Among homeowners surveyed by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), 88 percent recognize that aerial imagery is a beneficial tool for insurers.
Nearly all respondents said they recognize the value of using satellite, drone, and aircraft images for early problem detection, claims processing, and hazard identification before costly damage occurs. Most also said they believe aerial imaging can lead to fairer pricing.
Key findings:
Nine out of 10 respondents said they see at least one benefit from aerial imagery’s use in insurance. More than half said it leads to fairer insurance pricing.
While 60 percent have some awareness that insurers use aerial imagery, 40 percent know little or nothing about it.
When homeowners are familiar with the use of aerial imagery for underwriting, they are nearly twice as likely to think it makes insurance pricing fairer.
Homeowners worry more about accuracy than privacy in the context of aerial imagery. Accuracy emerges as the top individual concern, with 31 percent citing it as their biggest worry, compared to 24 percent who cite privacy as their primary concern.
Education and transparency are key to acceptance of this technology, the survey found. Homeowners who were already familiar with aerial imagery applications were found to show consistently higher confidence levels, greater benefit recognition, and more positive sentiment across all insurance uses. Younger homeowners also demonstrated greater acceptance and higher confidence in the technology’s accuracy.
“Consumers see value in aerial imagery when they understand how it’s used in insurance,” said IRC President Pat Schmid. “Efforts to increase transparency and consumer knowledge can bridge the confidence gap, improve customer trust, and help homeowners realize the benefits of faster claims, fairer pricing, and better risk prevention.”
The IRC, like Triple-I, is an affiliate of The Institutes.
A climate nonprofit plans to revive a key federal database tracking billion-dollar weather and climate disasters that the Trump Administration stopped updating in May, Bloomberg reported.
The database captures the financial toll of increasingly intense weather events and was used by insurers and others to understand, model, and predict weather perils across the United States. Dr. Adam B. Smith, the former NOAA climatologist who spearheaded the database for more than a decade, has been hired to manage it for the nonprofit, Climate Central.
NOAA in May announced it would stop tracking the cost of the country’s most expensive disasters, those which cause at least $1 billion in damage – a move that would leave insurers, researchers, and government policymakers with less reliable information to help understand the patterns of major disasters like hurricanes, drought or wildfires, and their economic consequences.
Climate Central plans to expand beyond the database’s original scope by tracking disasters as small as $100 million and calculating losses from individual wildfires, rather than simply reporting seasonal regional totals.
A record 28 billion-dollar disasters hit the United States in 2023, including a drought that caused $14.8 billion in damages. In 2024, 27 incidents of that scale occurred. Since 1980, an average of nine such events have struck in the United States annually.
This summer – amid deadly wildfires and floods – the Trump Administration has appeared to be rolling back some of its DOGE-driven NOAA funding cuts. NOAA recently announced that it would be hiring 450 meteorologists, hydrologists, and radar technicians for the National Weather Service (NWS), after having terminated over 550 such positions in the already-understaffed agency in the spring.
In addition, the administration’s announced termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program — run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — has been held up by a court injunction while legislators debate its future. Congress established BRIC through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 to ensure a stable funding source to support mitigation projects annually. The program has allocated more than $5 billion for investment in mitigation projects to alleviate human suffering and avoid economic losses from floods, wildfires, and other disasters.
Regarding the rescue of the NOAA dataset, Colorado State University researcher and Triple-I non-resident scholar Dr. Phil Klotzbach said, “The billion-dollar disaster dataset is important for those of us working to better understand the impacts of tropical cyclones. It uses a consistent methodology to estimate damage caused by natural disasters from 1980 to the present and was a critical input to our papers investigating the relationship between landfalling wind, pressure and damage. I’m very happy to hear that this dataset will continue!”
Amid a summer full of deadly fires and storm-related flooding, the Trump Administration appears to be rolling back some of the spending cuts imposed upon the National Weather Service (NWS) by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – of which NWS is a part – announced at an internal all-hands meeting earlier this month that they will hire 450 meteorologists, hydrologists, and radar technicians. CNN reported the announcement, citing an unnamed NOAA official. In jointly timed press releases, Congressmen Mike Flood and Eric Sorensen (D-Ill.) and Mike Flood (R-Neb.) acknowledged the planned hirings.
