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.”
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.
Insurance industry executives and thought leaders gathered yesterday for Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum (JIF) in Chicago to discuss the trends, economics, geopolitics, and policy influencing the market today, as well as ways to navigate these complexities while focusing on making their products affordable and available for consumers.
Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan in his opening remarks, noted that effective risk management depends on collaboration across stakeholder groups, as interconnected perils “present a community problem, not just an industry problem.”
JIF keynote speaker Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple said facilitating community resilience planning is a top priority for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The NAIC’s 2025 initiative – “Securing Tomorrow: Advancing State-Based Regulation” – aims to improve disaster mitigation and recovery by consolidating “the collective expertise of experienced state regulators from across the country, who can share real-time insights and proven strategies,” Temple said.
Among the initiative’s goals is aggregating more data from insurers to better understand challenges to affordability and availability on state levels, which the NAIC can then translate into actionable policy proposals. Such data calls, Temple said, help regulators, legislators, and policyholders focus on improving the cost drivers of insurance rates.
Louisiana has consistently been among the least affordable states for homeowners and auto insurance, according to the Insurance Research Council (IRC), in part because of its reputation for being plaintiff-friendly in civil litigation. Significant tort legislation has been approved in the state, but resistance to reform remains a challenge.
Getting to the roots of high premiums
After a recent data call in his home state, Temple told the JIF audience, “For the first time in Louisiana, we’re not talking about only premiums. We’re talking about why premiums are where they are.”
A critical lack of transparency surrounding cost drivers persists, however. Temple criticized the National Flood Insurance Program’s Risk Rating 2.0 reforms for not publicly disclosing more information “for individuals and communities to identify and address factors driving up their premiums,” such as “whether increased rates take into account levee systems, pump stations, and other things designed to help mitigate against floods.”
Conversely, government programs like Strengthen Alabama Homes – and the numerous programs it inspired, including in Louisiana – have demonstrated success in communicating the benefits of resilience investments for consumers and policymakers.
“We’re seeing major positive results after just a few short years,” Temple said, noting that, since early 2024, over 5,000 homeowners not chosen for Louisiana’s grant program still decided to invest in the same hazard mitigation, as they may still qualify for the corresponding state-mandated insurance discounts.
“As natural disasters become more frequent and severe, state regulators will continue to drive forward common-sense policies that protect consumers and ensure that insurance remains available and reliable for at-risk communities,” Temple concluded. Developing the database required for such policies is a necessary first step.
Keep an eye on the Triple-I Blog for further JIF coverage.
A study by the Alabama Department of Insurance, in collaboration with the University of Alabama Center for Insurance Information and Research, shows that widespread adoption of IBHS FORTIFIED construction standards could dramatically reduce insurance claims from hurricanes, while also encouraging property/casualty insurers to maintain coverage in high-risk areas.
Homes built or retrofitted to FORTIFIED standards from the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety were found to have suffered far less property damage and a lower volume of insurance claims from Hurricane Sally — which made landfall in Gulf Shores, Alabama, as a Category 2 storm in September 2020 — than non-FORTIFIED properties.
“The results show mitigation works and that we can build things that are resilient to climate change,” said the author of the study, Triple-I non-resident scholar Lars Powell.
A collective effort
Alabama’s proactive approach – which includes mandatory insurance discounts and a state-backed grant program for resilient construction – offers a model for risk mitigation and protecting homeowners from catastrophic winds of tropical cyclones.
“Alabama was an early adopter of FORTIFIED designations for wind loss mitigation,” the report says. “In 2025, there are more than 53,000 FORTIFIED houses in the state,” out of approximately 80,000 nationwide.
The state grants and insurance discounts have been a big motivator for homeowners to make the investment. Lawmakers in other hurricane-prone states, such as Louisiana, are looking to Alabama’s strategy as they seek solutions for predicting and preventing losses from increasing natural disaster risks.
Tornado activity in 2025 has surged, with more than 1,000 reported tornadoes as of May 28 and outbreaks spreading across nearly every state east of the Rockies this season, according to according to the NOAA Storm Prediction Center.
Researchers have highlighted a shift in both the timing and geography of tornadoes, raising new safety concerns for communities outside the traditional Tornado Alley states. The widening prevalence of tornado activity has some experts suggesting that the name “Tornado Alley” be retired.
