Category Archives: Disaster Preparedness

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Regulation, Risk Management, Wildfire

L.A. Homeowners’ Suits Misread California’s Insurance Troubles

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

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.

Learn More:

Despite Progress, California Insurance Market Faces Headwinds

California Insurance Market at a Critical Juncture

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis In California

Tariff Uncertainty May Strain Insurance Markets, Challenge Affordability

Issues Brief: California Struggles to Fix Insurance Challenges (Members only)

Issues Brief: Wildfire: Resilience Collaboration & Investment Needed (Members only)

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Homeowners Insurance, Technology, Wildfire

Data Granularity Key
to Finding Less Risky Parcels in Wildfire Areas

Leave a comment

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.

Learn More:

Despite Progress, California Insurance Market Faces Headwinds

California Insurance Market at a Critical Juncture

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

California Risk/Regulatory Environment Highlights Role of Risk-Based Pricing

How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis in California

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience

Weather Balloons’ Role
in Readiness, Resilience

Leave a comment

The National Weather Service (NWS) – part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – recently announced that it was reducing the number of weather balloons it launches across the country, citing staffing shortages at 11 NWS locations.

The launch cuts followed NOAA’s announcement of hundreds of layoffs or voluntary resignations across the agency, including at the NWS, related to efforts by President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Former NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad said in a press conference that about 650 NOAA employees were among those fired, and his former colleagues in the agency said they had been ordered to “identify another 1,029 positions” for termination.

Some of these suspensions – for example, in Omaha, Neb. – have been lifted. Two meteorologists are set to arrive from across the country to staff the Omaha office following lobbying from Rep. Mike Flood (R. – Neb).

However, the future of launches from the remaining 10 locations remains unclear.

What do weather ballons do?

Apart from occasionally being taken for extraterrestrial aircraft, weather balloons rarely attract public attention. Carrying a device called a “radiosonde”, they typically fly for a couple of hours – potentially reaching 100,000 feet – and are used for several purposes, from gathering data for weather prediction models and local forecasts to providing input for pollution and climate research.

“Weather balloon launches can be especially critical in severe storm situations,” said Dr. Phil Klotzbach, a researcher at Colorado State University and a Triple-I non-resident scholar. “They give us detailed information on temperature, pressure, and humidity that can help us determine potential impacts from tornadoes and hail.”

In addition, Klotzbach said, before U.S. hurricane landfalls, “NWS offices will often coordinate additional weather balloon launches to provide critical data to weather forecast models that improve predictions of the hurricane’s track.”

“While satellite technology continues to improve and provides invaluable information that has dramatically improved forecasting ability over the past several decades, weather balloons still serve a vital role in helping to predict weather events,” Klotzbach said.  

Taken-for-granted resources highlighted

As with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s recent termination of its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant and loan program, the sudden and substantial downsizing of NOAA’s data-gathering and forecasting resources underscores the extent to which government agencies that operate below the public’s radar screen help society and industry take steps to avoid costly losses related to weather- and climate-related events.  

In the absence of reliable federal support, it’s more important than ever for families, communities, businesses, and other stakeholders to work together to mitigate risks and build resilience. The insurance industry is uniquely well positioned to support and advance these efforts.

Learn More:

BRIC Funding Loss Underscores Need for Collective Action on Climate Resilience

Claims Volume Up 36% in 2024; Climate, Costs, Litigation Drive Trend

Data Fuels the Assault on Climate-Related Risk

JIF 2024: Collective, Data-Driven Approaches Needed to Address Climate-Related Perils

Accurately Writing Flood Coverage Hinges on Diverse Data Sources

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Floods, Insurance News, Regulation

Undisclosed Flood Risks Spur Wave of State Laws

Leave a comment
Hurricane Helene flood damage in North Carolina

Source: Getty Images

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.”

View the Milliman report here.

