Category Archives: Homeowners Insurance

Triple-I Chief Economist Testifies on NYC Measure On Short-Term Rentals

By Loretta Worters, Vice President – Media Relations, Triple-I

Triple-I Chief Economist and Data Scientist Dr. Michel Léonard provided insurance insight to the New York City Council’s Committee on Housing and Buildings as they consider Local Bills 948-A and 1107-A. The measures aim to address New York City’s housing-affordability challenges by expanding homeowners’ ability to earn income through short-term rentals.

Léonard’s testimony focused on helping policymakers understand the protection gaps that can arise when residential dwellings are used for commercial purposes. He began by emphasizing Triple-I’s role as a nonprofit research and education organization, not a lobbying entity.

Many homeowners, Léonard noted, are unaware that standard homeowners’ policies generally exclude commercial activity, meaning hosts who fail to update their coverage may face denied claims, inadequate liability protection, or higher out-of-pocket costs if a loss occurs. Because short-term rentals fall under commercial use, homeowners who rent out their homes — whether occasionally or regularly — may inadvertently operate without appropriate coverage.

Operating a short-term rental typically requires:

  • Notifying their insurer,
  • Adhering to policy terms, and
  • Obtaining short-term rental-specific or commercial coverage.

Committee Chair Pierina Ana Sanchez asked what the cost impact might be for homeowners who must shift to a commercial policy. Léonard explained that, while costs vary, the more pressing issue is that many homeowners are unaware they have gaps in coverage.

This means homeowners, renters, and residents could all face significant financial or liability risks if an incident occurs. These risks are especially complex in multi-unit buildings, where short-term rental activity can affect both an individual unit’s policy and the building’s master policy—potentially increasing premiums and liability exposure for all residents. The result can be large uncovered losses, disputes, or claims that ripple throughout buildings and neighborhoods.

Homeowners insurance in New York City is significantly different from New York State. In written testimony to the New York Senate Committees on Investigations and Government Operations, Insurance, and Housing, Construction, and Community Development on Tuesday, November 18, Triple-I Chief Insurance Officer Patrick Schmid cited data from the Insurance Research Council (IRC), saying New York ranks 29th in its homeowners’ affordability study, with a 2.11 percent ratio of homeowners’ insurance expenditure to median household income. This is a lower percentage than a decade earlier for the state. According to IRC, New York’s homeowners’ insurance expenditures equal 0.39 percent of median.

Insurance in New York City is complicated, influenced by high property values, dense construction, and a challenging legal and claims environment. Rising labor and construction costs also contribute to higher premiums and more severe claims.

Coverage gaps and denied claims, even when policies are applied correctly, can lead to public misunderstandings about insurance. As Allstate CEO Tom Wilson recently noted, trust between consumers and companies is at a “tipping point” and must be reinforced through reliability and clear communication.

With its independent insight, Triple-I gave policymakers a clear understanding of the potential insurance consequences of expanding short-term rentals in residential buildings, helping them make informed decisions that balance affordability, consumer protection, and risk management.

Learn More:

Triple-I Testifies on New York Insurance Affordability

IRC: Homeowners’ Insurance Rate Filing Growing Less Efficient

Allstate, Aspen Initiative Seeks to Ease Trust Gap

IoT Solutions Offer Homeowners, Insurers Value — But How Much?

Disasters, Litigation Reshape Homeowners’ Insurance Affordability

JIF 2025: U.S. Policy Changes and Uncertainty Imperil Insurance Affordability

Insurance Affordability, Availability Demand Collaboration, Innovation

Tariff Uncertainty May Strain Insurance Markets, Challenge Affordability

COTW: Native Americans Face Heightened Extreme Weather Risks. 

The bottom background color is white and displays a chart to the left and a text box to the right 

Chart Details: 

Title: American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Population by County 

 

Subtitle: (Percent of Population)  

 

Chart description: A map colored by county in varying shades of blue  

Chart Data available upon request. 

The source data line reads: Sources: Analysis: Insurance Information Institute, Data: Census through Rural Health Information Hub; (As of 11/11/2025). 

The Census uses “AIAN” to represent people who self-identify as American Indian and Alaska Native. 
The first line of text, in a dark blue bolded font: The AIAN population is estimated to be about 7.1 Million or about 2.1% of the total U.S. population.  