The 1,010 tornadoesreported is almost 40 percent higher than the 15-year average of 727 tornadoes for the same period. Mississippi leads with 97 tornado reports, followed by Illinois (93), Missouri (89), and Texas (87), according to AccuWeather.
Severe convective storms – which include tornadoes – are among the most common, most damaging natural catastrophes in the United States. The result of warm, moist air rising from the earth, they manifest in various ways, depending on atmospheric conditions – from drenching thunderstorms with lightning, to tornadoes, hail, or destructive straight-line winds.
In 2024, according to Gallagher Re, the economic cost solely from weather and climate events was approximately $402 billion ($151 billion insured). At least 41 percent of insured losses ($64 billion) resulted from severe convective storms.
So far this year, Gallagher said, the United States has recorded at least eight separate billion-dollar insured loss events from SCS activity so far in 2025. This compares to 13 such events by the end of May in 2024, 11 in 2023, six in both 2022 and 2021, and 12 in 2020.
In addition to tornadoes, Gallagher said, large hail – measuring two inches or more in diameter – was a major factor in driving losses.
Two lawsuits filed in Los Angeles claim major California insurers colluded illegally to impede coverage in wildfire-prone areas, forcing homeowners into the state’s last-resort FAIR Plan. Accusing carriers of violating antitrust and unfair competition laws, the two suits exemplify an ongoing disconnect between public and insurer perceptions of insurance market dynamics, exacerbated by legislators’ resistance to accommodating the state’s evolving risk profile.
An untenable situation
Both suits claim the insurers conspired to “suddenly and simultaneously” drop existing policies and cease writing new ones in high-risk communities, deliberately pushing consumers into the FAIR Plan. Left underinsured by the FAIR Plan, the plaintiffs argue they were wrongfully denied “coverage that they were ready, willing, and able to purchase to ensure that they could recover after a disaster,” Michael J. Bidart, who represents homeowners in one of the cases, said in a statement.
Established in response to the 1965 Watts Rebellion, the California FAIR Plan provides an insurance option for homeowners unable to purchase from the traditional market. Though FAIR Plans offer less coverage for a higher premium, they cover properties where insurance protection would otherwise not exist. California law requires licensed property insurers to contribute to the FAIR Plan insurance pool to conduct any business within the state, meaning they share the risks associated with those properties.
Intended as a temporary solution until homeowners can secure policies elsewhere, the FAIR Plan has become overwhelmed in recent years as more insurers pull back from the market. As of December 2024, the FAIR plan’s exposure was $529 billion – a 15 percent increase since September 2024 (the prior fiscal year end) and a 217 percent increase since fiscal year end 2021. In 2025, that exposure will increase further as FAIR begins offering higher commercial coverage for farmers, homebuilders, and other business owners.
With a policyholder count that has more than doubled since 2020, the FAIR Plan faces an estimated $4 billion total loss from the January fires alone.
Out of touch regulations
Homeowners are understandably frustrated with dwindling coverage availability, which currently afflicts many other disaster-prone states. Supply-chain and inflationary pressures, which could intensify under oncoming U.S. tariff policies, help fuel the crisis. But California’s problems stem largely from an antiquated regulatory measure that severely constrains insurers’ ability to manage and price risk effectively.
Despite a global rise in natural catastrophe frequency and severity, regulators have applied the 1988 measure, Proposition 103, in ways that bar insurers from using advanced modeling technologies to price prospectively, requiring them to price based only on historical data. It also blocks insurers from incorporating reinsurance costs into their prices, forcing them to pay for these costs from policyholder surplus and/or reduce their presence in the state.
Insurers must adjust their risk appetite to reflect these constraints, as they cannot profitably underwrite otherwise. Underwriting profitability is essential to maintain policyholder surplus. Regulators require insurers to maintain policyholder surplus at levels that ensure that every policyholder is adequately protected.
Restricting insurers’ use of prospective data, however, inhibits risk-based pricing and weakens policyholder surplus, facilitating policy nonrenewals and, in serious cases, insolvencies.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara implemented a Sustainable Insurance Strategy to mitigate these trends, including a new measure that authorizes insurers to use catastrophe modeling if they agree to offer coverage in wildfire-prone areas. The strategy has garnered criticism from legislators and consumer groups, one of whom is suing Lara and the California Department of Insurance over a 2024 policy aimed at expediting insurance market recovery after an extreme disaster.