Catastrophes, Coastal Property, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Emerging Risks, Flood Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Industry Awards & Events, Insurers and the Economy, Lightning, Market Conditions, Risk Management, Technology, Wildfire

ClimateTech Connect Confronts Climate Peril From Washington Stage

Leave a comment
The Institutes’ Pete Miller and Francis Bouchard of Marsh McLennan discuss how AI is transforming property/casualty insurance as the industry attacks the climate crisis.

“Climate” is not a popular word in Washington, D.C., today, so it would take a certain audacity to hold an event whose title prominently includes it in the heart of the U.S. Capitol.

And that’s exactly what ClimateTech Connect did last week.

For two days, expert panels at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center discussed climate-related risks – from flood, wind, and wildfire to extreme heat and cold – and the role of technology in mitigating and building resilience against them. Given the human and financial costs associated with climate risks, it was appropriate to see the property/casualty insurance industry strongly represented.

Peter Miller, CEO of The Institutes, was on hand to talk about the transformative power of AI for insurers, and Triple-I President and CEO Sean Kevelighan discussed – among other things – the collaborative work his organization and its insurance industry members are doing in partnership with governments, non-profits, and others to promote investment in climate resilience. Triple-I is an affiliate of the Institutes.

Sean Kevelighan of Triple-I and Denise Garth, Majesco’s chief strategy officer, discuss how to ensure equitable coverage against climate events.

You can get an idea of the scope and depth of these panels by looking at the agenda, which included titles like:

  • Building Climate-Resilient Futures: Innovations in Insurance, Finance, and Real Estate;
  • Fire, Flood, and Wind: Harnessing the Power of Advanced Data-Driven Technology for Climate Resilience;
  • The Role of Technology and Innovation to Advance Climate Resilience Across our Cities, States and Communities;
  • Pioneers of Parametric: Navigating Risks with Parametric Insurance Innovations;
  • Climate in the Crosshairs: How Reinsurers and Investors are Redefining Risk; and
  • Safeguarding Tomorrow: The Regulator’s Role in Climate Resilience.

As expected, the panels and “fireside chats” went deep into the role of technology; but the importance of partnership, collaboration, and investment across stakeholder groups was a dominant theme for all participants. Coming as the Trump Administration takes such steps as eliminating FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program; slashing budgets of federal entities like the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS); and revoking FEMA funding for communities still recovering from last year’s devastation from Hurricane Helene, these discussions were, to say the least, timely.

Helge Joergensen, co-founder and CEO of 7Analytics, talks about using granular data to assess and address flood risk.

In addition to the panels, the event featured a series of “Shark Tank”-style presentations by Insurtechs that got to pitch their products and services to the audience of approximately 500 attendees. A Triple-I member – Norway-based 7Analytics, a provider of granular flood and landslide data – won the competition.

Earth Day 2025 is a good time to recognize organizations that are working hard and investing in climate-risk mitigation and resilience – and to recommit to these efforts for the coming years. What better place to do so than walking distance from both the White House and the Capitol?

Learn More:

BRIC Funding Loss Underscores Need for Collective Action on Climate Resilience

Claims Volume Up 36% in 2024; Climate, Costs, Litigation Drive Trend

Data Fuels the Assault on Climate-Related Risk

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

JIF 2024: Collective, Data-Driven Approaches Needed to Address Climate-Related Perils

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Insurers and the Economy, Regulation, Technology, Wildfire

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

Leave a comment

California’s Department of Insurance last week posted long-awaited rules that remove obstacles to profitably underwriting coverage in the wildfire-prone state. Among other things, the new rules eliminate outdated restrictions on use of catastrophe models in setting premium rates.

The measure also extends language related to catastrophe modeling to “nature-based flood risk reduction.” In the original text, “the only examples provided of the kinds of risk mitigation measures that would have to be considered in this context involved wildfire. However, because the proposed regulations also permit catastrophe modeling with respect to flood lines, it was appropriate to add language to this subdivision relating to flood mitigation.”

