The commercial auto insurance line has struggled to achieve underwriting profitability for years, even before the inflationary conditions that have been affecting property/casualty lines more recently. This trend has been accompanied by steady growth in net written premiums (NWP).
This weakness in underwriting profitability has been driven by several causes, according to a new Triple-I Issues Brief. One is the fact that vehicles – both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles they collide with – have become increasingly expensive to repair, thanks to new materials and increased reliance on sensors and computer systems designed to make driving more comfortable and safer. This well-established trend has been exacerbated by supply-chain disruptions during COVID-19 and continuing inflation in the pandemic’s aftermath.
Distracted driving and litigation trends also have played a role.
However, Triple-I sees some light on the horizon for commercial auto in terms of the line’s net combined ratio – a standard measure of underwriting profitability calculated by dividing the sum of claim-related losses and expenses by earned premium. A ratio under 100 indicates a profit and one above 100 indicates a loss.
As the chart below shows, the estimated 2024 net combined ratio for commercial auto insurance has improved slightly since 2023, and further improvement is expected over the next two years.
These projected improvements are based on an expectation of continued premium growth – due more to aggressive premium rate increase than to increased exposure – as the rate of insured losses levels off.
Louisiana’s personal auto insurance affordability improved to 2.67 percent of median household income in 2022 – down from 2.93 percent in 2020 – but it retains the dubious distinction of being the least affordable state, Triple-I’s chief insurance officer told the Louisiana House Insurance Committee in recent testimony.
Dale Porfilio – who also is president of the Insurance Research Council (IRC) – said that by nearly every metric the state’s insurance cost drivers are well above the national average:
Accident frequency – Louisiana is 16 percent higher than the national average;
Repair cost severity – Louisiana is 9 percent higher;
Injury claim relative frequency – Two out of every four property damage claims (when cars hit cars) in Louisiana result in bodily injury claims (49 percent), twice the one out of every four (25 percent) across all states;
Medical utilization – Louisiana is 47 percent higher;
Attorney involvement – Louisiana is 24 percent higher;
Underinsured motorists – At-fault drivers in Louisiana have insufficient liability insurance limits in over 35 percent of multi-car accidents, over twice the 16 percent U.S. average; and
Claims litigation – Litigation over personal auto claims in Louisiana is more than twice the national average, surpassed only by Florida.
Porfilio noted that for auto insurance affordability to improve, overall expected losses will need to be reduced. Legislation to reduce one or more of these key cost drivers would be helpful, Porfilio said.
As Triple-I and IRC previously reported, the combination of high insurance expenditures and low median income make Louisiana a difficult state in which to lower costs. The frequency of hurricanes hitting the state increases homeowners insurance costs, and the high cost of reinsurance has contributed to the Louisiana’s insurance woes.
In fact, in 2020 and 2021, in the wake of Hurricane Laura and Hurricane Ida, insurers paid out more than $23 billion in insured losses from over 800,000 claims filed.
While Louisiana policymakers were confident a $45 million fund approved in February 2023 to encourage insurers to write property insurance business in the state would help stabilize the market, insurance commissioner Jim Donelon recognized that the approved grants are only the first step toward reducing homeowners’ insurance rates.
As Porfilio’s testimony demonstrated – and the market has dictated – more work is needed to lower costs for consumers and insurers in Louisiana.
Several metrics that influence auto insurance premium rates are starting to improve, but it will take time for these improvements to be reflected in flattening rates, according to a recent Triple-I Issues Brief.
Direct premiums written and underwriting profitability improved dramatically in 2023. Additionally, 2023 net written premium growth of 14.3 percent is the highest in over 15 years. These are great gains, but it’s important to remember that they come on top of results in 2022 that were the worst in recent years.
The number of drivers on the road and miles driven have returned to pre-pandemic levels – but the risky driving behaviors that led to high losses during the pandemic have not improved. More accidents with severe injuries and fatalities have driven up claims and losses in terms of both vehicle damage and liability, while attracting greater attorney involvement and legal system abuse. Compounding these conditions has been historically high inflation, which puts upward pressure on the material and labor costs, increasing the cost of claims.