While the decision is welcome news, both congressmen continued to urge their colleagues to pass their bipartisan Weather Workforce Improvement Act to ensure these positions will remain permanent and not be subject to any future reductions.
“For months, Congressman Flood and I have been fighting to get NOAA and NWS employees the support they need in the face of cuts to staff and funding,” Sorenson said. “Hundreds of unfilled positions have caused NWS offices across the country to cancel weather balloon launches, forgo overnight staffing, and force remaining meteorologists to overwork themselves.”
“For decades the National Weather Service has helped keep our communities safe with accurate and timely forecasts,” said Flood, adding that the NOAA announcement “sends a message that they’re focused on strengthening the NWS for years to come.”
NOAA and FEMA cuts raised fears
It’s not just the NOAA and NWS cuts that have raised concerns. On April 4, 2025, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that it would be ending its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and cancel all BRIC applications from fiscal years 2020-2023. Congress established BRIC through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 to ensure a stable funding source to support mitigation projects annually. The program has allocated more than $5 billion for investment in mitigation projects to alleviate human suffering and avoid economic losses from floods, wildfires, and other disasters.
At the time, Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), called the decision to terminate BRIC “beyond reckless.”
“Although ASFPM has had some qualms about how FEMA’s BRIC program was implemented, it was still a cornerstone of our nation’s hazard mitigation strategy, and the agency has worked to make improvements each year,” Berginnis said. “Eliminating it entirely — mid-award cycle, no less — defies common sense.”
Resilience investment is key to long-term insurance availability and affordability. Average insured catastrophe losses have been on the rise for decades, reflecting a combination of climate-related factors and demographic trends as more people have moved into harm’s way.
Efforts have been made to save BRIC, and a U.S. District Judge in Boston recently granted a preliminary injunction sought by 20 Democrat-led states while their lawsuit over the funding moves ahead. Judge Richard G. Stearns ruled the Trump Administration cannot reallocate $4 billion meant to help communities protect against natural disasters.
In his ruling, Stearns said he was not convinced Congress had given FEMA any discretion to redirect the funds. The states had also shown that the “balance of hardship and public interest” was in their favor.
“There is an inherent public interest in ensuring that the government follows the law, and the potential hardship accruing to the States from the funds being repurposed is great,” Stearns wrote. “The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives.”
Global insured losses from natural catastrophes reached $80 billion in the first six months of 2025 alone, making it the second-costliest first half on record since data collection began decades ago, according to reports by reinsurance giants Munich Re and Swiss Re.
Both reports called out the devastating wildfires that swept through Los Angeles County in January as the single most destructive event to date, with both firms estimating that these fires caused $40 billion in insured losses.
What makes these disasters particularly alarming is their timing and location. Both reports emphasized that the Los Angeles fires occurred during California’s normally wet winter season, when such massive blazes are typically unheard of. This seasonal shift represents a troubling new pattern, in which dangerous fire conditions persist year-round, rather than just during traditional fire season.
The reports also agree that severe thunderstorms across the American Midwest and South continued to cause billions in additional damage throughout spring, reinforcing how weather-related disasters are becoming both more frequent and more costly as communities expand into high-risk areas.
Swiss Re and Munich Re both identify the same underlying drivers making these disasters so expensive: More people are building homes and businesses in dangerous areas like wildfire-prone zones and tornado alleys, while climate change is making extreme weather events more intense and unpredictable.
The reports agree that this combination of increased development in risky locations and worsening weather conditions means that what happened in the first half of 2025 is likely just a preview of even costlier disasters to come, unless communities take serious steps to build more resilient infrastructure and avoid construction in the most hazardous areas.
Cat losses and replacement costs
Swiss Re emphasized the growing wildfire threat, pointing out that, before 2015, wildfires on average contributed around 1 percent of the total insured losses from all natural catastrophes worldwide.
“In the last 10 years, this has risen to 7 percent, the costliest periods being a two-year stretch of 2017‒18, and to a lesser extent 2020,” the report said.
Swiss Re also points to severe impact of post-pandemic construction cost inflation, noting that “construction costs rose by 35.64 percent from January 2020 to June 2025, directly impacting property claims costs.” These higher costs to repair and replace property significantly increase the financial impact of each disaster.