The relevant language applies “generally to catastrophe modeling used for purposes of projecting annual loss,” according to documents provided by the state Department of Insurance.

Benefits for policyholders

As a result, the department said in a press release, “Homeowners and businesses will see greater availability, market stability, and recognition for wildfire safety through use of catastrophe modeling.”

For the past 30 years, California regulations – specifically, Proposition 103 – have required insurance companies to apply a catastrophe factor to insurance rates based on historical wildfire losses. In a dynamically changing risk environment, historical data alone is not sufficient for determining fair, accurate insurance premiums. According to Cal Fire, five of the largest wildfires in the state’s history have occurred since 2017. 

The state’s evolving risk profile, combined with the underwriting and pricing constraints imposed by Proposition 103, has led to rising premium rates and, in some cases, insurers deciding to limit or reduce their business in the state.

With fewer private insurance options available, more Californians have been resorting to the state’s FAIR Plan, which offers less coverage for a higher premium. This isn’t a tenable situation.

“Put simply, increasing the number of policyholders in the FAIR Plan threatens the solvency of insurance companies in the voluntary market,”  California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara explained to the State Assembly Committee on Insurance. “If the FAIR Plan experiences a massive loss and cannot pay its claims, by law, insurance companies are on the hook for the unpaid FAIR Plan losses…. This uncertainty is driving insurance companies to further limit coverage to at-risk Californians.”

“Including the use of catastrophe modeling in the rate making process will help stabilize the California insurance market,” said Janet Ruiz, Triple-I’s California-based director of strategic communication. “Homeowners in California will be able to better understand their individual risk and take steps to strengthen their homes.”

The new measure also requires major insurers to increase the writing of comprehensive policies in wildfire-distressed areas equivalent to no less than 85 percent of their statewide market share. Smaller and regional insurance companies must also increase their writing.

Requirements for insurers

It also requires catastrophe models used by insurers to account for mitigation efforts by homeowners, businesses, and communities – something not currently possible under existing outdated regulations today.

Moves like this by state governments – combined with increased availability of more comprehensive and granular data tools to inform underwriting and mitigation investment – will go a long way toward improving resilience and reducing losses.

Learn More:

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: California’s Risk Crisis

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: Proposition 103 and California’s Risk Crisis

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Wildfire

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Flood

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods, Insurers and the Economy, Market Conditions, Regulation, Risk Management

JIF 2024: What Resilience Success Looks Like

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

The efficacy of collaboration and investment by “co-beneficiaries” in resilience initiatives was a dominant theme throughout Triple-I’s 2024 Joint Industry Forum – particularly in the final panel, which celebrated leaders behind recent real-world impacts of such investments.

Moderated by Dan Kaniewski, Marsh McLennan (MMC) managing director for public sector, the panelists discussed how their multi-industry backgrounds inform their innovative mindsets, as well as their knowledge on the profound ripple effects of targeted resilience planning.

The panel included:

  • Jonathan Gonzalez, co-founder and CEO of Raincoat;
  • Bob Marshall, co-founder and CEO of Whisker Labs;
  • Dawn Miller, chief commercial officer of Lloyd’s and CEO of Lloyd’s Americas; and
  • Lars Powell, director of the Alabama Center for Insurance Information and Research (ACIIR) at the University of Alabama and a Triple-I Non-Resident Scholar.

Productive partnership

Kaniewski – who spent most of his career in emergency management, previously serving as the second-ranking official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the agency’s first deputy administrator for resilience – kicked off the panel by raising the question “how do we define success?”

He characterized success as “putting theory into practice” and “having elected officials taking steps to reduce risk and transfer some of this risk from federal, state, or local taxpayers.”

But, as participants in earlier panels and this one made clear, government efforts can only go so far without private-sector collaboration. 

“It doesn’t matter who makes that investment, whether it’s the homeowner, the business owner, or the government,” Kaniewski explained. “The reality is we all benefit from that one investment. If we can acknowledge that we benefit from those investments, we should do our best to incentivize them.”