“Insurers are committed to helping Californians recover and rebuild from the devastating Southern California wildfires,” Denni Ritter, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association’s department vice president for state government relations, said in a statement about the suit. “Insurers have already paid tens of billions in claims and contributed more than $500 million to support the FAIR Plan’s solvency – even though they do not collect premiums from FAIR Plan policyholders.”
A call for collective action
Litigation prolongs – it does not alleviate – California’s risk crisis. Government has a crucial role to play in addressing it, from adopting smarter land-use planning regulations to investing in long-term resilience solutions.
For instance, Dixon Trail, a San Diego County subdivision dubbed the country’s first “wildfire resilient neighborhood,” models the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) standards for wildfire preparedness, but not at a cost attainable to most communities, and few local governments incentivize them. Launched by state legislature in 2019, the California Wildfire Mitigation Program is on track to retrofit some 2,000 houses along these guidelines, with the goal of solving how to fortify homes more quickly and inexpensively. Funded primarily by FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant program, the pilot has thus far avoided the same cuts befalling FEMA’s sister programs under the Trump Administration.
Regardless of what legislators do, California homeowners’ insurance premiums will need to rise. The state’s current home and auto rates are below average as a percentage of median household income, reflecting a combination of the increased climate risk and of the regulatory limitations preventing insurers from setting actuarially sound rates. Insurance availability will not improve if these rates persist.
To quote Gabriel Sanchez, spokesperson for the state’s Department of Insurance: “Californians deserve a system that works – one where decisions are made openly, rates reflect real risk, and no one is left without options.” Insurers do not wield absolute control over that system, and neither do legislators, regulators, consumer advocates, or any other singular group. Confronting the root causes of these issues – i.e., the risks – rather than the symptoms is the only path towards systemic change.
Wildfire risk is strongly conditioned by geographic considerations that vary widely among and within states. The latest Triple-I Issues Brief shows how that fact played out in 2024 and early this year and discusses the importance of granular local data for underwriting and pricing insurance in wildfire-prone areas, as well as for much-needed investment in resilience.
The 2024 wildfire season in the South and Southwest was particularly severe, marked by such events as the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandle fires in February and March and significant blazes in Arizona and New Mexico. The Southwest accounted for the largest number of residential structures destroyed by wildfire, and three of the top five areas for homes destroyed were in the South.
California accounted for the largest number of homes at risk for extreme wildfires. In the first half, the state experienced an above-average number of fires, though most were contained before growing to “major incident” size. Subsequent rains suppressed subsequent wildfire conditions – and caused substantial flooding.
But this rain contributed to an accumulation of fuels so that, when hurricane-force Santa Ana winds whipped through Los Angeles County in early January 2025, the conditions were right for fast-moving blazes to tear through Pacific Palisades and Eaton Canyon.
Temperature, humidity, wind, and topography vary too widely for a single “one size fits all” mitigation approach. This underscores the importance of granular data gathering and scrupulous analysis when underwriting and pricing insurance. It is also important that insurers proactively engage with diverse stakeholder groups to promote investment in mitigation and resilience.
A recent paper by Triple-I and Guidewire – a provider of software solutions to the insurance industry – uses case studies from three California areas with very different geographic and demographic characteristics to go deeper into how such tools can be used to identify properties with attractive risk properties, despite their location in wildfire-prone areas.
As high-severity natural catastrophes – wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and others – become more frequent and more people move into riskier locales, insurance affordability and availability have become a challenge in many states.
Insurers underwrite and price coverage based on the risks they’re assuming, and rising premiums in these states have pushed more homeowners into residual market mechanisms, such as state-backed insurance pools or agencies. Reliance on these funds – which often provide more limited coverage at higher costs – is not sustainable in the long term.
To ensure market stability and continued insurance availability and affordability, insurers must leverage more granular and dynamic risk models that account for real-time environmental conditions, mitigation measures, and property-specific characteristics. A new paper by Triple-I and Guidewire – a provider of software solutions to the insurance industry – uses case studies from three California areas with very different geographic and demographic characteristics to show how such tools can be used to identify properties with attractive risk properties, despite their location in wildfire-prone areas.
California’s risk profile
In addition to its particular risk characteristics, California’s insurance challenge is exacerbated by a 1988 measure – Proposition 103 – that has constrained insurers’ ability to profitably insure property in the state. In a dynamically evolving risk environment that includes earthquakes, drought, wildfire, landslides, and damaging floods, regulatory interpretation of Proposition 103 has made it hard for some insurers to offer coverage in the state.