“The best way to avoid losses is to implement effective preventive measures, such as more robust construction for buildings and infrastructure to better withstand natural disasters,” said Thomas Blunck, a member of Munich Re’s Board of Management. “Such precautions can help to maintain reasonable insurance premiums, even in high-risk areas. And most importantly: to reduce future exposure, new building development should not be allowed in high-risk areas.”
Swiss Re cautions that climate change is creating more volatile and unpredictable loss patterns, making catastrophe losses “more difficult to predict.” Together, these trends suggest the U.S. insurance market must prepare for sustained pressure on pricing and availability, particularly in high-risk coastal and wildland-urban interface regions.
Colorado State University researchers are standing by their prediction for a “slightly above-average” 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, while warning of heightened tropical activity over the next two weeks.
Led by Dr. Phil Klotzbach, senior research scientist at CSU and Triple-I non-resident scholar, the team maintains their forecast of 16 named storms, eight hurricanes, and three major hurricanes through November 30. The forecast calls for 115 percent of average hurricane activity compared to the 1991-2020 baseline, a decrease from 2024’s 130 percent. However, the immediate outlook is more concerning, with a 55 percent chance of above-normal activity through August 19.
Current activity includes Tropical Storm Dexter, which formed off North Carolina on August 3 and may strengthen to Category 1 status as it moves into the Central Atlantic. The National Hurricane Center is also monitoring a new system labeled Invest 96L in the Eastern Atlantic. The term “invest” is a naming convention used by the National Hurricane Center to identify a system that could develop into a tropical depression or tropical storm within the next seven days. The designation allows the agency to run specialized computer forecast models to track the area’s potential storm development.
The heightened forecast stems from unusually warm tropical Atlantic waters.
“Weaker winds over the past few weeks have reduced evaporation and ocean mixing, leading to faster warming,” Klotzbach explained. These warmer waters provide more fuel for hurricane development and create atmospheric conditions that favor storm formation.
Major hurricane landfall probabilities remain elevated: 48 percent for the entire continental U.S. coastline, 24 percent for the East Coast, and 31 percent for the Gulf Coast — all above historical averages.
Yesterday’s 8.8 magnitude earthquake near Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula sent tsunami waves across the Pacific, placing Hawaii under evacuation orders, triggering advisories along the U.S. West Coast, and emphasizing a critical truth about natural catastrophes: They don’t respect borders and tend not to give warnings.
While the immediate impacts were relatively contained—with waves reaching up to 4 meters in Russia’s coastal towns and smaller surges affecting Japan, Hawaii, and Alaska—the event offers a potent and timely reminder about the importance of preparation and investment in resilience.
Coverage Confusion That Could Cost
Standard homeowners insurance policies don’t cover tsunami damage. Neither do earthquake policies, despite the seismic trigger. Tsunami damage falls under flood coverage—a separate policy that many coastal property owners don’t carry.
Flood insurance purchase rates nationally are low – even in coastal communities. This creates a potential perfect storm of financial vulnerability. Communities that experienced evacuation orders yesterday, from Oahu to the Oregon coast might well have been saddled with massive, largely uninsured losses had the tsunami played out differently.
Low Frequency, High Consequence
Tsunami risk represents the most challenging category of natural disasters: extremely rare but potentially catastrophic. Unlike hurricanes or earthquakes that occur with some regularity, major tsunamis affecting U.S. coastlines are generational events. This rarity can breed complacency.
Yesterday’s event, while not causing major damage to U.S. properties, provided invaluable data for catastrophe modelers. The wave propagation patterns, arrival times, and coastal impacts across Hawaii, Alaska, and the West Coast offer fresh insights into how a more severe event might unfold. Insurers and reinsurers are likely already incorporating this data into their risk models.
Building Resilience Through Partnership
The beauty of a “predict and prevent” model of risk management is that it can address a multiplicity of perils. While tsunamis are rare, flooding is not. Recent years have witnessed a rise in inland flooding related to tropical storms, atmospheric rivers, and severe convective storms. The communities affected by catastrophic flood events like the recent ones in Texas and New Mexico and the devastating 2024 floods related to Hurricane Helene tend to have even lower flood insurance “take-up” rates than coastal communities.