Kaniewski and Raincoat’s Gonzalez were both integral in the development of community-based catastrophe insurance (CBCI), developed in the wake of Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

“A lot of the neighborhoods that experienced flooding due to Sandy didn’t have access to insurance prior to the flooding – and then, post flooding, the government really had to step up to figure out how to keep those families in those houses,” Gonzalez said.

In collaboration with the city, a nonprofit called the Center for NYC Neighborhoods developed the concept of buying parametric insurance on behalf of these communities, with any payouts going toward helping families stay in their homes after disasters. Unlike traditional indemnity insurance, a parametric policy pays out if certain agreed-upon conditions are met – for example, a specific wind speed or earthquake magnitude in a particular area – regardless of damage.  Parametric insurance eliminates the need for time-consuming claim adjustment. Speed of payment and reduced administration costs can ease the burden on both insurers and policyholders.

In this case, Kaniewski said, success was reflected in the fact that the pilot program received sufficient funding not only for renewal but expansion, bringing needed protection to even more vulnerable communities.

Powell reinforced this sentiment in explaining ACIIR’s research on the FORTIFIED method, a set of voluntary construction standards created by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) for durability against severe weather. The insurance industry-funded Strengthen Alabama Homes program issues grants and substantial insurance premium discounts to homeowners to retrofit their houses along these guidelines, prompting multiple states to replicate the program.

Such homes in Alabama sustained 54 to 76 percent reduced loss frequency from Hurricane Sally compared to standard homes, Powell reported, and an estimated 65 to 73 percent could have been saved in claims if standard homes were FORTIFIED.

Incentivizing contractors to learn FORTIFIED standards was especially critical, Powell explained, because they further advertised these skills and expanded the presence of FORTIFIED homes beyond the grant program.

“A lot of companies have said for several years, ‘we don’t know if we’re comfortable writing these…we haven’t seen it on the ground,’” Powell said. “Well, now we’ve seen it on the ground. We need to have houses that don’t burn down or blow over. We know how to do it, it’s not that expensive.”

Addressing concerns to drive adoption

Miller described how Lloyd’s Lab works to ease that discomfort by creating a space for businesses to nurture and integrate novel insights and products without fear. With mentor support, companies are encouraged to test new ideas while free from the usual degree of financial and/or intellectual property risks attached to innovation investments.

“It’s about having an avenue out to try,” Miller said. “Having that courage, as we continue to work together, to try to understand what’s working, what’s not, and being brave to say, ‘this isn’t working, but we can course correct.’”

Whisker Labs’ Marshall noted that numerous insurance carriers have taken a chance on his company’s front-line disaster mitigation devices, Ting, by paying for and distributing them to their customers.

Ting plug-in sensors detect conditions that could lead to electrical fires through continuous monitoring of a home’s electrical system. Statistically preventing more than 80 percent of electrical fires, communities benefit – not only by preventing individual home fires but also by providing data about the electrical grid and potentially heading off grid-initiated wildfires.

“There are so many applications for the data,” Marshall said, but “to have a true impact on society…we have to prove that we’re preventing more losses than the cost, and we have to do that in partnership with insurance carriers.”

Everyone wins if everyone plays

Cultivating innovative solutions is pivotal to enhancing resilience, the panelists agreed – but driving them forward requires more than just the insurance industry’s support.

He pointed to a project last year – funded by Fannie Mae and developed by the National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) – that culminated in a roadmap for resilience investment incentives, focusing on urban flooding. 

The co-authors of the project, including Triple-I subject-matter experts, represented a cross-section of “co-beneficiary” groups, such as the insurance, finance, and real estate industries and all levels of government, Kaniewski said.

Implementation of the roadmap requires participation from communities and multiple co-beneficiaries. Triple-I and NIBS are exploring such collaborations with potential co-beneficiaries in several areas of the United States.

