offer purchase incentives to achieve goals of widespread take-up of the coverage.”

The report describes the four models in detail and provides a five-part roadmap for implementation.

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Risk Management

New FEMA Tool Maps Community Vulnerability to 18 Natural Hazards

Leave a comment

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently unveiled its National Risk Index (NRI) for natural hazards. The online mapping application identifies communities most at risk for 18 types of events. It visualizes the risk metrics and includes data about expected annual losses, social vulnerabilities, and community resilience. 

Casey Zuzak, senior risk analyst at FEMA, described the index at the recent Triple-I Resilience Town Hall – the first this year in a series presented by Triple-I and ResilientH2O Partners.

Zuzak explained that the NRI draws from a wide range of data and analytics resources and considers the probabilities or frequencies of 18 natural hazards and the population and property value exposed. Expected annual loss is calculated separately for each hazard, then summed to generate a composite score for all 18.

NRI enables FEMA to talk with communities about specific risks, identify high-impact mitigation opportunities, and learn how they can make the best use of their risk-management resources.

“NRI wasn’t built in a silo,” Zuzak said. “We brought in local and county and state governments, tribal and territorial governments to make sure we had the best available data. We also brought in academia, nonprofit organizations, and private industry to make sure we had everyone’s input.”

Part of an effort to reduce costs and eliminate inconsistent risk assessments for planning, the NRI uses a national baseline risk assessment to identify areas that offer high returns on risk-mitigation investment. The NRI can help communities:

  • Update emergency plans;
  • Improve hazard-mitigation plans;
  • Prioritize and allocate resources;
  • Identify need for more refined risk assessments;
  • Encourage community risk communication and engagement;
  • Educate homeowners and renters;
  • Support adoption of enhanced codes and standards;
  • Inform long-term community recovery.

“Nothing like this – a free, consistent, comprehensive nationwide risk assessment tool that addresses multiple hazards and includes social vulnerability and community resilience – existed before,” said Dr. Michel Léonard, CBE, vice president and senior economist for Triple-I. “This is an important addition to the toolkit of risk managers, insurers, policymakers, and others working to create a safer, more resilient world.”

Business Risk, Disaster Resilience, Emerging Risks, Insurers and the Economy, Webinars

Virtual Triple-I Forum Reviews 2020, Looks Ahead at Risks, Opportunities

Leave a comment

Sean Kevelighan, Triple-I CEO

Insurance is a business that promotes and demands resilience, and 2020 was a year-long case study in our industry’s ability to respond rapidly to new challenges from a firm financial foundation. Triple-I’s virtual Joint Industry Forum (JIF) provided many examples from a range of industry and academic leaders, along with insightful discussions about what the industry faces in the near and longer terms.

At the 2020 JIF in New York City, it was clear from our various panels that the industry had a full plate of priorities for the year ahead. Then came COVID-19, and a whole new set of public health and economic concerns was added to the existing exposure mix. The virus brought a strong economy nearly to a halt; while officials assessed and responded to these threats, civil unrest on a scale not seen since the 1990s broke out on the streets of many cities; historic and near-historic weather and wildfire activity descended on communities whose resources were already strained by the pandemic.

And all of the above took place amid the uncertainty created by the most contentious, chaotic election year in modern U.S. history.

Through it all, as this year’s JIF speakers described, the property/casualty insurance industry managed to shine.

“Look at how our companies performed” in the real-time shift to fully remote work, noted Chuck Chamness, President and CEO of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC). “Then look at the dynamic changes in our businesses caused in large part by the pandemic, where we gave back $14 billion in premiums to policyholders and contributed a couple of hundred million dollars-plus in charitable contributions. We really did our job this year.”

David Sampson, American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) President and CEO, added that the “bulk of the industry came together to proactively work with agents and policymakers to create a solution that could work for all stakeholders to provide protection against widespread economic shutdown as a result of a viral outbreak.”

APCIA, NAMIC, and Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America proposed to Congress a Business Continuity Protection Plan (BCPP) that would allow businesses to buy revenue-replacement coverage for up to 80 percent of payroll and other expenses in the event of a pandemic through state-regulated insurance entities, with aid coming from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which would run the program.

