Category Archives: Emerging Risks

Emerging Risks, Insurance Industry, Insurance News

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

Leave a comment
urban apartment buildings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging Risks, Insurance Industry, Market Conditions

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

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

These factors can also converge to enhance or aggravate conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auto Insurance, Emerging Risks, Homeowners Insurance, Insurance Industry

New Triple-I Issue Brief Takes a Deep Dive into Legal System Abuse

Leave a comment

The increasing frequency and severity of claims costs beyond insurer expectations continue to threaten insurance coverage and affordability. Triple-I’s latest Issue Brief, Legal System Abuse – State of the Risk describes how trends in claims litigation can drive social inflation, leading to higher insurance premiums for policyholders and losses for insurers.

Key Takeaways

  • Insured losses continue to exceed expectations and surpass inflation, notably impacting coverage affordability and availability in Florida and Louisiana.
  • In promoting the term “legal system abuse”, Triple-I seeks to capture how litigation and related systemic trends amplify social inflation.
  • Progress has been made toward increased awareness about the risks of third-party litigation funding (TPLF), but more work is needed.

What we mean when we talk about legal system abuse

Legal system abuse occurs when policyholders, plaintiff attorneys, or other third parties use fraudulent or unnecessary tactics in pursuing an insurance claim payout, increasing the time and cost of settling insurance claims. These actions can include illegal maneuvers, such as claims inflation and frivolous or outright fraudulent claims. Unscrupulous contractors, for example, seek to profit from Assignment of Benefits (AOBs) by overstating repair costs and then filing lawsuits against the insurer – sometimes even without the homeowner’s knowledge. Filing a lawsuit to reap an outsized payout when it’s evident the claims process will likely provide a fair, reasonable, and timely claim settlement can also be considered legal system abuse.

The latest brief provides a round-up of several studies Triple-I and other organizations conducted on elements of these litigation trends. The report, “Impact of Increasing Inflation on Personal and Commercial Auto Liability Insurance,” describes the $96 billion to $105 billion increase in combined claim payouts for U.S. personal and commercial auto insurer liability. The Insurance Research Council highlighted the dire lack of affordability for personal auto and homeowners insurance coverage in Louisiana, along with the state’s exceptionally high claim litigation rates.

Readers will also find an update on the discussion of legal industry trends associated with increased claims litigation. The lack of transparency around TPLF arrangements and the fear of outside influence on cases are attracting the attention of legislators at the state and federal levels. The brief also describes how some law firms may use TPLF resources to encourage large windfall-seeking lawsuits instead of speedy and fair claims litigation. Research findings suggest that consumers have become aware of how ubiquitous attorney ads can influence the frequency of lawsuits, increasing claims costs.

Florida: a case study in the consequences of excessive litigation

While several states, such as California, Colorado, and Louisiana, are experiencing a drastic rise in the cost of homeowners’ insurance, this brief discusses Florida. Property insurance premiums there rank the highest in the nation. Several insurers facing insurmountable losses have stopped writing new policies or left the state in the last few years. In some areas, residents are leaving, too, because of skyrocketing premiums.

Excessive claims litigation isn’t a new issue for insurers, but it can work with other elements to shift loss ratios and disrupt forecasts, rendering cost management more challenging. In Florida, factors such as the rise in home values and frequency of extreme weather events play a significant role, along with the challenges homeowners face in the aftermath: soaring construction costs, supply chain bottlenecks, and new building codes. However, Florida also leads the nation in litigating property claims. While 15 percent of all homeowners claims in the nation originate in the state, Floridians file 71 percent of homeowners insurance lawsuits.

In Florida and elsewhere, increasing time to settle a claim puts a financial strain on insurers, which is passed on to policyholders in the form of higher premiums. Legal system abuse activities are difficult (if not impossible) to forecast and mitigate, hampering insurers’ ability to remain in the market. Therefore, legal system abuse could be one of the biggest underlying drivers of social inflation. Without preventive measures, such as policy intervention and increased policyholder awareness, coverage affordability and availability is at risk.

Triple-I remains committed to advancing the conversation and exploring actionable strategies with all stakeholders. Learn more about legal system abuse and its components, such as third-party litigation funding by following our blog and checking out our social inflation knowledge hub.

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Earthquakes, Emerging Risks, ESG, Flood Insurance, Floods, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Regulation, Risk Management

Triple-I Town Hall Amplified Calls
to Attack Climate Risk

Leave a comment

By Jeff Dunsavage, Senior Research Analyst, Triple-I

I’m pleased and proud to have been part of Triple-I’s Town Hall — “Attacking the Risk Crisis” — in Washington, D.C. In an intimate setting at the Mayflower Hotel on November 30, 120-plus attendees got to hear from experts representing insurance, government, academia, nonprofits, and other stakeholder groups on climate risk, what’s being done to address it, and what remains to be done.  