The most effective risk management will require unprecedented collaboration between public and private sectors. The NFIP, state insurance departments, and private insurers need to work together on pricing models that accurately reflect risk while remaining accessible to coastal communities. At the same time, communities and businesses must plan and invest together to prepare not just one but many potential climate-related risks.
Devastating flooding in central Texas over the July 4, 2025, weekend highlighted several aspects of the state’s risk profile that also are relevant to the rest of the country, according to the latest Triple-I Issues Brief. One is the rising incidence of severe inland flooding related to tropical storms.
Tropical Storm Barry made landfall in Mexico on June 29 and weakened quickly, but its remnant moisture drifted northward into Texas, according to Dr. Phil Klotzbach, a research scientist in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and a Triple-I non-resident scholar.
“A slow-moving low-pressure area developed and helped bring up the moisture-rich air rom Barry and concentrated it over the Hill Country of central Texas,” Klotzbach said. “The soil was also extremely hard from prior drought conditions, which exacerbated the flash flooding that occurred.”
Such flooding far from landfall has become more frequent and severe in recent years. In Texas – as in much of the United States, particularly far from the coasts – few homeowners have flood insurance. Many believe flood damage is covered by their homeowners’ or renters’ insurance. Others believe the coverage is not worth buying if their mortgage lender doesn’t require it. In Kerr County, where much of the July 4 flooding took place, flood insurance take-up rates through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) were 2.5 percent.
Convective storms, fires, and freezes
But tropical storms aren’t always the impetus for flooding. In July 2023, a series of intense thunderstorms resulted in heavy rainfall, deadly flash floods, and severe river flooding in eastern Kentucky and central Appalachia. The conditions that lead to such severe convective storms also are prevalent in Texas.
Severe convective storms are a growing source of losses for property/casualty insurers. According to Gallagher Re, severe convective storm events in 2023 and 2024 “have cost global insurers a remarkable US$143 billion, of which US$120 billion occurred in the U.S. alone.”
Given its aridity and winds, it should be no surprise that Texas is highly subject to wildfire – but the state also has been increasingly prone to severe winter storms and debilitating freezes. On Valentine’s Day 2021, snow fell across most of Texas, accumulating as temperatures stayed below freezing and precipitation continued through the night. A catastrophic failure of the state’s independent electric grid exacerbated these conditions as snow and ice shut down roads and many homes suffered pipe bursts and multiple days without power.
Texas’s 2021 experience illustrates how grid instability can act as a “risk multiplier” for natural disasters. The entire U.S. electric power grid is increasingly vulnerable as the infrastructure ages and proliferating AI data centers increase demand.
Need for data and collaboration
The severe damage and loss of life from the July 4 flooding have naturally raised the question of whether the Trump Administration’s reductions in National Weather Service staffing contributed to the high human cost of this event. While it is hard to say with certainty, these cuts have affected how NWS works – for example, in its use of weather balloons to monitor weather. As early as April, staffing data gathered by NWS indicated that field offices were “critically understaffed”.
In June, panelists at Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum expressed concern about the impact of the federal cuts on weather monitoring and modeling, as well as programs to help communities adequately prepare for and recover from disasters. Triple-I has published extensively on the need for insurers to shift from exclusively focusing on repairing and replacing property to predicting events and preventing damage.
Collective action at all levels – individual, commercial, and government – is needed to mitigate risks, build resilience, and reduce fraud and legal system abuse. Triple-I and its members are committed to fostering such action and regularly provide data and analysis to inform the necessary conversations.
Recent developments in the atmosphere over the Caribbean Sea have led researchers at Colorado State University (CSU) to make slight improvements to their hurricane forecast for the 2025 Atlantic-basin season, in an update published Wednesday.
Triple-I non-resident scholar Phil Klotzbach, Ph.D., a senior research scientist in the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU, and the CSU TC-RAMS research team are now predicting 16 total named storms through the end of the year, a small drop from their original forecast of 17.
“The primary reason for the slight decrease in our outlook is both observed and predicted high levels of Caribbean wind shear,” Klotzbach said. “High levels of Caribbean shear in June and July are typically associated with less active hurricane seasons.”
Klotzbach warned, however, that peak hurricane season – which typically occurs from mid-August through late October – could still be very active, despite current atmospheric conditions.