Our industry also faced a literal existential threat in the form of efforts to require insurers to pay billions in business income (interruption) claims for which not one penny of premium had ever been paid. Thanks to industry leaders stepping up to educate policymakers and the media, much of this threat – though, by no means all of it – seems to have faded. Triple-I’s Future of American Insurance & Reinsurance (FAIR) campaign played a critical role in informing policy discussions on business interruption coverage, the uninsurability of pandemic risk, and the need for federal involvement to mitigate the financial impact of future pandemics.

Throughout this year’s virtual JIF, the emphasis on innovation is a consistent thread. Peter Miller, President and CEO of The Institutes, observed that the pandemic and its attendant operational and economic stresses forced the industry into innovation overdrive. He cited a member of The Institutes’ board saying 2020 “caused them to do 10 years of innovation in one,” adding that board members have told him work-from-home alone has saved their companies “one hundred-plus million dollars a year.”

Whether discussing the industry’s response to climate change and extreme weather or how to communicate the importance of risk-based pricing to policymakers, innovation is at the heart of solving every challenge (and seizing every opportunity) our industry faces. Peter emphasized the importance of using innovation strategically across the entire value chain – not just to solve specific problems as they emerge.

In addition to the panelists I mentioned above, the conversations featured a cross section of industry leaders, Triple-I subject-matter experts and non-resident scholars. If you weren’t able to attend, you can view and watch the panels here.

Disaster Preparedness, Flood Insurance

Californians Warned About Mudslide Riskas Winter Bears Downon Wildfire Areas

Leave a comment

California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is alerting citizens to review their insurance policies in order to protect themselves and their assets in anticipation of winter weather bringing the possibility of  floods, mudslides, debris flows, and other disasters to recent wildfire burn areas throughout the state.

The commissioner issued a notice to insurers reminding them of their duty to cover damage from any future mudslide or similar disaster caused by recent wildfires that weakened hillsides. In particular, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has projected increased likelihood of debris flow for fire-scarred areas of the state in the event of heavy rainfall.

Many Californians may not be aware that homeowners’ and commercial insurance policies typically exclude flood, mudslide, debris flow, and other similar disasters—unless they are directly or indirectly caused by a recent wildfire or another peril covered by the applicable insurance policy. For insurance purposes, it’s important to understand the difference between “mudslides” and “mudflow.” 

Mudslides occur when a mass of earth or rock moves downhill, propelled by gravity. They typically don’t contain enough liquid to seep into your home, and they aren’t eligible for flood insurance coverage.  In fact, mudslides are not covered by any policy. 

Mudflow is covered by flood insurance, which is available from FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and a growing number of private insurers. Like flood, mudflow is excluded from standard homeowners and business insurance policies—you must buy the coverage separately. 

The California Department of Insurance has posted a fact sheet for consumers to answer questions about what their policies cover.

Emerging Risks, Legal Environment

What Is Social Inflation? What Can InsurersDo About It?

Leave a comment

A recent study by the Geneva Association on the topic of “social inflation” addresses the challenges of defining and quantifying the phenomenon. More important, it takes on the question of what insurers and reinsurers can actually do about it.

“Social inflation is a term that is widely cited in insurance debates but it is often ill-defined or at best only loosely explained,” the report begins. Broadly speaking, it “refers to all ways in which insurers’ claims costs rise over and above general economic inflation.”

Actuaries typically label such growth in claims costs “superimposed inflation,” the study says, but their measures “may not adequately account for advances in medical technology, which create new therapies, change the costs of treatment, and increase the lifespan of seriously injured claimants,” as well as other considerations.

More narrowly, the report says, “social inflation refers to legislative and litigation developments which impact insurers’ legal liabilities and claims costs.”

The definitional difficulties are well illustrated in the rendering below, from the study.

Understanding what drives these costs – and whether they are temporary phenomena or a long-term trend – is essential to adequately pricing insurers’ exposures and enabling them to pay claims.

Major drivers, possible solutions

Rollbacks in tort reforms stemming from past insurance availability and affordable crises have been implicated by some for driving social inflation. The report finds that any such correlations are “weak at best.”

More significant, the study found, are shifting judge and jury attitudes in ways favorable to plaintiffs; growing anti-corporate bias; and aggressive tactics used by plaintiff attorneys, including third-party litigation funding.  

What can insurers do to battle social inflation? The report suggests four areas of focus:

  • Engage in the public-policy debate to promote legislative changes that further level the playing field between plaintiffs and defendants;
  • Get better at defending against aggressive and increasingly well-armed plaintiffs’ attorneys;
  • Upgrade underwriting to reduce opportunities for claims surprises. “Insurers need better early-warning systems,” the report says, drawing on information from across their organizations, their own and competitor liability cases, and data from social and digital media;
  • Develop products with an eye toward mitigating social inflation. Given the scale of potential liability exposures, the report says, “co-participation arrangements” to share risks among reinsurers could help maintain and even expand the boundaries of insurability. Parametric insurance also might have a role to play.