In some cases, this has led to insurers limiting or reducing their business in the state. With fewer private insurance options available, more Californians are resorting to the state’s FAIR Plan, which offers less coverage for a higher premium. For many, this “insurer of last resort” has become the insurer of first resort. This isn’t a tenable situation for the state or its policyholders. California’s insurance availability/affordability challenges will require a multi-pronged approach, and underlying every component is the need for granular, high-quality, reliable data.
Modeling based on granular data
Guidewire’s analysis, based on its HazardHub Wildfire Score, has shown that wildfire mitigation and home hardening can reduce wildfire damage by as much as 70 percent. But identifying less risky lots in such areas is no easy task.
“Every property being assessed for wildfire risk is unique,” the report says. “Therefore, it’s important to subject as many relevant variables as possible to analysis. For example, proximity of structures to fuel is important – but, to be more predictive, it helps to know more: What kind of fuel? Is there potential for a wind-driven event? Is the property on a hill? If so, is it north-facing?”
Guidewire’s model includes standard variables, such as slope, aspect, wildfire history, wind, and the amount of nearby vegetation. It also includes differentiators like vegetation type and fire-suppression success rate.
“The traditional approach to wildfire risk assessment has left many Californians without access to affordable property insurance coverage,” said Triple-I Chief Insurance Officer Dale Porfilio. “Our research shows that with more detailed, property-level analysis, insurers can confidently offer coverage in areas previously deemed too risky.”
Important moves by California
California has taken steps to address regulatory obstacles to fair, actuarially sound insurance underwriting and pricing – most notably, the state’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, an ambitious plan released by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara in 2023 plan aimed at safeguarding the health of the insurance market while ensuring long-term sustainability. A key component of the plan is a requirement that insurers writing homeowners coverage in the state write no less than 85 percent of their statewide market share in areas identified by the commissioner as “under-marketed.”
Tightly focused, data-driven analysis using tools like the HazardHub Wildfire Score, can go a long way toward helping insurers meet those requirements by identifying less risky parcels in undermarketed areas.
“The Triple-I analysis highlights how next-generation tools and data can uncover lower-risk properties – even in high-risk areas – empowering insurers to expand coverage confidently and responsibly,” said Leo Tenenblat, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Data and Analytics at Guidewire.
Established by Congress through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, the BRIC program has allocated more than $5 billion for investment in mitigation projects to reduce economic losses from floods, wildfires, and other disasters for hundreds of communities. Ending BRIC will cancel all applications from 2020-2023 and rescind more than $185 million in grants intended for Louisiana, leaving the 34 submitted and accepted projects funded by those grants in limbo.
Whereas the FEMA press release described BRIC as “wasteful and ineffective,” Cassidy identified “not doing the program and then having to rescue communities when the inevitable flood occurs – that is waste, because we could have prevented that from happening in the first place.”
A 2024 study backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports this claim, which found that disaster mitigation investments save $13 in benefits for every dollar spent.
FEMA’s decision coincides with recovery efforts in Natchitoches, a small Louisiana city, after flash flooding inundated homes and downed power lines just weeks before. BRIC was set to fund improvements to the city’s backup generator system to pump out floodwater during severe weather.
Similarly, Lafourche Parish will lose $20 million to strengthen 16 miles of power lines, which Cassidy noted toppled “like dominos” during last year’s Hurricane Francine. Jefferson Parish residents displaced following Hurricane Ida in 2021 will lose the home elevation disaster grants they finally secured earlier this year.
“Louisiana was the third-largest recipient of BRIC’s most recent round of funding and is the largest recipient on a per capita basis,” Cassidy said. “Without BRIC, none of these projects would be possible.”
A national problem
Beyond Louisiana, Cassidy pointed to numerous states ravaged by severe storms so far this year, particularly inland communities where flooding is traditionally unexpected. At least 25 people died amid a severe weather outbreak across the southern and midwestern U.S. last month, underscoring a growing need for resiliency planning in non-coastal areas.
BRIC is one of many programs facing sudden termination under the Trump Administration. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit demanding the federal government unfreeze essential funding, including BRIC grants. Though the administration is reportedly complying with a federal judge’s order blocking the freeze, the states involved claim funding remains inaccessible.
