All posts by Tasha Williams

Homeowners Insurance, Insurance Industry

New IRC report indicates that Most Homeowners Expect to Experience Severe Weather in Future and Feel Prepared. 

Leave a comment

While the perception of overall severe weather risks varies significantly by region, 65 percent of the participants nationwide believed their home is at risk from thunderstorms, according to the new report, Catastrophic Weather Events and Mitigation: Survey of Homeowners by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), a division of The Institutes. 

Overall, this and other key report findings revolve around the value of proactive measures for effective preparedness and mitigation strategies to address the increasing risks posed by severe weather events and the need for collaboration between homeowners, insurers, and governments to enhance resilience against natural disasters. The report highlights how interactions with contractors, public adjusters, and attorney involvement can significantly impact recovery timelines, claims frequency, and insurance costs. 

The online survey of over 1,500 respondents investigates U.S. public opinions and homeowners’ experiences with severe weather, offering insights on U.S. regional perceptions of future risks, preparedness levels, attitudes toward mitigation strategies, post-storm solicitations by contractors and service providers, and homeowners; opinions on the roles of insurance and government in managing severe weather-related risks.  

Disaster anticipation and preparedness 

Eighty percent of the responding homeowners expressed confidence in their preparedness for severe weather events. Homeowners participating in the survey who experienced severe weather events in the past five years were significantly more likely to believe that a similar event would occur within the next five years.  

Only 30 percent are aware of premium savings for implementing mitigation measures. However, Eighty-three percent of participants said they would consider implementing catastrophe preparedness and mitigation measures if it meant receiving savings on their insurance premiums, but most of those required premium savings large enough to offset the costs of these measures. Seventy percent revealed they would be willing to pay higher premiums for better protection against future severe weather events. Overall, 80 percent agreed that the government should provide emergency assistance.  

Weather Experiences 

Nearly half of the participants reported damage to their homes after a severe weather event. About 34 percent said they filed an insurance claim after experiencing damage to their homes, and 45 percent said they hired a contractor. Sixty-four percent of respondents reported receiving solicitation from contractors after a severe weather event. Also, 68 percent of participants who filed claims said they used Assignment of Benefits (AOB) to authorize the repair company to bill the insurance carrier. Fifty-four percent reported hiring public adjusters to handle repairs and insurance claims.  

For context, each year, there are about 100,000 thunderstorms in the U.S., about 10% of which reach severe levels, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Storms are classified as severe “ when containing one or more of the following: hail one inch or greater, winds gusting more than 50 knots (57.5 mph), or a tornado.” Data analysis from Munich Re indicates that by just the first six months of 2024, severe thunderstorms in the U.S. caused $45 billion in losses, $34 billion of which were insured, making 2024 the fourth-costliest thunderstorm year on record.  

Between 1980 and 2024 (as of November 1), the U.S. experienced 400 weather and climate disasters, with overall damage costs for each reaching or exceeding $1 billion. The cumulative cost for these 400 events exceeds $2.78 trillion. The yearly average for events during this period is 8.5, with the annual average for 2019 –2023 being 20.4. However, the U.S. experienced 28 events in 2023 and 27 events in 2024 costing at least 1 billion dollars each. 

Stakeholder Takeaways 

While climate risk plays a significant role in the number and severity of extreme weather events that cause insurance industry losses, Triple-I has kept an eye on the impact of the unpredictable confluence of attorney fee mechanisms, assignment of benefits (AOB), and other practices that can amplify claim costs. For example, involving third parties has the propensity to introduce the risk of claim inflation and may compound issues for the policyholder.  

When property owners are compelled to share their claim value (typically 30 – 40 percent to attorneys and 10 – 30 percent to public adjusters), this, in turn, may impact the final amount they feel necessary to settle a claim. Previous IRC research suggests that attorney involvement can increase claims costs and the time needed to resolve them (again, even while reducing value for claimants). Additionally, after a severe weather event, some exploitative actors can aggressively leverage assignment of benefits (AOBs) agreements to bill or even sue the insurer without further input from the policyholder. Policyholders lose the ability to work through and settle the claim efficiently. 

Triple-I and key insurance industry stakeholders define legal system abuse as policyholder or plaintiff attorney practices that increase costs and time to settle insurance claims, including situations when a disputed claim could have been fairly resolved without judicial intervention. Without measures such as regulatory intervention and increased policyholder awareness, coverage affordability and availability are at risk. Insurers, policyholders, and policymakers can take actionable steps to address the legal system’s impact on the cost of insurance. Triple-I remains committed to advancing the conversation and exploring actionable strategies with all stakeholders.  

To learn more, read this latest IRC report, our most recent brief on Legal System abuse, and follow our blog. 