Triple-I’s first-ever Town Hall was designed as a logical step in its multi-disciplinary, action-oriented effort to change behavior to drive resilience. Capping a year in which headlines about “insurance crises” in several states garnered major media attention, Triple-I and its members and partners recognized the need for clarification.

“What we’re seeing is not an ‘insurance crisis’,” Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan told the standing-room-only audience. “We’re in the midst of a risk crisis. Rising insurance premium rates and availability difficulties are not the cause but a symptom of this crisis.”

Whisker Labs CEO Bob Marshall discusses innovation with moderator Jennifer Kyung, Vice President and Chief Underwriter at USAA.

While the insurance industry has a critical role to play and is uniquely well equipped to lead the attack, simply transferring risk is not enough. A recurring theme at the Town Hall was the need to shift from a focus on assessing and repairing damage to one of predicting and preventing losses.

Three moderated discussions – examining the nature of climate risk and its costs; highlighting the need of strategic innovation in mitigating those risks and building resilience; and exploring the role and impact of government policy – gave panelists the opportunity to share their insights with a diverse audience focused on collaborative action.

The agenda was:

Climate Risk Is Spiraling: What Can Be Done?

Moderator: David Wessel, Senior Fellow and Director at the Brookings Institution and former Economics Editor for The Wall Street Journal.

Panelists:

Dr. Philip Klotzbach, Colorado State University, researcher and Triple-I non-resident scholar.

Dan Kaniewski, Managing Director, Public Sector at Marsh McLennan, Former FEMA Deputy Administrator.

Jacqueline Higgins, Head, North America & Senior Vice President, Public Sector Solutions, Swiss Re

Jim Boccher, Chief Development Officer, ServiceMaster.

Jeff Huebner, Chief Risk Officer, CSAA.

Innovation, High- and Low-Tech: How Insurers Are Driving Solutions

Moderator: Jennifer Kyung, VP, Chief Underwriter, USAA.

Panelists:

Partha Srinivasa, EVP, CIO, Erie Insurance.

Sam Krishnamurthy, CTO, Digital Solutions, Crawford.

Bob Marshall, CEO, Whisker Labs.

Stephen DiCenso, Principal,Milliman.

Charlie Sidoti, Executive Director, InnSure.

Outdated Regs to Legal System Abuse: It Will Take Villages to Fix This

Moderator: Zach Warmbrodt, financial services editor, Politico.

Panelists:

Parr Schoolman, SVP and Chief Risk Officer, Allstate.

Tim Judge, SVP, Head Modeler, Chief Climate Officer, Fannie Mae.

Dan Coates, Deputy Director, DRS, Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Fred Karlinsky, Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Global Insurance Regulatory & Transactions Practice Group.

Panelists and participants alike appreciated the compact, action-focused, conversational nature of the single-afternoon event, as well as the opportunity to discuss areas in which their diverse industry- or sector-specific priorities and efforts overlapped.

If you weren’t able to join us in Washington, don’t worry. In his closing remarks, Kevelighan announced plans to take the program on the road with a local and regional focus, so stay tuned. You can contact us if you’re interested in participating in future Town Halls or other Triple-I events. You also can join the “Attacking the Risk Crisis” LinkedIn Group to be part of the ongoing conversation.

Careers and Employment, Catastrophes, Emerging Risks, Risk Management

Church Mutual President: Getting, Keeping Talent Is “Number One Challenge”

Leave a comment

Of all the challenges facing property casualty insurers today – from growing catastrophe losses to social inflation – Church Mutual president Alan Ogilvie sees the “war for talent” as one of the most pressing.

“For us, the old adage is very true. Our best assets walk in the door in the morning, at the end of the day they leave, and you just hope and pray they come back,” Ogilvie said in a recent Executive Exchange conversation with Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan.

Ogilvie called talent acquisition and retention “our number one challenge.”

“We like to think we bring something a little bit unique to our employees, and that’s a sense of mission,” he said.

He pointed to Church Mutual’s status as 126-year-old mutual company – the largest writer of insurance for religious institutions, which has expanded to include coverage for health, educational, and nonprofit organizations – and said, “It’s pretty easy to get up in the morning when you’re protecting organizations that you know are doing tremendous things in our communities.”  