“The subtropical eastern Atlantic and portions of the tropical Atlantic are warmer than normal,” he said. “The current Atlantic sea surface temperature pattern is fairly similar to what we typically observe in July prior to active Atlantic hurricane seasons.”
Recent efforts to curb federal spending – particularly massive proposed cuts to several major federal science agencies and numerous FEMA grant programs – drew concern from panelists at Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum in Chicago.
Slated to lose around half of their original budgets, organizations like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) provide insurers with much of the research data needed to model climate risks, at no cost to insurers nor the broader public. Abolishing this research, which also enables daily weather and natural disaster forecasting, will increase underwriting costs and those associated with various other industries, including transportation, agriculture, and energy.
“Federal science agencies probably facilitate more economic activity in the country than any other federal agency,” said Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA). “Fully funding and restaffing those agencies is pretty critical.”
A host of cancelled FEMA mitigation programs have left dozens of catastrophe-prone communities without aid – including projects that were approved before the cuts. Ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, for instance, rescinded approximately $882 million in climate resilience funding — “money we could have spent on mitigation, so we don’t have to spend so much after a disaster,” said Neil Alldredge, president and CEO of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC).
Nutter added that “weighing against safety, teacher salaries – all the kinds of things that communities grapple with,” most former grantees lack the resources for “risk reduction or municipal projects and infrastructure” without federal investment.
Population growth in high-risk areas exacerbates the issue, Alldredge said.
“If you look at a map of this country and the population changes from 1980 to today, we have moved the entire population to all the wrong places,” he explained. Building properties capable of withstanding these weather patterns – let alone insuring them – has launched the industry into “a new era of risk.”
While the panelists agreed that opportunities to improve FEMA operations exist, they questioned President Trump’s consideration to disband it entirely by shifting to a state-based relief system.
David Sampson, president and CEO of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), noted that “the very nature of a natural disaster means that it overwhelms the local entity’s ability to respond,” rendering any state-based solution “unworkable.”
“I think we as an industry know where the low-hanging fruit for reforms are,” Sampson continued, because “we interact with FEMA on the ground after disasters.”
State-level legislative momentum
Though the Trump administration’s current plans do not bode well for the future of disaster resilience, insurers celebrated many state legislative wins this year regarding tort reform, notably in Georgia and Louisiana.
“Even at the federal level, there is a growing sense of awareness of the negative impact that an out-of-control tort system is taking on the economy and the American consumer,” Sampson said, highlighting a new bill that would impose taxes on third-party litigation funding.
Florida also successfully resisted challenges to its 2023 and 2024 reforms, which have already helped stabilize the state’s insurance rates and attracted new insurers after a multi-year exodus. Charles Symington, president and CEO of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, pointed out that industry advocacy is crucial to tort reform survival.
“Once you get these beneficial pieces of legislation passed,” he said, “we have to fight the fight in every legislative session.”
Symington then contrasted Florida’s recovering market with California’s enduringly hostile regulatory environment, propelled by the 1988 measure Proposition 103.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has implemented a Sustainable Insurance Strategy to mitigate the effects of Prop 103 – such as by authorizing insurers to use catastrophe modeling if they agree to offer coverage in wildfire-prone areas – but the strategy has garnered criticism from legislators and consumer groups.
“California doesn’t have the assessment ability like Florida does,” agreed moderator Fred Karlinsky, shareholder and global chair of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. “California is three decades behind.”
As insurers adjust their risk appetite to reflect these constraints, more property owners have been pushed into California’s FAIR Plan – the state’s property insurer of last resort.
“Our members are having to cobble together coverage,” said Joel Wood, president and CEO of the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB), who noted that the FAIR plan’s policyholder count has more than doubled since 2020.
Natural disasters like January’s devastating wildfires underscore California’s need for premium rates that adequately reflect the full impact of these risks, which is essential to the continued availability of private insurance in the state.
“When you have the right leadership in place – the governor, the state legislature – and you have the industry being effective in our advocacy, then we can improve these difficult marketplaces,” Symington concluded.
Identifying key risk trends amid an increasingly complex risk landscape was a dominant theme throughout Triple-I’s 2025 Joint Industry Forum – particularly during the panel spotlighting some of the insurance industry’s C-suite leaders.