Business Risk, Insurance Industry, Market Conditions, Risk Management

Triple-I Brief: Commercial Property Insurance Shows Signs of Improvement, Stable Growth

Leave a comment

While rising premiums have been the primary driver for commercial property insurance growth for years, a 25-quarter rate increase streak broke in early 2024. Strong risk-adjusted capitalization and adequate liquidity may sustain the stable outlook, notwithstanding formidable risks, according to Triple-I’s latest insurance brief Commercial Property: Trends and Insights.

The brief focuses on several core trends shaping opportunities and threats to the commercial property insurance segment:

  • Mounting climate and natural catastrophe risks
  • Increasing capacity in the reinsurance market
  • Lurking undervaluation risk
  • Rise of AI and technology in risk mitigation

According to a recent McKinsey report, data involving global figures for 25 primary commercial lines carriers indicate a combined ratio of 91 percent for 2023, down from a high of 102 in 2020 but holding steady from the prior year. Commercial property comprised $254 billion (or 26 percent) of premiums across these carriers.

Before 2024, the overall U.S. P&C commercial market experienced hard market conditions going back to 2018, according to NAIC data and analysis. Double-digit rate increases were the norm, particularly for properties in high-risk regions or with poor loss histories. A Marsh McLennan report shows that in Q4 2023, rate increases averaged 11 percent for more considerable commercial property risks and even higher for accounts with loss history challenges or catastrophic exposure.  Carriers have delivered steady quarterly increases since 2017 “to offset pressures from catastrophes and economic and social inflation.” Capacity constraints, driven by increased reinsurance costs, compounded this hardening, creating challenges for insurers and policyholders.

However, commercial insurers benefited from underwriting margins that outperformed the long-term average despite slowing year-over-year growth in direct premiums written, according to the 2024 S&P Global Market Intelligence U.S. Property and Casualty Industry Performance Rankings report. The top 50 of the 100 evaluated carriers was dominated by commercial line providers, with insurers focusing primarily on commercial property lines capturing three of the top 10 spots. In comparison, only two personal lines carriers ranked in the top 50.

AM Best, which maintains that insured losses in recent years have been driven primarily by secondary perils such as severe convective storms, issued its “Market Segment Outlook: US Commercial Lines” report. The analysts predict a stable market segment outlook for the U.S. commercial lines insurance sector in 2025. The company expects the commercial lines segment “will remain profitable in the aggregate and will be resilient in the face of near- and longer-term challenges.” However, relatively high claims costs, the multi-year impact of social inflation, and geopolitical risks may pose threats. The latest AM Best report focused solely on the commercial property segment (dated March 2024) advises that the Excess and Surplus (E&S) market has absorbed some of the higher risks. Still, overall secondary perils continue to be a significant “offsetting factor” for commercial property.

The damage of weather events and natural catastrophes tend to make big headlines (and rightly so), but the overall risk for commercial property isn’t limited to the destruction wrought by each disaster. It also extends to the interactions between the event outcomes and human systems. Specifically, these events can strain regional economic systems, such as decreasing the availability of rebuilding materials and labor while simultaneously amplifying demand for these same inputs. In turn, property replacement costs can soar.

Reinsurance

In 2023, major changes in reinsurance policy structures and price increases compelled insurers to decrease limits and absorb higher retentions. The policy restructurings also meant primary insurers had to retain more losses from increased secondary perils, such as floods, wildfires, and severe convective storms, that they could not cede to the reinsurance market. The insurers’ retention of loss may have allowed the incubation of increased capacity in the reinsurance market, improving late in 2023 and into early 2024.

By mid-year 2024 renewals, reinsurance appetite had grown with easing in some loss-free areas and, as applicable, underwriting scrutiny held firm in others areas. Analysts observed “flat to down mid-to high-single digits” reinsurance risk-adjusted rates for global property catastrophes. A Marsh McLennan report noted modest growth in investment and capital due to increased market capacity and underwriting interest from carriers. Late 2024 catastrophic events and any similar activities in the coming year will likely remain a primary drivers for reinsurance costs, along with the increasing cost of capital, financial market volatility, and economic inflation.

To learn more about Triple-I’s take on these and other commercial property insurance trends, read the issue brief and follow our blog.

Business Risk, Cyber Risk, Floods, Insurance Industry

RiskScan 2024 reveals risk priorities across the insurance marketplace

Leave a comment

By Mary Sams, Senior Research Analyst

Cyber incidents, changes in climate, and business interruption are the chief risk concerns among key marketplace segments in the insurance industry, according to RiskScan 2024, a new survey from Munich Reinsurance America Inc. (“Munich Re US”) and the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) reveals.

RiskScan 2024 provides a cross-market overview of top risk concerns among individuals across five key market segments: P&C insurance carriers, P&C agents and brokers, middle-market business decision makers, small business owners, and consumers. The survey explores not only P&C risks, but also how economic, political, and legal pressures shape risk perceptions. 

Methodology

To produce a compelling snapshot of cross-market views, Munich Re US and Triple-I engaged independent market researcher RTi Research in the summer of 2024 to survey 1,300 US-based individuals.