Telematics technologies, which allow insurers to analyze risk profiles and tailor rates based on individual driving habits, offer the possibility of some relief. By providing feedback that can influence driving behavior, telematics has been shown to lower risk and help reduce the cost of insurance. An Insurance Research Council survey found 45 percent of drivers said they made significant safety-related changes in how they drove after participating in a telematics program. Another 35 percent said they made small changes.
But broader risk and economic factors are likely to keep premium rates high in most cases for the foreseeable future.
Two bills proposed in Illinois this year illustrate yet again the need for lawmakers to better understand how insurance works. Illinois HB 4767 and HB 4611 – like their 2023 predecessor, HB 2203 – would harm the very policyholders the measures aim to help by driving up the cost for insurers to write personal auto coverage in the state.
“These bills, while intended to address rising insurance costs, would have the opposite impact and likely harm consumers by reducing competition and increasing costs for Illinois drivers,” said a press release issued by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the Illinois Insurance Association, and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. “Insurance rates are first and foremost a function of claims and their costs. Rather than working to help make roadways safer and reduce costs, these bills seek to change the state’s insurance rating law and prohibit the use of factors that are highly predictive of the risk of a future loss.”
The proposed laws would bar insurers from considering nondriving factors that are demonstrably predictive of claims when setting premium rates.
“Prohibiting highly accurate rating factors…disconnects price from the risk of future loss, which necessarily means high-risk drivers will pay less and lower-risk drivers will pay more than they otherwise would pay,” the release says. “Additionally, changing the rating law and factors used will not change the economics or crash statistics that are the primary drivers of the cost of insurance in the state.”
Triple-I agrees with the key concerns raised by the other trade organizations. As we have written previously, such legislation suggests a lack of understanding about risk-based pricing that is not isolated to Illinois legislators – indeed, similar proposals are submitted from time to time at state and federal levels.
What is risk-based pricing?
Simply put, risk-based pricing means offering different prices for the same level of coverage, based on risk factors specific to the insured person or property. If policies were not priced this way – if insurers had to come up with a one-size-fits-all price for auto coverage that didn’t consider vehicle type and use, where and how much the car will be driven, and so forth – lower-risk drivers would subsidize riskier ones. Risk-based pricing allows insurers to offer the lowest possible premiums to policyholders with the most favorable risk factors. Charging higher premiums to insure higher-risk policyholders enables insurers to underwrite a wider range of coverages, thus improving both availability and affordability of insurance.
This simple concept becomes complicated when actuarially sound rating factors intersect with other attributes in ways that can be perceived as unfairly discriminatory. For example, concerns have been raised about the use of credit-based insurance scores, geography, home ownership, and motor vehicle records in setting home and car insurance premium rates. Critics say this can lead to “proxy discrimination,” with people of color in urban neighborhoods sometimes charged more than their suburban neighbors for the same coverage.
The confusion is understandable, given the complex models used to assess and price risk and the socioeconomic dynamics involved. To navigate this complexity, insurers hire teams of actuaries and data scientists to quantify and differentiate among a range of risk variables while avoiding unfair discrimination.
While it may be hard for policyholders to believe factors like age, gender, and credit score have anything to do with their likelihood of filing claims, the charts below demonstrate clear correlations.
Policyholders have reasonable concerns about rising premium rates. It’s important for them and their legislators to understand that the current high-rate environment has nothing to do with the application of actuarially sound rating factors and everything to do with increasing insurer losses associated with higher frequency and severity of claims. Frequency and claims trends are driven by a wide range of causes – such as riskier driving behavior and legal system abuse – that warrant the attention of policymakers. Legislators would do well to explore ways to reduce risks, contain fraud other forms of legal system abuse, and improve resilience, rather than pursuing “solutions” to restrict pricing that will only make these problem worse.
Ten states – Louisiana, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia – as well as additional plaintiffs, are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over its new methodology for pricing flood insurance, Risk Rating 2.0. On Sept. 14, a federal hearing lasted six hours as the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt the new pricing regime while the lawsuit plays out.
Many residents of these states are understandably upset about seeing their flood insurance premium rates rise under the new approach. There may not be much comfort for them in knowing that the current system is much fairer than the previous one, in which higher-risk homeowners subsidized those with lower risks. Similarly, policyholders who have had their premium rates reduced under Risk Rating 2.0 are unlikely to take to the streets in celebration.