Learn More:

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

Rising Interest Seen in Parametric Insurance

Community Catastrophe Insurance: Four Models to Boost Resilience

Attacking the Risk Crisis: Roadmap to Investment in Flood Resilience

Mitigation Matters – and Hurricane Sally Proved It

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Homeowners Insurance, Insurers and the Economy

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

Natural catastrophe perils’ rising frequency and severity may be impossible to fully abate, but Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co. President and CEO Mark Berven believes modern building codes could dramatically reduce their costly destructiveness.

In a recent article for PropertyCasualty360, Berven wrote that inconsistent building codes create alarming safety disparities from state to state and that improved codes are essential to reducing risk and post-disaster recovery costs.

“Extreme weather events like heat waves, large storms, landslides and more are becoming more frequent and intense,” Berven writes. “The U.S. has already experienced at least 24 confirmed weather disaster events through October with losses exceeding $1 billion each.”

 “Building Codes Save” — a landmark report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) –found that universal enforcement of modern building codes could prevent more than $600 billion in disaster losses by 2060. In states where stricter codes have been implemented, the report says, billion-dollar savings already have been realized.

Virginia and Florida, for example, have long-modeled robust building code systems, leading both to consistently top code adoption rankings – especially after the latter saved an estimated $1 billion to $3 billion in averted damages during Hurricane Ian through its modern Florida Building Code.

By contrast, fewer than one-third of hazard-prone jurisdictions have adopted modernized building codes, and some states – such as Delaware and Alabama – lack mandatory statewide building code systems entirely.

Perceived cost an obstacle

Barriers to adoption include the perceived expenses of enforcement. Conforming existing structures to the same standards as new buildings can be costly, as can rebuilding communities in non-hazardous areas. Navigating these concerns in tandem with an ongoing affordable housing shortage will require a coordinated effort on local, state, and federal levels.

But as the annual average of billion-dollar disasters in the U.S. trends upward, improving building codes must take precedence for policymakers at every level of government, Berven explained, adding that the research organization Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) has already provided a versatile and relatively affordable outline for safer construction standards.

Known collectively as the FORTIFIED method, such standards reinforce the durability of homes against severe weather, involving, for example, anchoring roofs to wall framing using stronger nails. The FORTIFIED method is, at present, completely voluntary, though the insurance industry-funded Strengthen Alabama Homes incentivizes homeowners to retrofit their houses along these guidelines via thousand-dollar grants. Completed retrofits reduce post-disaster claims and qualify grantees for substantial insurance premium discounts, prompting flood-prone Louisiana to replicate the program.

Given the programs’ demonstrated success, “updating our building codes to align with proven frameworks like IBHS’s FORTIFIED standards is not just an option — it’s a necessity,” Berven wrote. “The time for action is now, and the cost of inaction is far too high.”

Many consumers are unaware of the current absence and potential benefits of building code regulations, he continued, emphasizing an industry need for greater public outreach. Building codes play an indispensable role in enhancing resilience against evolving climate and weather risks, but any “revolution” in their regulation cannot advance without the collaboration of all relevant stakeholders.

Learn More:

IBHS Ranks Building Codes as Above-Average Hurricane Season Approaches

Modern Building Codes Would Prevent Billions In Catastrophe Losses

California Earthquakes: How Modern Building Codes Are Making Safer, More Resilient Communities

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Floods, Homeowners Insurance, Market Conditions, Risk Management, Wildfire

JIF 2024: Collective,
Data-Driven Approaches Needed to Address Climate-Related Perils

Leave a comment

The need for collective action to address the property/casualty risk crisis was a recurring theme throughout Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum in Miami – particularly during the panel on climate risk and  resilience. The discussion focused heavily on what’s currently being done to address this evolving area of peril.