Market surveys typically focus on a single audience, but RiskScan 2024 is a multi-segment survey offering a comprehensive view of risk perceptions and yielding comparative results between audiences. The key insights present a variety of commonalities and disparities across the five distinct target segments, covering the full range of insurance buyers and sellers across the United States.

This online survey was conducted across gender, age, geographic region, household income, business revenue, and company size. 

Two primary cohorts make up five segments of participants in the RiskScan research:

  1. consumers and small business owners (n=700) and
  1. Insurance industry participants, which included carriers, agents, and brokers as well as middle market businesses (n=600). 

Research participants were presented with various risks across five segments and then asked to select their top three risk concerns. 

Key Insights

More than one-third of respondents chose economic inflation, cyber incidents, and climate change as their top three concerns based on insurance risks and market dynamics. All three of these reflect post-pandemic news topics. Economic inflation has increased over the last several years.  Consumers and small business owners have experienced direct impacts with increased costs and industry participants have seen these impacts on increased replacement costs and P&C insurance premiums.

There are significant disparities in the ranking results between the two primary cohorts within the research. Insurance professionals tend to identify a variety of risks and have significant awareness of all risk categories, including emerging technologies. As expected, these audiences exhibit broader knowledge and awareness of risk transfer and mitigation of new and emerging risks. Consumers identified a smaller number of risks associated with more immediate and direct impacts on themselves. 

The structure of RiskScan 2024 research yields a more complete understanding of the “white space” that exists between risk perception and action. The gaps were identified along three key risk areas: 

  • Flood risk
  • cyber risks, and
  • legal system abuse

Flood risk was also indicated as one of the chief concerns for each audience. However, consumers lack awareness that flood events are typically excluded from homeowner’s policies. Industry professionals are more aware of flood coverage exclusions, the importance of purchasing flood coverage before a flood event, and the likelihood of these events occurring.

Cyber incidents are a primary concern in all five market segments. Most audiences in the research, both consumer and commercial, feel unprepared as this threat vector is constantly emerging, expanding, and changing. Many people are knowledgeable about cyber risks and are concerned about how to mitigate new cyber threats. Troubling stories have come to light as the frequency and severity of cyber threats grow.

“The knowledge gap about insurance risks demonstrates the continued need for education of consumers and businesses, especially about flood, cyber, and legal system abuse,” says Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. “Increasing knowledge will be instrumental for the collective work needed to better manage and mitigate future risks.”

The report includes additional results for each of the five primary audiences: consumers (n=500), small business owners (n=200), insurance carriers (n=200), insurance agents and brokers (n=200), and middle market businesses (n=200).

Download the full RiskScan 2024 report to review the details. Triple-I aims to empower stakeholders by driving research and education on this and other key insurance topics. Follow our blog to keep abreast of these essential conversations.

Insurance Industry

US Consumers See Link Between Attorney Involvement in Claims and Higher Auto Insurance Costs: New IRC Report

Leave a comment

According to a new survey conducted by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), most consumers believe attorney advertising increases the number of claims and lawsuits and the cost of auto insurance.

The report, Public Opinions on Attorney Involvement in Claims, analyzes consumer opinions on attorney involvement in insurance claims and expands prior research. Overall, 60 percent of 2000 respondents in this latest nationwide online survey from IRC said that attorney advertising increases the number of claims, and 52 percent said that advertising increases the cost of insurance. Most respondents (89 percent) reported seeing attorney advertising in the past year, and about half reported seeing an increase in the amount of attorney advertising.

The IRC endeavored to gauge perceptions of attorney advertising and its impact on the cost of insurance, consumer awareness and understanding of litigation financing practices, and decisions about consulting attorneys about auto insurance claims. The main lines of inquiry in the survey revolved around:

  • How has the public experienced attorney advertising, and what do they think of the impact?
  • Are they aware of litigation financing, and after being given a description, what do they think of it?
  • Would they be more likely to hire an attorney to help settle an insurance claim or to settle directly with an insurer?
  • What was their previous history with auto insurance claims and their experience with consulting a lawyer to help settle an injury claim?

Results indicate that consumers are exposed to more attorney advertising across most mediums – particularly in outdoor ads, with auto accident advertisements being the most prevalent medium – compared to three years ago. While billboard advertising has experienced the most growth over the past three years, TV is the most recalled medium, with 65 percent of respondents recalling seeing TV ads in the past year.

The study reveals the awareness of litigation financing has risen significantly, but most respondents remain neutral in their opinions. Nonetheless, results show consumers want transparency around the involvement of third-party litigation funding in a case. When asked, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that the participants in a lawsuit should be informed when outside investors are financing the litigation,” 69 percent said they agree.

How might increased attorney advertising fuel legal system abuse?