Moderated by CNBC correspondent Contessa Brewer, the panel consisted of:
J. Powell Brown, president and CEO of Brown & Brown Inc.;
John J. Marchioni, chairman, president, and CEO of Selective Insurance Group;
Susan Rivera, CEO of Tokio Marine HCC (TMHCC); and
Rohit Verma, president and CEO of Crawford & Co.
Their discussion provided insight into how insurers can transform these uncertainties into opportunities for business development and for cultivating deeper connections with consumers.
Recouping policyholder trust
Given the volatility of the current risk environment – exacerbated by various ongoing geopolitical conflicts and the rising frequency and severity of natural catastrophes – it is more imperative than ever to reaffirm the intrinsic human element of insurance, the panelists agreed.
“That’s one of the most underappreciated aspects of our industry,” Marchioni said. “We make communities safer and put people’s lives and businesses back together after an unexpected loss. Being the calming force when you have unsettling events like this happen around the world is a big part of what we do.”
Yet prevailing public perception continues to indicate otherwise, even as insurers report repeated losses or nominal profits compared to other industries.
“The insurance industry may be the only industry where record profits are a problem,” CNBC’s Brewer added, because consumers tend to “not care whether it’s coming from your investments, or whether it’s coming from your underwriting business or your reinsurance. They just hear that you’re making record profits.”
Brown noted that consumer mistrust derives, in part, from “a very active plaintiffs’ bar,” which the American Tort Reform Association estimates spent over $2.5 billion for nearly 27 million ads across the United States last year. He further discussed how, though the average homeowners’ insurance premium rate in Florida will increase this year, his home state has enjoyed far more stable rates after tort reforms eased litigation costs on insurers.
Previous research by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) – like Triple-I, an affiliate of the Institutes – showed that most consumers perceive the link between attorney advertising and higher insurance costs. Crawford’s Verma, however, emphasized that this awareness does not necessarily translate into consumers understanding their own agency.
“It’s easier for homeowners to understand how the weather impacts potential losses and the fact that weather patterns have changed,” Verma said. “But when it comes to [legal system abuse], I don’t think that connection is as well understood.”
Reflecting on a record high in nuclear verdicts last year, Rivera suggested insurers must reconfigure how they communicate legal system abuse to consumers.
“Where are those hospital professional liability verdicts going to go?” he said. “They’re going to go back into the cost of health care at the end of the day.”
Leading the AI charge
Maintaining consumer centricity while implementing or experimenting with technological innovations – especially generative AI – was a unifying objective for all the panelists.
“We look at AI as an enabler,” Brown said, “so we can put teammates in a position to spend more time with customers, which is the most important thing.”
For Tokio Marine’s Rivera, AI “ultimately helps all of our insureds” by boosting operational efficiency while reducing operational costs, as well as facilitating more proactive risk management than ever before. A growing percentage of insurance executives appear to agree, as generative AI models continue to expedite data processing across the insurance value chain, reshaping underwriting, pricing, claims, and customer service.
Such efficiency, paired with the potential for improved decision-making, is crucial “in our dramatically changing environment,” Marchioni stressed.
“We have thousands of claims every day,” he said. “Thinking about lawsuit abuse as a backdrop – a claims adjuster, every day, has to make decisions regarding, ‘Do I settle this claim based on injuries or venue? What’s the value of the injury and of the claim? Who’s the plaintiffs’ attorney?’ These tools give more refined information so your knowledge workers can make better, more timely decisions.”
Generative AI fails, however, when base datasets are insufficient, outdated, or inaccurate, Brown pointed out. Training AI models uncritically can lead to outputs containing false and/or nonsensical information, commonly known as “hallucinations”.
At their current capacity, at least, AI models cannot draw the kinds of salient conclusions that adjustors and underwriters can, meaning AI could “change the way we work, but it’s not going to replace the jobs,” Verma said.
Though they do not currently exist in the United States at the federal level, AI regulations have already been introduced in some states, following a comprehensive AI Act enacted last year in Europe. With more legislation on the horizon, insurers must help lead these conversations to ensure that AI regulations suit the complex needs of insurance, without hindering the industry’s commitments to equity and security.
A 2024 report by Triple-I and SAS, a global leader in data and AI, centers the insurance industry’s role in guiding conversations around ethical AI implementation on a global, multi-sector scale, given insurers’ unique expertise in analyzing and preserving data integrity.