 

Below, in plain black font, it says Key Numbers for AIAN: 

followed by the following two  lines, each sentence a bullet point:  

50.9% live in Oklahoma, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas; facing heightened risks from wildfires, floods, tornadoes, and droughts. 

AIAN face higher death rates from extreme weather events than the total U.S. population, 0.6 per 100,000 compared to 0.2 per 100,000.
Chart of the Week 11 18 2025: Native Americans Face Heightened Extreme Weather Risks

As part of an ongoing discussion on the link between the housing and insurance markets, the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) released a Chart of the Week (COTW) that provides a snapshot of climate risk concerns for American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population.

The provided estimate for the number of Native Americans in the U.S. is 7.1 million – about 2.1 percent of the total population. As much as 95 percent of the general U.S. population lives in a county that has experienced a natural disaster since 2011. However, this COTW says at least 50.9 percent of Native Americans live in states facing heightened risks from wildfires, floods, tornadoes, and droughts. The chart also reveals that Indigenous people in the U.S. face higher death rates from extreme weather events than the total national population, at 0.6 per 100,000 compared to 0.2 per 100,000.

Native communities are situated on the front line of climate risk.

As insurance is designed to help policyholders and their communities recover from insurable events, coverage availability and affordability can contribute to resilience. However, states that are home to at least half of the U.S. Native American population rank high on the Insurance Research Council (IRC) report, Homeowners Insurance Expenditures as a Percent of Median Household Income – Oklahoma (4th), Arizona (5th), Texas, (6th), New Mexico (14th), California (25th) – indicating comparatively less coverage affordability in those states. While availability and affordability can ultimately be driven by a mix of key underlying cost drivers, climate risk and home-ownership challenges can play a crucial role in access for many Native American homeowners.

Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and typhoons, have shaped the way colonization of North America unfolded, beginning in the early centuries of European contact. For thousands of years prior, Native Americans had thrived in their homelands by taking measures to survive long-term severe weather, such as seasonally migrating away from flood-prone areas or building nature-based infrastructure as needed. Colonial expansion, in which Indigenous people lost nearly 99 percent of their historical land base over time, decimated Indigenous populations and pushed survivors into high-severe-weather-risk areas or lands, in many cases previously unknown to their respective tribal groups.

As a result of centuries of these forced removal policies and government-directed or sanctioned land dispossession, present-day Native American lands “are also generally far from historical lands, averaging a distance of roughly 150 miles” and are often in inherently more climate risk-prone areas today – i.e., low-lying, exposed, less habitable due to drought, etc. Living today on the front lines of climate risk across the U.S. means frequently experiencing acute effects, such as thawing permafrost, rising sea levels, increased flooding, stronger storms, erosion, and shifting ecosystems.

For instance, a 2024 study indicates that Oklahoma, home to 39 federally recognized tribal nations, “faces climate and demographic changes that disproportionately put many Native Americans at risk. The heavy rainfall, 2-year floods, and flash floods are all projected to have increased risks by 501.1 percent, 632.6 percent, and 296.4 percent, respectively.”

In a village in western Alaska, where permafrost is thawing, buildings (including a preschool) are shifting, water intrusion is increasing, and relocation is becoming a real threat. Recently, nearly 50 Alaska Native communities experienced “towering wind speeds, record storm surge, and widespread flooding”, resulting in at least one death and the displacement of 1,500 people…Initial estimates have reported that the storm decimated 90 percent of homes in the coastal village of Kipnuk and 35 percent in Kwigillingok, which has also experienced toxic chemicals spilling into its freshwater supply.”

Climate risk can threaten lives and property, of course, but also regional economies, one of the key ingredients in building capacity for resilience. For example, a study of climate-driven economic challenges posed to Navajo Nation, the largest Indian reservation in the U.S., shows that “drought has a larger impact on cattle production than hay production, resulting in total economic losses of $8.2 million and $0.4 million for the cattle and hay sectors, respectively.” Without robust regional economies, infrastructure, or policy support, Native American homeowners and their communities may struggle to adapt or relocate effectively.

Homeownership costs may contribute to the protection gap.

Native American homeowners are more likely to lack coverage if they:

  • Are homeowners living in New Mexico and certain rural areas of Texas
  • have manufactured homes, or
  • own inherited homes.

Data collected through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveals that Native Americans, on average, pay more to finance their homes – in some contexts up to two times more. While that disparity can be attributed to several factors, one major driver is the loan type that appears to be more common among Native borrowers, home-only loans. “Nearly 40 percent of loans to Native American borrowers on reservations were for manufactured homes, compared to 3 percent of loans to White borrowers”. Further, about 8 out of 10 manufactured-home loans were home-only loans.