IRC’s findings support a “significant statistical correlation between whether respondents consulted an attorney and their exposure to advertising. Among those who reported seeing attorney advertising, 74 percent consulted an attorney, compared to 48 percent among those who had not seen attorney advertising.”

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) estimates that in 2023, over $2.4 billion was spent on local legal services advertising through television, radio, print ads, and billboards across the United States.  Meanwhile, only 47 percent of respondents in a 2023 American Bar Association (ABA) survey said their firm had an annual marketing budget – a decline from 57 percent in 2022. About 80 percent of the solo practitioners in the study did not have a marketing budget, and only 31 percent of firms of 2-9 lawyers had one. 

Therefore, excessive advertising isn’t universal across the legal industry, and the saturation of advertising channels can more likely be attributed to large firms reaping substantial profits from certain practice areas or firms bolstered by third-party litigation financing. In many instances, both of these conditions factors may be involved. For example, data that ranks the leading legal services advertisers in the United States in 2023 by spending reveals a list dominated by large law firms and attorney conglomerates specializing in mass tort, accident, and personal injury litigation.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year on the ties between advertising surge and the growth in mass product-liability and personal-injury cases, along with the rising involvement from a particular segment of the investment industry in these types of litigation. Nearly 800,000 television advertisements for mass tort cases ran in 2023, costing over $160 million. According to the WSJ, the ads shown most frequently that year included those soliciting individuals who might have been exposed to contaminated water at the Camp Lejeune Marine base. This particular mass tort ranks high on the previously mentioned list of top spenders.

The average dollar amount of third-party litigation funder (TPLF) loans provided to individual law firms ranges from $20 million to $100 million. Given that prospective returns for TPLF loans reportedly reach as high as 20 percent for the riskier mass tort litigation, connecting the surge in advertising for recruiting plaintiffs to the TPLF cash stream may not be such a big leap. Yet, over the years, studies have shown that attorney involvement can increase claims costs and the time needed to resolve them, even while reducing value for claimants.

Insurance claims litigation is a growing concern in several states, including Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, threatening coverage affordability and availability. In Georgia, for example, data indicates that auto coverage affordability for Georgians has been waning faster than in any other state. An August 2024 report, Personal Auto Insurance Affordability in Georgia, issued by IRC, ranked Georgia 47th in terms of auto insurance affordability, while the state tops the most recent list of places that the American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF) believes judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and court procedures generally to the disadvantage of defendants.

Triple-I and key insurance industry stakeholders define legal system abuse as policyholder or plaintiff attorney practices that increase costs and time to settle insurance claims, including situations when a disputed claim could have been fairly resolved without judicial intervention. Insurers’ legal costs for claims can mount with the increasing number of lawsuit filings, extended litigation, and outsized jury awards (awards exceeding $10 million).

To join the discussion, register for JIF 2024. Follow our blog to learn more about trends in insurance affordability and availability across the property and casualty market.

Insurance Industry

Triple-I launches campaign to highlight challenges to insurance affordability in Georgia

Leave a comment

By Dale Porfilio, Chief Insurance Officer, Insurance Information Institute

As part of its ongoing work to raise awareness of the impacts of legal system abuse, the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) launched a multi-faceted campaign focusing on Georgia. The campaign includes an Interstate 20 billboard in Downtown Atlanta and digital billboards on bus stops and other urban panels across the Metro Atlanta area.

Georgia tops the most recent list of places that the American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF) calls “judicial hellholes,” states and counties where the organization believes judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and court procedures generally to the disadvantage of defendants. According to ATRF, Georgia earned this ranking due to continued “high nuclear verdicts and liability-expanding decisions by the Georgia Supreme Court.” The state made the list for the first time in the report for 2019-2020, debuting at number 6. 

Triple-I and key insurance industry stakeholders define legal system abuse as policyholder or plaintiff attorney practices that increase costs and time to settle insurance claims, including situations when a disputed claim could have been resolved without judicial intervention. Insurers’ legal costs for claims can mount with the increasing number of lawsuit filings, extended litigation, and outsized jury awards (awards exceeding $10 million). Data from the Insurance Research Council (IRC) indicates that attorney involvement can increase claims costs and the time needed to resolve them, even while reducing value for claimants.

Auto insurance litigation, for example, is a growing concern in Georgia as data reveals coverage affordability for Georgians in this product area has been significantly waning faster than in any other state. An August 2024 report, Personal Auto Insurance Affordability in Georgia, issued by IRC, ranked Georgia 47th in terms of auto insurance affordability. Personal auto insurance expenditures accounted for 2.0 percent of Georgians’ median household income, compared with a 1.5 percent share nationwide. Auto insurance spending in Georgia grew at 5.6 percent annualized between 2014 and 2022, compared with 3.3 percent in the country overall.

Meanwhile, legal service providers spent over $160 million on advertising in Georgia in 2023, according to preliminary data from the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). 