More on social inflation, from the Triple-I Blog

LITIGATION FUNDING RISES AS COMMON-LAW BANS ARE ERODED BY COURTS

SOCIAL INFLATION AND COVID-19

LAWYERS’ GROUP APPROVES BEST PRACTICES TO GUIDE LITIGATION FUNDING

IRC STUDY: SOCIAL INFLATION IS REAL, AND IT HURTS CONSUMERS, BUSINESSES

FLORIDA’S AOB CRISIS: A SOCIAL-INFLATION MICROCOSM

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods

Study Supports Casefor Flood Mitigationas World Warms

Leave a comment

Intensifying rainfall fueled by climate change over the past 30 years has caused nearly $75 billion in flood damage in the United States, according to a study by Stanford University researchers.

The findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shed light on the growing costs of flooding and the heightened risk faced by homeowners, builders, banks and insurers as the planet warms. Losses resulting from worsening extreme rains comprised nearly one-third of the total financial cost from flooding in the U.S. between 1988 and 2017, according to the report, which analyzed climate and socioeconomic data to quantify the relationship between changing historical rainfall trends and historical flood costs.

About 90 percent of natural disasters in the United States involve flooding, and much has been written about the flood protection gap.

“On average nationwide, only 30 percent of homes in the highest risk areas have flood coverage,” according to the Risk Management and Decision Processes Center of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, a Triple-I Resilience Accelerator partner. “Less than 25 percent of the buildings flooded by Hurricanes Harvey, Sandy, and Irma had insurance. Indeed, repeatedly after floods there is evidence of the United States’ large and persistent flood insurance gap.”

To make matters worse, a recent analysis by the nonprofit First Street Foundation found the United States to be woefully underprepared for damaging floods. The foundation identifies “around 1.7 times the number of properties as having substantial risk,” compared with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood designation.

Flood coverage isn’t included in most homeowners insurance policies, so many may not know they don’t have it if their bank didn’t require them to buy it before providing a mortgage. Until recently, flood insurance was considered an untouchable risk for private insurers to write, so FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was the only game in town.

In recent years, however, Congress adopted new laws to support the emergence of a robust domestic private flood insurance market.  Last year, regulators provided rules that allowed private carriers to offer flood policies outside of NFIP and to qualify for the mortgage flood insurance requirement. Carriers and reinsurers are expanding their use of sophisticated models to underwrite flood risk, driving the growth of private sector flood insurance.

Triple-I has more information about flood insurance in our Spotlight on: Flood insurance article.

Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods

Expanded Triple-I Flood Risk Maps Provide Richer Perspective

Leave a comment

The Triple-I Resilience Accelerator’s flood risk visualization tool is being enhanced with:

  • National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) data on “take-up rates” by U.S. county from 2010 to 2021,
  • Differences between take-up rates inside and outside of flood zones, and in different proximities to flood zones.

These additions will expand the Accelerator’s visualization from covering only the current year to providing an historical perspective on how take-up rates have changed over time. 

Take-up rates and resilience

Insurance take-up rates represent the percentage of people eligible for a particular coverage who take advantage of it. In the case of flood insurance, they are calculated as the number of insurance policies in force in a certain geography over the total number of eligible properties for which insurance can be bought.

Understanding flood insurance take-up rates is essential to assessing and improving communities’ ability to rebound from damaging events. About 90 percent of natural disasters in the United States involve flooding, the NFIP says, and much has been written about the flood protection gap.

“On average nationwide, only 30 percent of homes in the highest risk areas have flood coverage,” according to the Risk Management and Decision Processes Center of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, a Triple-I Resilience Accelerator partner. “Less than 25 percent of the buildings flooded by Hurricanes Harvey, Sandy, and Irma had insurance. Indeed, repeatedly after floods there is evidence of the United States’ large and persistent flood insurance gap.”

But understanding that gap to a degree that will support meaningful action requires comprehensive, granular data only NFIP can provide. It also requires the data to be available in easy-to-use formats. This is where the Triple-I/NFIP collaboration comes into play.