Ogilvie is committed to busting the myth that insurance is a boring business. Among the features of insurance he emphasizes to people early in their careers is the focus on technology and addressing the challenges of climate risk. Catastrophe management – viewed through the lens of artificial intelligence and predictive analytics – has become a cutting-edge discipline. 

This, combined with the fact that many insurance professionals are expected to be retiring over the next decade, “creates an incredible amount of opportunity,” Ogilvie said.

Cyber Risk, Disaster Resilience, Emerging Risks, Insurers and the Economy, Terrorism Risk

Complex Risks in a Complicated World:Are Federal Government “Backstops” The Answer?

Leave a comment

Two U.S. agencies have agreed to explore the potential need for a federal mechanism – analogous to the one put into place for terrorism insurance after the 9/11 attacks – to address the growing cybersecurity threat to critical infrastructure. The perceived need to do so speaks to the growing complexity and interrelatedness of this and other risks facing governments, businesses, and communities today.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a recently published report, recommended that Treasury’s Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) take this action.  It acknowledges that FIO and CISA have “taken steps to understand the financial implications of growing cybersecurity risks” – but those actions have not included the possible need for a federal insurance mechanism.

“Cyber insurance and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIP)—the government backstop for losses from terrorism—are both limited in their ability to cover potentially catastrophic losses from systemic cyberattacks,” the GAO report says. “Cyber insurance can offset costs from some of the most common cyber risks, such as data breaches and ransomware. However, private insurers have been taking steps to limit their potential losses from systemic cyber events.”

Insurers are excluding coverage for losses from cyber warfare and infrastructure outages, the report notes, and cyberattacks may not meet TRIP’s criteria to be certified as terrorism.

As we’ve previously reported, some in the national security world have compared U.S. cybersecurity preparedness today to its readiness for terrorist acts prior to the 9/11. Before Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism coverage was included in most commercial property policies as a “silent” peril – not specifically excluded and, therefore, covered. Afterward, insurers began excluding terrorist acts from policies, and the U.S. government established the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) to stabilize the market.  TRIA created TRIP as a temporary system of shared public and private compensation for certain insured losses resulting from a certified act of terrorism.

Treasury administers the program, which has to be periodically reauthorized. TRIP has been renewed four times – in 2005, 2007, 2015, and 2019 – and the backstop has never yet been triggered.

The GAO recommendation that a similar solution be considered for cyber risk highlights the potential insufficiency of traditional risk-transfer products to address increasingly complex and costly threats. Alongside terrorism and cyber, we’ve experienced – and continue to experience – the myriad perils of pandemic, with its assorted impacts on the global supply chain, driving behavior, business interruption and remote work practices, and the economy. Even if those challenges moderate, we will continue to face what is perhaps the most entangled set of risks on the planet: those associated with climate and extreme weather.

One only has to look as far as Florida, where the insurance market is on the brink of failure as writers of homeowners coverage begin to go into receivership and global reinsurers reassess their appetite for providing capacity in that hurricane-prone, fraud- and litigation-plagued state. Or, one could follow the wildfire activity in recent years; or flood loss trends, increasingly creating problems inland, where flood insurance purchase rates tend to be lower than in coastal areas; or insured losses due to severe convective storms, which have been rising in parallel with losses from hurricanes.

Fortunately, many states are taking steps – often with partners, including the insurance industry – to anticipate and mitigate such risks. Much is being done, but much work remains to change behaviors, best practices, and public policies in ways that will reduce risks and improve availability and affordability of coverage.

Cyber Risk, Emerging Risks, Technology

The Battle Against Deepfake Threats

Leave a comment

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

Some good news on the deepfake front: Computer scientists at the University of California have been able to detect manipulated facial expressions in deepfake videos with higher accuracy than current state-of-the-art methods.

Deepfakes are intricate forgeries of an image, video, or audio recording. They’ve existed for several years, and versions exist in social media apps, like Snapchat, which has face-changing filters. However, cybercriminals have begun to use them to impersonate celebrities and executives that create the potential for more damage from fraudulent claims and other forms of manipulation.

Deepfakes also have the dangerous potential to be used to in phishing attempts to manipulate employees to allow access to sensitive documents or passwords. As we previously reported, deepfakes present a real challenge for businesses, including insurers.

Are we prepared?

A recent study by Attestiv, which uses artificial intelligence and blockchain technology to detect and prevent fraud, surveyed U.S.-based business professionals concerning the risks to their businesses connected to synthetic or manipulated digital media. More than 80 percent of respondents recognized that deepfakes presented a threat to their organization, with the top three concerns being reputational threats, IT threats, and fraud threats.