Earlier this year, a Triple-I issue brief, Legal System Abuse: State of the Risk, highlighted aspects of legal system abuse, including how law firm advertising spend for mass tort cases might play a role in increased filings nationwide. Trial attorneys and third-party litigation funders seeking more profits may use advertising to amp up recruitment for lawsuits with big payouts at the expense of policyholders. A 2023 Triple-I study, Impact of Increasing Inflation on Personal and Commercial Auto Liability Insurance, estimates that increasing inflation drove loss and DCC (defense containment costs) higher in both insurance lines – by 6.5 percent ($61 billion) of total loss and DCC for personal auto and by 19 to 24 percent ($35 to $44 billion) for commercial auto.

Triple-I’s multi-faceted awareness campaign to help educate Georgians about the mounting costs of legal system abuse in the state also includes content such as a video statement by CEO Sean Kevelighan and interviews capturing the opinions of consumers about legal system abuse.

Coverage affordability is a growing concern for many policyholders nationwide. While several factors may impact insurance premiums, unnecessary and excessive litigation can drive higher loss ratios while posing formidable challenges to prediction and mitigation. Triple-I is committed to advancing conversations with business leaders, government regulators, consumers, and other stakeholders to attack the risk crisis and chart a path forward.

We invite you to join the discussion by registering for JIF 2024. Follow our blog to learn more about trends in insurance affordability and availability across the property and casualty market.

Emerging Risks, Insurance Industry, Insurance News

Multi-Family Affordable Housing Market Challenged by Surges in Insurance Premiums

Leave a comment
urban apartment buildings

With ​​nearly half of all homes in the United States at risk of “severe or extreme” damage from events like flooding, high winds, and wildfire, the perfect storm of climate risk and legal system abuse creates obstacles for homeowners. It also threatens a more financially vulnerable segment of the housing market, as increased premiums and waning coverage for affordable housing providers can put millions of renters at risk of becoming rent-burdened (paying more than 30 percent of gross monthly income in gross monthly rent) or unhoused.

In June of this year, about two dozen real estate, housing, and nonprofit organizations — self-describing as a “broad coalition of housing providers and lenders” —  wrote a letter to Congress and the Biden administration urging them to address the issue of property insurance affordability. Although the coalition declared its intent to represent all stakeholders in the housing market, it called attention to special concerns of affordable housing providers and renters.

The letter referenced an October 2023 survey and report commissioned by the National Leased Housing Association (NLHA) and supported by other affordable housing organizations. The survey involved more than 400 housing providers that operate 2.7 million rental units — 1.7 million of which are federally subsidized. Findings mentioned in the letter and report about the affordable housing market include:

– Rate increases of 25 percent or more in the most recent renewal period for one in every three policies for affordable housing providers.

– Over 93 percent of housing providers said they plan to mitigate cost increases, with three most commonly cited tactics: increasing insurance deductibles (67 percent), decreasing operating expenses (64 percent), and increasing rent (58 percent).

– Respondents cited limited markets and capacity as the cause for most premium increases, followed by claims history/loss and renter population.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, affordable housing is generally defined as housing for which the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs. These units are often regulated under various regional and nationwide programs, which typically offer some form of government subsidy to the property owners – usually either through tax credits, government-backed financing, or direct payments. Rising insurance premiums for affordable housing properties have come at a particularly challenging time for both renters and affordable housing property owners, a large share of which are non-profit organizations.

Census Data indicates that in total renters comprise around 36 percent, or about 44.2 million of the 122.8 million Census captured households. The number of rent-burdened households nationwide has hit an all-time high. The latest rental housing market figures, taken from a report issued by the Joint Center For Housing Studies Of Harvard University, counts 22.4 million rent burdened households in this category, amplifying the dire need for more affordable units. That report also reveals the proportion of “cost-burdened renters rose to 50 percent, up 3.2 percentage points from 2019.” 

Additionally, homelessness increased 12 percent in 2023. More than 650,000 people were unhoused at some point last year — the highest number recorded since data collection began in 2007. A Wall Street Journal analysis reveals the most recent counts for 2024 are already up 10 percent, putting the total number of unhoused persons on track to exceed last year’s amount.

Meanwhile, the affordable housing stock is aging and the cost of debt to acquire or build multifamily properties has risen, too. As interest rates have been high in recent years, developers must offer investors greater returns than treasury notes. The problem is complex, but the outcomes can be brutally straightforward.

Higher insurance premiums on rented properties increase costs, which, in turn, get passed on to renters. Market-rate landlords can usually raise rents to cover the increasing costs of capital and insurance premiums. However, affordable housing providers are locked into rents set by the government. These amounts are tied to regional incomes, which can be depressed by wage stagnation. Thus, renters who rely on affordable housing can experience the impact of rising premiums in the form of decreased services and lapsed maintenance (as housing providers dip into other parts of the operating budget to make up the shortfall) or a decrease in the number of units on the market as housing providers extract units or leave the market.