The panel, moderated by Veronika Torarp – a partner in PwC Strategy’s insurance practice – consisted of subject-matter experts representing a cross section of natural perils, from hurricanes and floods to wildfires and severe convective storms. They were:

  • Dr. Philip Klotzbach, research scientist in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University;
  • Matthew McHatten, president and CEO at MMG Insurance and chairman of Triple-I’s Executive Leadership Committee;
  • Emily Swift, sustainable business framework senior manager at American Family Insurance; and
  • Heather Kanzlemar, consulting actuary at Milliman.

Part of the reason for this need to build coalitions is the diverse and overlapping causes of climate-related events and the related losses. Torarp cited a PwC study that projects the global protection gap in 2025 at $1.9 trillion, though she acknowledged that number may turn out to be “an understatement”.

Warmer, wetter, riskier

Running through the discussions of the various perils was the dynamic nature of evolving threats and the protection gap. Examples included increased inland flooding, such as the devastation caused in the rural southeast by Hurricane Helene, and damage inflicted by surprisingly intense tornadoes spun off by Hurricane Milton.

Dr. Klotzbach discussed the “very busy” 2024 Atlantic Hurricane season with its surprising impact on Asheville, N.C., and surrounding communities from Helene.

“It’s important to understand that the inland flooding threat is extremely problematic,” he said.

MMG’s McHatten emphasized the complexity of addressing flood risk, given the environmental forces driving it.

“Warmer planet, warmer ocean, more precipitation, more wind,” he said, “as well as this dynamic of atmospheric rivers and what happens to them as they start to hit higher elevations.” He pointed out how such conditions – which led to cataclysmic rains in Ashville as well as in MMG’s home state of Maine and the mountains of Vermont – are exacerbated by population trends.

“People live near water because that’s where economy and commerce was,” he said. “The ability to adapt to dynamic conditions that are changing rapidly is super-difficult. We can’t just say, ‘Raise every house six feet’ that’s near a body of water.”

Hope amid the perils

American Family’s Emily Swift discussed the state of severe convective storm risk, which she said is tending to migrate from its historic domain of the U.S. Midwest toward the Southeast.

“As we’re seeing the impact of hurricanes move further west and severe convective storms move further east, that means a lot more risk exposure to our customers who are living in those regions,” she said. “However, I think there’s a lot of hope.”

Swift talked about emerging partnerships between the insurance industry and academia — particularly work being done through Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC) funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to better understand severe convective storms and develop innovative ways of addressing the risks they pose.

“I’m optimistic that, although we don’t know quite the direction where severe convective storms are heading, we at least have diversified our risks to better manage them” – thanks, in part, to the learnings derived from these partnerships, Swift said.

Kanzlemar reinforced Swift’s optimistic tone in discussing Milliman’s work around wildfire risk. In the midst of a growing insurance availability and affordability crisis in fire-prone states – particularly California – Milliman is partnering with the Insurance Institute for Building and Home Safety (IBHS) and and stakeholders in its Wildfire Prepared Home program to gather data to help inform insurance underwriting, as well as mitigation and prevention at the community level.

“Most insurers have data on type of structure, what the roof material is, the number of stories,” Kanzlemar said, “but a lot of the granular data around eave enclosures, ember-resistant vents, that data is typically not available, and almost no insurers had that data at a community level to account for adjacent risk.”

That’s the bad news, she said, but “the good news is in the kinds of solutions we’re working toward. Most insurers were willing to consider a contributory data model like a comprehensive loss-underwriting exchange for [wildland-urban interface (WUI)] data as long as there’s sufficient participation and reciprocity. That’s an effort that we’re calling the ‘WUI Data Commons’. ”

All the panelists agreed that such collaborative, data-driven approaches that respect consumer needs and interests at the community level were going to be key to solving natural catastrophe risk in our rapidly changing future.