Another study, conducted by a CyberCube, a cybersecurity and technology which specializes in insurance, found that the melding of domestic and business IT systems created by the pandemic, combined with the increasing use of online platforms, is making social engineering easier for criminals.

“As the availability of personal information increases online, criminals are investing in technology to exploit this trend,” said Darren Thomson, CyberCube’s head of cyber security strategy. “New and emerging social engineering techniques like deepfake video and audio will fundamentally change the cyber threat landscape and are becoming both technically feasible and economically viable for criminal organizations of all sizes.”

What insurers are doing

Deepfakes could facilitate the filing fraudulent claims, creation of counterfeit inspection reports, and possibly faking assets or the condition of assets that are not real. For example, a deepfake could conjure images of damage from a nearby hurricane or tornado or create a non-existent luxury watch that was insured and then lost. For an industry that already suffers from $80 billion in fraudulent claims, the threat looms large.

Insurers could use automated deepfake protection as a potential solution to protect against this novel mechanism for fraud. Yet, questions remain about how it can be applied into existing procedures for filing claims. Self-service driven insurance is particularly vulnerable to manipulated or fake media. Insurers also need to deliberate the possibility of deep fake technology to create large losses if these technologies were used to destabilize political systems or financial markets.

AI and rules-based models to identify deepfakes in all digital media remains a potential solution, as does digital authentication of photos or videos at the time of capture to “tamper-proof” the media at the point of capture, preventing the insured from uploading their own photos. Using a blockchain or unalterable ledger also might help.

As Michael Lewis, CEO at Claim Technology, states, “Running anti-virus on incoming attachments is non-negotiable. Shouldn’t the same apply to running counter-fraud checks on every image and document?”

The research results at UC Riverside may offer the beginnings of a solution, but as one Amit Roy-Chowdhury, one of the co-authors put it: “What makes the deepfake research area more challenging is the competition between the creation and detection and prevention of deepfakes which will become increasingly fierce in the future. With more advances in generative models, deepfakes will be easier to synthesize and harder to distinguish from real.”

Emerging Risks, Legal Environment, Regulation

A Piecemeal Approach Toward Transparency In Litigation Finance

Leave a comment

A U.S. District Court judge in Delaware made his courtroom the latest jurisdiction to require lawsuit participants to disclose whether third-party investors have any stake in litigation being brought before him.

While this is a step toward greater transparency with regard to third-party litigation funding, the standing order by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly only affects cases in his court. The other three district court judges in Delaware have not issued similar decrees. But the order was made in an extremely influential district. More than half of publicly traded U.S. corporations are incorporated in Delaware, and the state’s laws often govern contracts between businesses.

A booming global industry

Funding of lawsuits by international hedge funds and other financial third parties – with no stake in the outcome other than a share of the settlement – has become a $17 billion global industry, according to Swiss Re. Law firm Brown Rudnick sees the industry as even larger, at $39 billion globally, according to Bloomberg.

Third-party litigation funding was once widely prohibited. As bans have been eroded in recent decades, it has grown, spread, and become a contributor to “social inflation”: increased insurance payouts and loss ratios beyond what can be explained by economic inflation alone.

Efforts at transparency

Some progress in toward greater transparency has been made in recent years. Last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey amended its rules to require disclosures about third-party litigation funding in cases before the court. The Northern District of California imposed a similar rule in 2017 for class, mass, and collective actions throughout the district. Wisconsin passed a law requiring disclosure of third-party funding agreements in 2018. West Virginia followed suit in 2019.

At the federal level, the Litigation Funding Transparency Act was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 2021.

Panelists at Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum in December 2021 agreed on the importance of requiring disclosure of litigation funding. Insurance groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say litigation funding needs more rules to prevent abuses of the legal system and to protect consumers, who often pay exorbitant interest rates on money they borrow to pay legal expenses.

“By its very nature, third-party litigation financing promotes speculative litigation and increases costs for everyone,” said Stef Zielezienski, executive vice president and chief legal officer for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association in a press release about the Delaware order. “At its worst, outside investment in litigation financing dependent on a successful verdict creates incentives to prolong litigation.”

The Delaware judge’s order requires, in addition to disclosing the name and address of any third-party funder, that parties to any case before his bench must also disclose whether approval by the funder is necessary for settlement decisions and, if so, the terms and conditions relating to that approval.

While strides like this may be small, they add up in the fight to make disclosure of third-party litigation financing a priority in states and in courthouses nationwide.

Learn More:

Social Inflation: What It Is and Why It Matters

Triple-I, CAS Quantify Social Inflation’s Impact on Commercial Auto

What Is Social Inflation and What Can Insurers Do About It?