In July of this year, HUD convened a meeting with various stakeholders to discuss policies and opportunities to address this and related challenges while managing potential risks to the long-term viability of affordable housing. HUD has modified its insurance requirements for apartment buildings with government-backed mortgages, now allowing owners to set their deductible for wind and storm events as high as $475,000, up from $250,000. This tactic may reduce premiums but can also raise out-of-pocket costs after a storm or severe climate event. Another approach in progress is the revision of HUD’s methodology for calculating the Operating Cost Adjustment Factors (OCAF), parameters for annual percentile increases in rent, for eligible multifamily properties to better account for increasing insurance costs.

Triple-I is committed to advancing conversations with business leaders, government regulators, and other stakeholders to attack the risk crisis and chart a path forward. To join the discussion, register for JIF 2024. Follow our blog to learn more about trends in insurance affordability and availability across the property and casualty market.

Emerging Risks, Insurance Industry, Market Conditions

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

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

These factors can also converge to enhance or aggravate conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insurance Industry, Legal Environment

Operating from the shadows, TPLF can create problems for judges and courts.

Leave a comment
Hand with black sleeve holding a gavel, piles of documents

A recently published article, The Fifth Dimension: TPLF and Its Effect on the Judiciary, highlights the ways the rising specter of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) can create unnecessary challenges for the judiciary. 

Triple-I has published a great deal regarding the potential impact of TPLF on costs for insurers and policyholders. Bellino’s gaze focused on potential risks for the judiciary:

  • Increased judicial workload
  • More fraudulent claims
  • Longer litigation and slower settlements
  • Creation of potential appellate issues

And, like many insurance industry stakeholders, Lisa M. Bellino (VP Claims Judicial & Legislative Affairs for Zurich North America in Philadelphia) is fundamentally concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding TPLF’s involvement in a lawsuit.

TPLF is a growing and costly aspect of legal system abuse, a problem that Triple-I and other industry thought leaders define as policyholder or plaintiff attorney actions that unnecessarily increase the costs and time to settle insurance claims. Qualifying actions can arise, for example, when clients or attorneys draw out litigation in hopes of a larger settlement simply because TPLF investors take such a giant piece of the payout. As there is little transparency around the use of TPLF, insurers and the courts have virtually no leeway in mitigating any of this risk.

TPLF can lead to undue judicial burden and waste.

When judges are unaware of the funding arrangement, they would likely also be in the dark about potential conflicts of interest or improper claims and, therefore, be unable to mitigate these risks. However, Bellino argues that the de facto practice of secrecy can cause judicial waste even in the limited number of jurisdictions and courts that require disclosure. Judges may feel compelled to spend a significant amount of time ascertaining attorney compliance. As funding often involves parties not directly related to the case, the judiciary may need to hold additional hearings and reviews to uncover the real parties in interest. Bellino cites a case in which the real parties were not the named plaintiffs.

TPLF can be a driving factor behind lawsuit generation.

When law firms pursue class action litigation, they may engage “lead generators,” companies that help find plaintiffs for a specific tort. Advertising tactics can include traditional and social media. When prospective claimants respond to these ads, they are directed to a law firm or a call center that distributes the recruited claimants to law firms. This service comes at a steep price – in dollars and justice. As funding may often come from TPLF, Bellino describes how the profit model behind lead generation companies working with law firms can increase the risk of fraudulent claims.

The risk of bogus claims and claimants can surge with TPLF.

Funders of class action litigation have a financial incentive to drive up the number of plaintiffs. As neither the defense nor the judge is typically aware of the third party’s potential conflict of interests, judicial resources can be wasted, and justice can be delayed for legitimate claimants. Bellino cites, among other examples, a New York case to illustrate how litigation funders and attorneys may even collaborate in multi-million dollar fraud schemes.

TPLF funders may encourage drawn-out litigation and hinder settlements

Bellino cites a case highlighting how funders might control litigation and delay resolutions to maximize their returns. A publicly traded TPLF giant allegedly blocked a settlement agreement between a plaintiff and the defendants, resulting in prolonged litigation across multiple jurisdictions. The interference may have led to additional motions, hearings, and opinions, diverting judicial resources from resolving the dispute between the named parties. As a result, costs for the plaintiff, defendant, and the courts likely would’ve soared. 

Undisclosed TPLF involvement can spark appellate concerns.

Undisclosed funding agreements can also prevent parties from adequately preparing their cases and preserving appellate issues. For example, a TPLF investor may fund medical testing that leads to recruiting plaintiffs for a class action against a drug manufacturer.  If this fact wasn’t disclosed to the defendants or court, at the very least, the defendant wouldn’t have access to information needed for defense or subsequent appeals. Also, the judiciary wouldn’t be able to perform its duty to monitor red flags for potential bias or fraud. It is also possible that the interests of the plaintiff will be affected by other appellate concerns, too.