Key considerations to keep in mind when looking at take-up rates are year-over-year changes; whether the rates are by city, county, or state; and whether they are for all homes or homes in flood zones alone. During the first quarter of 2021, Triple-I’s Resilience Accelerator’s flood map will be updated with four options for users to visualize:

  • Annual take-up rates from 2010 to 2018,
  • 2019 take-up rates based on 2018 renewals only,
  • County-wide and flood-zones-only take-up rates estimates for 2020, and
  • County-wide share of dwellings in close proximity to flood zones.

Historical perspective

In 2019, NFIP started publishing historical data on NFIP insurance coverage, policies, and claims. NFIP’s decision to publish this data was a transformative point for industry practitioners, academics and those involved with flood insurance analysis. The Triple-I’s visualizations use NFIP’s full- and part-year data from 2010 to 2019 and our own estimates, based on this data, for 2020.

Dr. Michel Léonard, CBE, Triple-I vice president and senior economist says: “We’ve worked closely with NFIP to ensure that our visualizations reflect the most current, accurate information available on flood insurance take-up rates. In addition, we wanted to add to the discussion surrounding NFIP take-up rates by providing less common yet insightful ways to understand and visualize take-up rates, such as take-up rates for properties in flood zones only or the share of a country’s property in different proximities to flood zones.”

Flood coverage, as opposed to water damage from mechanical breakdown inside a house, isn’t included in most homeowners insurance policies, so many homeowners may not realize they don’t have it if their bank didn’t require them to buy it before providing a mortgage. Until recently, flood insurance was considered an “untouchable” risk for private insurers to write, so the NFIP was the only game in town.

In recent years, however, Congress adopted new laws to support the emergence of a robust domestic private flood insurance market.  Last year, regulators provided rules that allowed private carriers to offer flood policies outside of NFIP and to qualify for the mortgage flood insurance requirement. Carriers and reinsurers are expanding their use of sophisticated models to underwrite flood risk, driving the growth of private sector flood insurance.

 “We want to acknowledge and stress how significant the NFIP Policy and Claims data is to increasing our understanding of flood risk,” Léonard said. “Good data takes a lot of work, and NFIP’s commitment to making this data available is a perfect example of public-private partnerships delivering concrete value.”  

Legal Environment

Litigation Funding Rises as Common-Law Bans Are Eroded by Courts

Leave a comment

Litigation funding – the practice of third parties financing lawsuits in exchange for a share of any funds the plaintiffs might receive – was once widely prohibited. As these bans have been eroded in recent decades, the practice has grown, spread, and become a contributor to social inflation: increased insurance payouts and loss ratios beyond  what can be explained by economic inflation alone.

Social inflation is a broad term that insurers use to describe these rising expenses. Litigation funding is just one factor driving it.

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.

The erosion of champerty prohibitions can be traced to the early 1990s in the United Kingdom and Australia.

“By the mid-1990s, a handful of Australian states had already done away with Maintenance and Champerty offenses such that they were no longer crimes or torts,” according to an article published by Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession. “Whether this rendered litigation finance permissible, however, remained doubtful. One jurisdiction [New South Wales] notably abolished Maintenance and Champerty offenses through formal legislation.”

These moves, the article goes on to say, “produced ambiguity around the use of litigation finance arrangements, where before they were more clearly prohibited.”

England, Canada, and Australia have since largely abandoned their laws against champerty, Steptoe writes, but Ireland, New Zealand, and Hong Kong continue to prohibit certain transactions as “champertous.”

Slow to take hold in U.S.

Despite the size of the potential market, litigation funding took time to gain traction in the United States because prohibitions on champerty are left to state legislatures and courts.  Some states have abandoned their anti-champerty laws over the past two decades. Others still prohibit champerty, either by statute or common law. Some, like New York, have adopted “safe harbors” that exempt transactions above a certain dollar amount from the reach of the champerty laws.

Minnesota recently became the latest state to abandon its champerty prohibition. In Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the litigation funding agreement under consideration was champertous; however, it also held that champertous contracts no longer contravene “public policy as we understand it today.” 

The court explained that the common-law prohibition against champerty was originally based on a desire to prevent abuse of the court system by individuals wealthy enough to finance lawsuits. It held that the doctrine against champerty is no longer the only or best tool for achieving that goal – and, in fact, may “increase access to justice” by enabling individuals who might not otherwise have the financial means to pursue their claims in court. 