These homeowners aren’t alone in seeing insurance rates rise – or even having to struggle to obtain insurance. And these difficulties aren’t confined to holders of flood insurance policies. Florida and California are two states in which insurers have been forced to rethink their risk appetite – due in part to rising natural catastrophe losses and in part to regulatory and litigation environments that make it increasingly difficult for insurers to profitably write coverage.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – and the supply-chain and inflationary pressures they created – the property/casualty insurance market was hardening as insurers adjusted their pricing and their risk appetites to keep pace with conditions that were driving losses up and eroding underwriting profitability – topics Triple-I has written about extensively (see a partial list below).
“Rising insurance rates are not the problem,” says Dale Porfilio, chief insurance officer at Triple-I. “They are a symptom of rising losses related to a range of factors, from climate and population trends to post-pandemic driving behaviors and surging cybercrime to antiquated policies, outdated building codes, fraud, and legal system abuse.”
In short, we are not experiencing an “insurance crisis,” as many media outlets tend to describe the current state of the market; we are experiencing a risk crisis. And even as the states referenced above push back against much-needed flood insurance reform, legislators in several states have been pushing measures that would restrict insurers’ ability to price coverage accurately and fairly – rather than addressing the underlying perils and forces aggravating them.
Triple-I, its members, and a range of partners are working to educate stakeholders and decisionmakers and promote pre-emptive risk mitigation and investment in resilience. We are using our position as thought leaders and our unique non-lobbying role in the insurance industry to reach across sector boundaries and drive constructive action. You will be hearing more about these efforts over the next few months.
The success of these efforts will require a collective understanding among stakeholders and decisionmakers that for insurance to be available and affordable frequency and severity of risk must be measurably reduced. This will require highly focused, integrated projects and programs – many of them at the community level – in which all stakeholders (co-beneficiaries of these efforts) will share responsibility.
Want to know more about the risk crisis and how insurers are working to address it? Check out Triple-I’s upcoming Town Hall, “Attacking the Risk Crisis,” which will be held Nov. 30 in Washington, D.C.
The success of Michigan’s no-fault insurance reforms at reining in claims and contributing to premium reductions for many drivers has been crimped by adverse court decisions in cases contesting the reforms and other factors, according to new research by two Triple-I non-resident scholars.
Michigan can be viewed as “an experiment on both the promises and pitfalls of a grand vision for no-fault auto insurance,” say the authors, Patricia Born, Ph.D. of Florida State University and Robert Klein, Ph.D. of Temple University. The policy brief, No-Fault Auto Insurance Reform in Michigan: An Initial Assessment Revised, updates prior research by the scholars. It evaluates the reforms and finds that – in addition to reduced claims and beneficial effects on many drivers’ premiums — “it also appears that the number of uninsured drivers has fallen significantly.”
Michigan’s high auto insurance premiums contributed to a large percentage of uninsured drivers. In fact, Michigan was estimated to have the second-highest percentage of uninsured drivers among the states in 2019, at nearly 26 percent.
“This motivated the state’s Governor and Legislature to significantly reform its no-fault law and revise its regulation of auto insurance,” the report says. “The reforms were enacted in 2019 and were phased in from 2019 through 2021. While these reforms and regulatory changes are relatively nascent, there is considerable interest in knowing their effects, including the consequences of eliminating unlimited medical benefits, instituting medical cost controls, and tightening auto insurance rate regulation.”
PIP costs in the state had previously caused skyrocketing premiums due to the high medical costs associated with this coverage. The researchers’ data demonstrates that PIP claims costs dropped significantly because of these reforms.
Additionally, Michigan’s verbal threshold for liability claims appears to have reduced auto insurance costs and premiums in Michigan relative to other states. However, these savings were engulfed by its high PIP costs prior to the reforms. With PIP costs decreasing, the overall cost of liability coverage has also declined.
Now, the number of uninsured drivers has also fallen as auto insurance has become more affordable due to the reforms. Overall, Michigan’s average auto insurance premium for all coverages dropped from $2,611 in 2019 to $2,112 in 2021 – an 18.3 percent decrease. From 2019 to the first quarter of 2023, the average liability premium declined from $825 to $629 – a 23.8 percent decrease. The average loss cost for PIP in Michigan fell almost 40 percent, from $465 in 2019 to $280 in 2023.