Increases in litigation and claim costs have threatened the affordability and availability of many areas of insurance coverage. TPLF involvement, like other channels for potential legal system abuse, is nearly impossible to forecast and mitigate. And despite its original intended purpose–to help plaintiffs seek justice– it can extract a disproportionate amount of value from settlements, weakening the primary purpose of a financial payout.

Overall, the shroud of secrecy around TPLF can undermine the legal system, posing threats to unbiased and fair legal outcomes. Bellino strongly advocates for mandatory disclosure of TPLF agreements at the beginning of litigation. A system-wide requirement for early transparency would allow courts and involved parties to address potential conflicts, biases, and fraud early in the process. In her words, “Disclosure may restore reality and close the door on the TPLF Twilight Zone.”

To learn more about how TPLF can impact costs for insurers and policyholders, take a look at our primer, What is third-party litigation funding and how does it affect insurance pricing and affordability? Our issue brief, Legal System Abuse: State of the Risk, can also provide more context on how TPLF fits into social inflation.  

Insurance Industry

Dynamic trends in TPLF and securities class actions increase risks for insurers

Leave a comment

An annual report on securities class actions from Cornerstone Research indicates the median settlement amount increased 11%, and the proportion of settlements of at least $100 million climbed to nearly two-thirds of the total settlement dollars in 2023.  

Research from Westfleet Advisors focused on third-party litigation funding (TPLF) for US commercial litigation suggests the David versus Goliath narrative surrounding the early years of the market is growing tenuous. The overall percentage of commitments allocated to Big Law continues to increase, from 28% in 2022 to 35% in 2023.  

These and other persistent upward trends in litigation, settlement, and other legal costs continue to have implications for insurers, the policyholders they serve, and, ultimately, consumer prices. 

Mega settlements and institutional investors as lead plaintiffs are increasing. 

Cornerstone reports that despite a more than 20% decline in the number of settlements, total settlement dollars remained approximately the same, standing at little over half of the 2016 peak.  

There were 83 securities class action settlements in 2023, with an approximate total value of $3.9 billion, versus 105 settlements in 2022, totaling $4.0 billion. Other highlights in the 2023 data: 

  • The median settlement amount of $15 million is the highest since 2010.    
  • The nine “mega” settlements in 2023–the highest annual frequency since 2016–ranged from $102.5 million to $1 billion. 
  • All of the mega settlements included an institutional investor as the lead plaintiff.  
  • Only 6% of cases settled for less than $2 million, the lowest percentage since 2013.  

Analysis indicates that settlements were also higher in cases involving certain factors: “accounting allegations, a corresponding SEC action, criminal charges, an accompanying derivative action, an institutional investor lead plaintiff, or securities.” Further, an increasing number of cases that settle at later stages involved an institutional lead plaintiff, continuing the trend from 2022.  

Results also suggest that drawing out cases can amplify other factors, such as total assets and median “simplified tiered damages,” a Cornerstone term that refers to the model used to estimate settlement amounts. For both of these categories in 2023, median amounts for cases after class certification rulings were twice that of cases that settled before these rulings were made. However, in the five-year period from 2019 through 2023, over 90% of cases were settled before filing a motion for summary judgment.  

Accompanying derivative actions are down. 

Whereas a securities class action is filed on behalf of shareholders, a shareholder derivative action is typically brought by a shareholder on behalf of and (arguably) for the benefit of the company (usually against the company’s directors and/or officers). Derivative actions typically only happen in parallel with class action lawsuits, and the majority don’t result in monetary settlements (except for attorney fees). Instead, the plaintiff wins tend to center around measures for reforming corporate governance or operational controls.  

Other research from Cornerstone shows the probability of a monetary settlement for these lawsuits increases when the associated class action settlement is rather large. Also, historically, securities actions with accompanying derivative litigation tend to settle for higher amounts than those that don’t carry parallel derivative claims. Thus, Cornerstone also tracks the percentage of cases involving accompanying derivative actions. In 2023, the portion was 40%, the lowest since 2011.  

New capital commitments decreased for commercial litigation TPLF, but claim monetization increased. 

With a reported 39 active funders, 353 new deals, and $15.2 billion AUM, commercial litigation (versus consumer litigation) receives the majority of third-party litigation funding (TPLF). Investors target intellectual property, arbitration, business torts, contract breaches, and, of course, class action suits. These TPLF deals, also referred to as transactions or commitments, are arranged between funders and corporate litigants or law firms. Westfleet Advisors’ most recent market report on TPLF is the fifth edition, and it covers transactions from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. Some noted exceptions and data adjustments are described in the report. 

The report reveals that despite some funders leaving the market and a 14% decrease in new capital commitments, key data points remained close to amounts tracked for last year. For example, attorneys still make the majority of these deals with a 64% share of the agreements, in contrast to only 36% for clients. Patent litigation is still reaping the largest amount of funds for a single legal area, about 19% of new commitments. Figures for type of deal and average deal size also remain fairly stable.  