IRC Study: Social Inflation Is Real, and It Hurts Consumers, Businesses

Business Risk, Careers and Employment, Disaster Resilience, Emerging Risks, Industry Awards & Events, Industry Financials, Insurance Industry, Insurers and the Economy

JIF 2021: Risk & the “New Normal”

Leave a comment

Insurance industry decision makers and thought leaders gathered yesterday for the Triple-I Joint Industry Forum (JIF) in New York City to share insights on managing risk in the post-pandemic world.

The in-person, daylong program was conducted in accordance with New York City’s COVID-19 protocols. Topics ranged from climate and cyber risk and the impact of “runaway litigation” on insurer losses and policyholder premiums to the challenges and opportunities presented by “the Great Resignation” for acquiring and nurturing talent in the industry.

The panels featured speakers from across the insurance world, academia, and media. Watch this space next week for panel wrap-ups.

Business Risk, Emerging Risks, Technology

Deepfake: A Real Hazard

Leave a comment

By Maria Sassian, Triple-I consultant

Videos and voice recordings manipulated with previously unheard-of sophistication – known as “deepfakes“ – have proliferated and pose a growing threat to individuals, businesses, and national security, as Triple-I warned back in 2018.

Deepfake creators use machine-learning technology to manipulate existing images or recordings to make people appear to do and say things they never did. Deepfakes have the potential to disrupt elections and threaten foreign relations. Already, a suspected deepfake may have influenced an attempted coup in Gabon and a failed effort to discredit Malaysia’s economic affairs minister, according to Brookings Institution. 

Most deepfakes today are used to degrade, harass, and intimidate women. A recent study determined that up to 95 percent of the thousands of deepfakes on the internet were pornographic and up to 90 percent of those involved nonconsensual use of women’s images.

Businesses also can be harmed by deepfakes. In 2019, an executive at a U.K. energy company was tricked into transferring $243,000 to a secret account by what sounded like his boss’s voice on the phone but was later suspected to be thieves armed with deepfake software.

“The software was able to imitate the voice, and not only the voice: the tonality, the punctuation, the German accent,” said a spokesperson for Euler Hermes SA, the unnamed energy company’s insurer. Security firm Symantec said it is aware of several similar cases of CEO voice spoofing, which cost the victims millions of dollars.

A plausible – but still hypothetical – scenario involves manipulating video of executives to embarrass them or misrepresent market-moving news.

Insurance coverage still a question

Cyber insurance or crime insurance might provide some coverage for damage due to deepfakes, but it depends on whether and how those policies are triggered, according to Insurance Business.  While cyber insurance policies might include coverage for financial loss from reputational harm due to a breach, most policies require network penetration or a cyberattack before it will pay a claim. Such a breach isn’t typically present in a deepfake.

The theft of funds by using deepfakes to impersonate a company executive (what happened to the U.K. energy company) would likely be covered by a crime insurance policy.

Little legal recourse

Victims of deepfakes currently have little legal recourse. Kevin Carroll, security expert and Partner in Wiggin and Dana, a Washington D.C. law firm, said in an email: “The key to quickly proving that an image or especially an audio or video clip is a deepfake is having access to supercomputer time. So, you could try to legally prohibit deepfakes, but it would be very hard for an ordinary private litigant (as opposed to the U.S. government) to promptly pursue a successful court action against the maker of a deepfake, unless they could afford to rent that kind of computer horsepower and obtain expert witness testimony.”

An exception might be wealthy celebrities, Carroll said, but they could use existing defamation and intellectual property laws to combat, for example, deepfake pornography that uses their images commercially without the subject’s authorization.

A law banning deepfakes outright would run into First Amendment issues, Carroll said, because not all of them are created for nefarious purposes. Political parodies created by using deepfakes, for example, are First Amendment-protected speech.

It will be hard for private companies to protect themselves from the most sophisticated deepfakes, Carroll said, because “the really good ones will likely be generated by adversary state actors, who are difficult (although not impossible) to sue and recover from.”

Existing defamation and intellectual property laws are probably the best remedies, Carroll said.

Potential for insurance fraud

Insurers need to become better prepared to prevent and mitigate fraud that deepfakes are capable of aiding, as the industry relies heavily on customers submitting photos and video in self-service claims. Only 39 percent of insurers said they are either taking or planning steps to mitigate the risk of deepfakes, according to a survey by Attestiv.

Business owners and risk managers are advised to read and understand their policies and meet with their insurer, agent or broker to review the terms of their coverage.