Despite these benefits, the paper says, “There are stakeholders who question whether the reforms have created a better system and are seeking to reverse or modify some of them.”
According to the study, some drivers expected greater premium savings than they have received. Other parties who benefited from the old system (for example, medical providers and trial attorneys) “are seeking to reverse or temper at least some of the reforms that were enacted,” the paper says.
PIP claims costs have begun to rise within the last year due to recent adverse court rulings, as well as other factors, such as more frequent auto accidents.
The average claim payment per insured personal vehicle rose between 2002 and 2022, with higher payments by insurers more than offsetting declines in frequency, according to new research by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) – like Triple-I, an affiliate of The Institutes.
“During the first half of the study period, the combination of declining frequency and increasing severity left average insurer loss costs relatively unchanged,” said IRC president and Triple-I chief insurance officer Dale Porfilio. “However, as claim frequency leveled off and claim severity accelerated, the average payment per insured vehicle for most coverages began to climb steadily until the 2020 drop due to COVID-19. By 2022, however, average loss costs for nearly every coverage had surpassed the 2019 level.”
Frequency for both property damage liability and bodily injury liability claims fell more than 2 percent annualized over the period from 2002 to 2022, while the average payout per insured vehicle increased over 2 percent for both types of claims over the same period.
Claim frequency – which decreased sharply during the coronavirus pandemic – remained below pre-pandemic levels in 2022, while claim severity skyrocketed, with the average loss cost also increasing. Accelerating growth in claim loss costs is a key driver of rising insurance costs for consumers.
Costs also varied widely from state to state. The combined injury average loss cost in the highest state, Florida, was over five times the loss cost in the lowest state, North Dakota. Traffic conditions, medical prices, policy limits and other insurance regulations, litigiousness, fraud, and the design of the injury tort or no-fault environment all influence these costs.
Pandemic upended insured vehicle costs
During the height of COVID-19, insurers returned $14 billion of premiums to consumers through discounts, rebates, and dividends due to fewer drivers on the road. However, risky driving behaviors like speeding and distracted driving appeared to compound while the roads were quieter. Consequently, traffic fatalities increased in 2020, despite the large drop in miles driven, with the average auto claim severity rising.
In 2021 and 2022, vehicle traffic resumed and claim severity worsened as risky driving behaviors continued. As a result, traffic fatalities rose in 2021, hitting the highest levels in 15 years. This also marked the highest percentage increase since the current reporting system began in 1975.
Although some of these pressures may stabilize, the IRC report notes that the claim environment is likely to remain challenging as people continue to exhibit risky driving behavior. Additionally, longer-term pressures on injury claim severity from cost drivers, such as heavy medical utilization, cost-shifting, and claim abuse, continue to increase insured vehicle costs.
As more new vehicles become equipped with crash-avoidance features, some owners report significant issues with the technologies after repairs, according to a recent report from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS).
In the survey, approximately half of those who reported an issue with equipped front crash prevention, blind-spot detection, or rearview or other visibility-enhancing cameras said at least one of those systems presented problems after the repair job was completed.
Nevertheless, many owners remained eager to have a vehicle with these features and were pleased with the out-of-pocket cost, according to Alexandra Mueller, IIHS senior research scientist.
“These technologies have been proven to reduce crashes and related injuries,” Mueller said. “Our goal is that they continue to deliver those benefits after repairs and for owners to be confident that they’re working properly.”
Still, as problems with these technologies persist, the study notes that it is important to track repair issues to further the adoption of crash avoidance features. IIHS research has shown that front-crash prevention, blind-spot detection, and rearview cameras all substantially reduce the types of crashes they are designed to address. For example, IIHS said, automatic emergency braking reduces police-reported rear-end crashes by 50 percent.
An analysis conducted by the IIHS-affiliated Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) showed the reduction in insurance claims associated with Subaru and Honda crash-avoidance systems remained essentially constant, even in vehicles more than five years old. But repairs can make it necessary to calibrate the cameras and sensors that the features rely on to work properly, making repairs complicated and costly.