However, some annual numbers have increased, highlighting an ongoing strategic shift in TPLF use. For the third year in a row, the report noted a rise in capital allocated for the monetization of claims, with 21% (versus 14% in 2022) going to new commitments. The biggest law firms (ranked in the AmLaw 200 according to gross revenue) have increased their use of TPLF, snagging 35% of the new deals. Arguably, both trends weaken the “David vs Goliath” narrative, and commercial TPLF may evolve to be less about helping scrappy firms and plaintiffs and more about extracting profits from litigation.  

Drawn out litigation and more outsized settlements may have implications for insurance coverage. 

Triple-I and other industry thought leaders define Legal System Abuse as policyholder or plaintiff attorney actions that unnecessarily increase the costs and time to settle insurance claims. Qualifying actions can arise from attorneys or clients drawing out litigation to reap a larger settlement simply because TPLF investors take such a giant piece of the settlement pie. As there is little transparency around the use of TPLF, insurers and courts have virtually no leeway in mitigating any of this risk. 

Thus, as with other channels for potential legal system abuse, TPLF use is nearly impossible to forecast and mitigate. Increases in litigation and claim costs have threatened the affordability and availability of many other areas of insurance coverage. TPLF can impact product lines such as Directors and Officers (D&O) in commercial litigation via securities class actions. TPLF can produce a financially counterproductive effect for plaintiffs by extracting a disproportionate amount of value from settlements, weakening the primary purpose of a financial payout: to enable the claimant to restore losses.  

Nonetheless, insurers seek to carefully manage these risks through underwriting practices, policy exclusions, and setting appropriate reserves to mitigate the financial impact. Meanwhile, Triple-I and various other stakeholders have called for a regulatory rein-in on TPLF to increase transparency.  To keep abreast of the conversation, follow our blog and check out our regularly updated knowledge hub for Legal System Abuse. 

Careers and Employment, ESG, Insurance Industry, Webinars

The Institutes Releases New Webinar, Intersectionality in Research: Navigating Diversity

Industry stakeholders looking to keep pace with market challenges may find diversity in research the key to long-term success and resilience. A multitude of different perspectives, ideas, and solutions can enhance innovation and strategic outcomes. Join The Institutes for a webinar panel discussion of strategies for creating inclusive research spaces, addressing biases, and fostering a diverse and equitable research community, specifically in insurance.

 The panel includes:

  • Julia Brinson, Vice President, Insurance Research, Conning
  • Dale Porfilio, Chief Insurance Officer for the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) and President of the Insurance Research Council (IRC).
  • Roosevelt Mosley, Jr. Principal & Consulting Actuary, Pinnacle Actuarial Resources, Inc.

Amy Cole-Smith, currently the Director for Diversity at The Institutes, moderated the discussion for this on-demand event.

Intersectionality hinges on two core fundamentals: all oppression is linked, and people can be impacted by multiple sources of interlocking oppression that converge to create a new and multi-layered struggle.

For example, intersectionality recognizes that a Black woman experiences racial and gender discrimination in ways that might be entirely different from the ways Black men face racism or White women face sexism. These differences stem from the principle that for Black women, the identities of “woman” and “Black” do not exist independently.

Intersectional research explores how gender, race, ethnicity, and other identity markers impact the data and analysis to drive valuable insights. But success requires discovering effective ways to generate those insights for the benefit of all in the customer base, not just some. Without the inclusion of intersectionality in research, disparities may continue, and market needs–along with accompanying opportunities–can go unmet.

According to Julia Brinson, applying intersectional research begins with better recruiting diverse talent. Building on her response, Roosevelt Mosley, Jr added, “Once that talent gets into our industry, we need to focus on developing and growing that talent into all areas of an organization.” 

In a demonstration of how inclusion can play out around the research table, the panelists shared how their experiences influence how they approach research. Brinson, who holds a Master of Law in Insurance Law (among many other credentials), spoke about how she views insurance research problems with an eye for diversity using a “legal lens to understand the claims aspect” and how premiums may be affected.

The panelists also recommended how other researchers can effectively incorporate intersectionality into their work.

Dale Porfilio commented on how “diversity in thought and experience” can help address the industry’s challenges in this area, including “making sure products are affordable…and available to cover a broad range of risk…and integrating that with the social construct of fairness.”

However, Moseley warned that a one-size-fits-all approach to any particular category, such as race, gender, etc., won’t be sufficient to meet the requirements of intersectionality in research.

“There is a collective experience of groups, but within that collective experience, there is also significant diversity,” he said.

The common sentiment revolved around the need for “courageous conversations” and there was plenty of advice on how institutions foster an environment that promotes communication and collaboration among researchers of diverse backgrounds.

The entire webinar is available now on demand. Register here: Intersectionality in Research: Navigating Diversity (on24.com)