Courts drive decline of anti-champerty laws

The Minnesota Supreme Court was able to abolish the doctrine, Steptoe writes, because Minnesota’s prohibition was based on common law, rather than statute. This is in contrast to New York, where the prohibition is statutory. Re-examining it is the responsibility of the state legislature, not the courts.

As the popularity of litigation funding – along with awareness of its impact on insurers and policyholders – grows, the practice has come under increased scrutiny.  The policymaking arm of the American Bar Association (ABA) recently approved a set of best practices for such arrangements. 

The resolution – adopted by the ABA’s House of Delegates by a vote of 366 to 10 – lists the issues lawyers should consider before entering into agreements with outside funders. While it avoids taking a position on the use of such funding, it recommends that lawyers detail all arrangements in writing and advises them to ensure that the client retains control.

The resolution also cautions attorneys against giving funders advice about the merits of a case, 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. 

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety

Will PandemicDriving Trends PersistAfter COVID-19 Passes?

Leave a comment

More people died in New York City automobile accidents in 2020 than in 2019, despite greatly reduced driving as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic slowdown. The local trend is consistent with broader ones recently referenced by Triple-I senior vice president and chief actuary James Lynch.

As of this morning’s reporting on WNYC, 227 people had died in car-related accidents this year in New York City, compared with 203 by this time last year. This increase appears to be due to more speeding and reckless driving, as documented by a doubling of speeding tickets in 2020, from more than 2 million to 4 million.

Similar trends are reported in other states. In Minnesota, 372 fatal accidents have been reported, compared with 346 this time last year.  Wisconsin reported a 7.4 percent increase in auto fatalities.

During the first six months of 2020, Colorado’s traffic deaths rose just by just 1 percent from the same period in 2019 – but the fatality rate per vehicle mile traveled rose by 20 percent.

Nationally, Triple-I’s Lynch said, “mileage driven this year is down 12 percent, but traffic fatalities are up 4 percent. The concern is that frequency patterns will return to the norm, but fast driving will keep claim severity high, putting upward pressure on rates.”

WNYC’s Steven Nessen reported some good news with respect to pedestrian deaths in New York, which are down to 93 from 108 this time last year. 

“If the city can keep it up, this may end up being the safest year for pedestrian deaths since Mayor DeBlasio took office,” Nessen said.

Nessen also noted that deaths of bicyclists in New York City were little changed in 2020 – notable because bicycle use has increased dramatically this year – and that reckless drivers “seem mostly to be killing themselves by hitting medians or trees.”

“Where we see a big jump in numbers is in motorcycle deaths,” he continued. “Those numbers nearly doubled this year, to forty-seven.”

This isn’t surprising, given that motorcycle fatalities – per vehicle miles traveled – occur nearly 27 times more frequently than passenger car occupant fatalities in crashes.

Insurance Industry

Rising Interest Seen in Parametric Insurance

Leave a comment

Parametric insurance appears to have received increased interest in 2020.

A recent Artemis article says growing awareness of and demand for these products seems to be driven by this year’s pandemic-related volatility as insurers and insureds “are increasingly focused on solutions that can rapidly deliver cash and enable better business continuity.”

According to the article, Aon’s Innovation and Solutions team has seen “a dramatic increase” in the number of clients seeking to understand how they might supplement or replace existing risk-transfer program with parametric structures “to potentially improve cashflow following a loss event.”

Unlike traditional indemnity insurance, parametric structures cover risks without the complications of sending adjusters to assess damage after an event. Instead of paying for damage that has occurred, it pays out if certain agreed-upon conditions are met – for example, a specific wind speed or earthquake magnitude in a particular area. If coverage is triggered, a payment is made, regardless of damage.

Speed of payment and reduced administration costs can ease the burden on both insurers and policyholders. Alone, or as part of a package including indemnity coverage, parametric insurance can provide liquidity that businesses and communities need for post-catastrophe resilience.

Parametric approaches are being discussed as part of insuring against future pandemics and are being used to protect hard-to-insure natural assets like coral reefs and mangrove forests.  SwissRe and Understory offer parametric insurance for hail-prone geographies.

Aon told Artemis about a U.S.-based telecommunications company that replaced its entire traditional property indemnity insurance program with a $300 million parametric hurricane insurance solution. Artemis says such deals are increasingly coming to market, “with reports of a number of large transactions in the hundreds of millions of dollars this year, as parametric triggers are increasingly embedded within large corporate risk transfer programs.”