For example, a simple windshield replacement can cost as little as $250, while a separate HLDI study found vehicles equipped with front crash prevention were much more likely to have glass claims of $1,000 or more. Much of that higher cost is likely related to calibration.
The new IIHS study found that owners often had more than one reason requiring repairs to these safety features. Most had received a vehicle recall or service bulletin about their feature, but that was rarely the sole reason they brought their vehicles in for service or repair.
“Other common reasons — which were not mutually exclusive — included windshield replacement, crash damage, a recommendation from the dealership or repair shop, and a warning light or error message from the vehicle itself,” according to the study.
Repair difficulties could motivate drivers to turn off crash avoidance features, potentially making collisions more likely. But, despite the post-repair issues, the study found that slightly more than 5 percent of owners would opt not to purchase another vehicle with the repaired feature. As reckless driving and traffic fatalities continue to rise, advanced driver-assistance systems will only become more important for the roadway safety, necessitating reliable technology.
Three anti-crime organizations have asked YouTube to take down all videos that teach people how to steal Kia and Hyundai automobiles. The organizations – the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, and the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) – made their request in response to a spike in thefts of these vehicles.
The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) late last year reported that bargain-priced Kia and Hyundai vehicles were being targeted for theft at rates similar to muscle cars and SUVs, based on an analysis of 2021 insurance claims. The spike is due, in part, to the fact that the models being stolen don’t have electronic immoblizers that stop thieves from bypassing the ignition.
Some thieves have even made instructional videos – shared on platforms like YouTube and TikTok – on how to perform the theft procedure using just a screwdriver and a USB cable. Since these videos started appearing on social media, police departments across the U.S. have reported drastic increases in Kia and Hyundai thefts.
In Chicago, for example, where only 328 Kias were stolen in 2021, more than 3,500 were stolen last year, CBS Chicago reported.
“Everyday consumers are being victimized by criminals using social media platforms to learn their newest illegal tricks and techniques,” said David Glawe, president and CEO of the NICB. “Some platforms are not doing enough to protect innocent victims from unnecessary harm.”
Celeste Dodson, president of IASIU, added, “When a vehicle is stolen, it is often not the end of the crime but the beginning. Vehicle thefts are associated with a multitude of criminal activity, including insurance fraud. The cost of these crimes is then passed on to consumers through higher premiums.”
Private-passenger auto insurance premium rates are experiencing upward pressure due to a variety of factors, including:
Rising insurer losses due to increasing accident frequency and severity;
More fatalities and injuries on the road, leading to increased attorney involvement in claims;
Continuing supply-chain issues, leading to rising costs for cars, replacement parts, and labor; and
More costly auto repairs due to safer, more technologically sophisticated vehicles.
Thefts of vehicles or components like catalytic converters only increase that pressure to raise rates.
The only way to turn that pressure down is to reduce claims and losses by reducing accidents and thefts. Making it harder for people to learn how to break the law and cause damage by watching online videos would be a small but needed step in that direction.
Too many car owners are too comfortable leaving their vehicles’ driver-assist features in charge, potentially putting themselves and others at risk, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
IIHS said a survey of about 600 regular users of General Motors Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist, and Tesla Autopilot found they were “more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted.”
“The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technology’s limits,” said IIHS President David Harkey.
The study reports that 53 percent of Super Cruise users, 42 percent of Tesla Autopilot users, and 12 percent of Nissan’s ProPilot Assist users were comfortable letting the system drive without watching what was happening on the road. Some even described being comfortable letting the vehicle drive during inclement weather.
These systems combine adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping systems, primarily to keep a car in a lane and following traffic on the highway. All require an attentive human driver to monitor the road and take full control when called for.
“None of the current systems is designed to replace a human driver or to make it safe for a driver to perform other activities that take their focus away from the road,” IIHS said in announcing the results of its survey.
While all three automakers caution drivers about the systems’ limits, confusion remains. Tesla’s driver-assist system, which it calls “full self-driving” has received much scrutiny over the years as auto safety experts say the name is misleading and risks worsening road safety.
The U.S.government has set no standards for these features, which are some of the newest technologies on vehicles today. A patchwork of state laws and voluntary federal guidelines is attempting to cover the testing and eventual deployment of autonomous vehicles in the United States.