Louisiana has not joined the lawsuit, but Cassidy emphasized the congressional appropriation of the program and requested the fulfillment of preexisting BRIC applications. He argued that “to do anything other than use that money to fund flood mitigation projects is to thwart the will of Congress.”
As President Trump weighs disbanding FEMA entirely – even as FEMA responds to record-breaking numbers of billion-dollar disasters – it is imperative to recognize the vast co-beneficiary benefits of disaster resilience, and develop our partnerships across these stakeholder groups.
New, alarming financial risks for homebuyers who are unaware of property flood histories has driven several states to implement new disclosure laws, helping protect consumers from unexpected costs after purchasing flood-prone homes, according to new research from Milliman.
Atmospheric conditions are intensifying flood risks across the U.S., with severe storms and rain events becoming more devastating and frequent. Despite this escalating threat, a significant regulatory gap has persisted: many states haven’t required home sellers to disclose previous flooding to potential buyers.
This omission creates a dangerous scenario where unsuspecting homebuyers invest their savings in properties with undisclosed flood histories.
As Joel Scata, senior attorney in the climate adaptation division at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), explains, “If a buyer doesn’t know the house is flood-prone, they don’t know they need to buy flood insurance. They don’t know they need to mitigate that risk, and that they could be in a really bad situation when the next flood happens.”
The issue became impossible to ignore in 2018 when Hurricane Florence inundated more than 74,000 buildings in North Carolina. At that time, sellers weren’t required to inform buyers about previous flooding, meaning hurricane-damaged homes could be cleaned up and sold without disclosure of this critical history. Since properties that have flooded once are likely to flood again, this lack of transparency created significant financial vulnerability for new homeowners, according to Milliman.
Quantifying the Financial Impact
To drive policy change, NRDC needed hard data quantifying the financial risks to homebuyers. They partnered with Milliman, where Larry Baeder, a senior data scientist, co-authored a study titled, “Estimating undisclosed flood risk in real estate transactions.”
Using catastrophe models, proprietary datasets, real estate transaction data, historical flood events and demographic patterns, Baeder analyzed the impact in three states with low marks on NRDC’s Flood Risk Disclosure Laws Scorecard: North Carolina, New York and New Jersey.
The findings revealed staggering financial disparities. In North Carolina, a home without flood history might face an average annual loss (AAL) of about $60. In contrast, a flood-prone property’s AAL jumped to approximately $1,200 — 20 times higher — and could exceed $2,000 based on future flood projections. Over 15 years, previously flooded North Carolina properties might require more than $18,000 in repairs.
The numbers were even more concerning in the Northeast. In New York, flood history could increase a property’s AAL from about $100 to $3,000. A previously flooded New Jersey home might incur $25,000 in damages over a 15-year period.
“These are big numbers, and they’re a scary reality that people are going to have to deal with,” Baeder noted. “If a homebuyer is taking on this risk, they should be aware of the risk.” Milliman’s research also found that more than 6% of all homes sold across these three states in 2021 had a record of flooding—with no requirement to warn new owners about this history.
Data-Driven Legislative Change
Armed with Milliman’s analysis, NRDC approached lawmakers with compelling evidence of the problem’s scale and impact.
“Before the report, I think legislators knew that people struggled to rebuild after a flood,” Scata said, “but I don’t think they realized just how much it costs a homeowner. These numbers helped lawmakers see this was a big problem, that their constituents were suffering, and that they should do something about it.”
The data-driven approach proved effective. In 2023, New Jersey began legally requiring sellers to disclose a property’s flood history. North Carolina and New York soon followed, with New York enacting disclosure requirements at the end of 2023 and North Carolina amending mandatory forms in 2024.
The impact extended beyond these three states. Four additional states — Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont — independently adopted disclosure requirements in 2024 after recognizing the need demonstrated elsewhere.
“The laws show the power of data,” Scata noted. “Having Milliman do this work was really important for showing the actual impacts of flood damage on homeowners and effecting change through the legislatures.”
The momentum continues as Baeder now leads a follow-up study for NRDC expanding the research to 25 additional states with insufficient disclosure laws. Scata hopes to eventually see strong disclosure requirements nationwide, providing all homebuyers and renters with insight into their flood risk.
“If we’re going to tell people about lead-based paint,” Scata concludes, referring to other widespread real estate disclosures, “if we’re going to tell people about asbestos, we should probably tell people about flooding, because flooding has such an impact on someone’s finances and health.”