Learn More:

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Flood

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Wildfire

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Hurricane

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Convective Storms

Resilience Investments Paid Off in Florida During Hurricane Milton

Hail: The “Death by 1,000 Paper Cuts” Peril

Accurately Writing Flood Coverage Hinges on Diverse Data Sources

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods

Triple-I Brief Highlights Rising Inland Flood Risk

Leave a comment

The devastation wrought by Hurricane Helene in September 2024 across a 500-mile swath of the U.S. Southeast highlighted the growing vulnerability of inland areas to flooding from both tropical storms and severe convective storms, according to the latest Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief.

These events also highlight the scale of the flood-protection gap in non-coastal areas. Private insurers are stepping up to help close that gap, but increased homeowner awareness and investment in flood resilience across all co-beneficiary groups will be needed as more and more people move into harm’s way.

Helene dumped 40 trillion gallons of water across Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, and Tennessee, causing hundreds of deaths and billions in insured losses. Much of the loss was concentrated in western North Carolina, with parts of Buncombe County – home to Asheville and its historic arts district – left virtually unrecognizable. Less than 1 percent of residents in Buncombe County had federal flood insurance when Helene struck.

The experience of these states far inland echoed those of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in August 2021, when remnants of Hurricane Ida brought rains that flooded subways and basement apartments, with more than 40 people killed in those states.

“The whole swath going up the East Coast” that Hurricane Ida struck in the days after it made landfall “had less than 5 percent flood insurance coverage,” said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan at the time. 

Then, 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. Flooding led to 39 fatalities and federal disaster-area declarations for 13 eastern Kentucky counties. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), only a few dozen federal flood insurance policies were in effect in the affected areas before the storm. 

Low inland take-up rates largely reflect consumer misunderstandings about flood insurance. Though approximately 90 percent of all U.S. natural disasters involve flooding, many homeowners are unaware that a standard homeowners policy doesn’t cover flood damage. Similarly, many believe flood coverage is unnecessary unless their mortgage lenders require it. It also is not uncommon for homeowners to drop flood insurance coverage once their mortgage is paid off to save money.

Private insurers stepping up

More than half of all homeowners with flood insurance are covered by NFIP, which is part of FEMA and was created in 1968 – a time when few private insurers were willing to write flood coverage. In recent years, however, insurers have grown more comfortable taking on flood risk, thanks in large part to improved data and analytics capabilities.

The private flood market has changed since 2016, when only 12.6 percent of coverage was written by 16 insurers. In 2019, federal regulators allowed mortgage lenders to accept private flood insurance if the policies abided by regulatory definitions. The already-growing private appetite for flood risk gained steam after that. Private insurers are gradually accounting for a bigger piece of a growing flood risk pie.

Insurance necessary – but not sufficient

Insurance can play a major role in closing the protection gap, but, with increasing numbers of people moving into harm’s way and storms behaving more unpredictably, the current state of affairs is not sustainable. Greater investment in mitigation and resilience is essential to reducing the personal and financial losses associated with flooding.

Such investment has paid off in Florida, where the communities of Babcock Ranch and Hunters Point survived Hurricanes Helene and Milton relatively unscathed. Babcock Rance made headlines for sheltering thousands of evacuees from neighboring communities and never losing power during Milton, which devastated numerous neighboring cities and left more than three million people without power.

Both of these communities were designed and built in recent years with sustainability and resilience in mind.

Incentives and public-private partnership will be critical to reducing perils and improving insurability in vulnerable locations. Recent research on the impact of removing development incentives from coastal areas can improve flood loss experience in the areas directly affected by the removal of such incentives, as well as neighboring areas where development subsidies remain in place.

Learn More:

Executive Exchange: Using Advanced Tools to Drill Into Flood Risk

Accurately Writing Flood Coverage Hinges on Diverse Data Sources

Lee County, Fla., Towns Could Lose NFIP Flood Insurance Discounts

Miami-Dade, Fla., Sees Flood-Insurance Rate Cuts, Thanks to Resilience Investment

Milwaukee District Eyes Expanding Nature-Based Flood-Mitigation Plan

Attacking the Risk Crisis: Roadmap to Investment in Flood Resilience