Home-only loans, a financing tool used for movable personal property in which the lender retains ownership of the property until the borrower fully pays the loan, can make financial sense in some instances. Nonetheless, borrowers typically pay higher interest rates and have fewer consumer protections, such as federal guarantees, than regular mortgages. The pressure of these circumstances may compel the homeowners to carry insufficient coverage, or, when they pay off the loan, none at all.

Federal funding freezes can impede resilience.

Data from the National Congress of American Indians show that “U.S. citizens receive, on average, about $26 per person, per year, from the federal government, while tribal citizens receive approximately $3 per person, per year.”  Recent federal disinvestment in 2025 from crucial risk prevention and management programs and other supportive infrastructure –  including public radio stations which can be used for advance severe weather warnings and coordination of disaster recovery efforts – has exacerbated the burden from longstanding disparities. This decrease in support can also heighten the need for insurance coverage and closing the protection gap.

Amy Cole-Smith, Executive Director for BIIC/ Director of Diversity at The Institutes says, “the numbers are clear: Native Americans face higher exposure to extreme weather, higher insurance burdens, and higher rates of being uninsured. These factors reflect not just climate trends but historical inequities that continue to shape outcomes today. Strengthening coverage access is essential to protecting lives, homes, and cultural continuity.”

As Smith has often expressed, one way the industry can start closing the protection gap is “by having people at the table who understand the lived experiences behind the numbers.”

Triple-I works to advance the conversation around crucial issues in the insurance industry. We invite you to follow our blog to learn more about trends in insurance affordability and availability across the property/casualty market.

IRC: Homeowners’ Insurance Rate Filing Growing Less Efficient

By William Nibbelin, Senior Research Actuary, Triple-I

The rate-filing process for homeowners’ insurance has become less efficient and effective, a new study by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) shows.

The report – Rate Regulation in Homeowners Insurance: A Comparison of State Systems analyzed industry data from 2010 through 2024 across all states, including the District of Columbia. The study found that, not only is it taking longer for insurers to get rate increases approved, but the increases are lower than requested, with bigger gaps between the request and the granted amount than had previously been the case.

Key findings:

  • The number of rate filings is growing at a compound annual growth rate of 3.3 percent from 2018 to 2024 nationwide.
  • The average number of days to approval grew from 44 to 63 days.
  • The number of filings withdrawn increased from 2.9 percent of filings to 3.9 percent of filings.
  • The percentage of filings receiving less rate impact than requested grew by more than 10 points.
  • The disparity in approved rate impact grew by nearly 1 point.
  • Market concentration (as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, or HHI) decreased by 14.6 percent.
  • The residual share of direct written premium has grown at a compound annual growth rate of 10.5 percent from 2020 to 2024
  • A strong-to-moderate correlation exists between net underwriting losses and premium shortfalls within states and across time.
  • Filing process measures and market outcomes vary by regulatory systems.

During this same period from 2010 through 2024, the homeowners’ insurance industry experienced a net combined ratio over 100 in 10 of the 15 years. Combined ratio – calculated as losses and expenses divided by earned premium plus operating expenses divided by written premium – is a key measure of underwriting profitability. A combined ratio over 100 represents an underwriting loss.

The IRC report includes the determination of a strong correlation between underwriting loss and premium shortfalls, defined as the potential dollar difference between the effective filed rate impact and approved rate impact.

In California, for example, the time to approval exceeds that of the next highest state – New York – by more than four months. California also has the second-fastest-growing residual market share from 2.1 percent in 2019 to 8.2 percent in 2024 and the second-fastest-growing excess and surplus homeowners market share from 0.3 percent in 2010 to 6.3 percent in 2024. This means that, at most, only 85 percent of California homeowners’ insurance is covered by a standard policy.

IRC, like Triple-I, is an affiliate of The Institutes.

Illinois Lawmakers
Reject Risk-Based
Pricing Challenge

By Lewis Nibbelin, Research Writer, Triple-I 

Illinois insurers narrowly avoided increased government involvement in insurance pricing as state legislators rejected “an extreme prior-approval system found nowhere else in the country,” according to a joint statement from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the Illinois Insurance Association.

If approved, the bill would have given regulators the authority to block rate change and order refunds from insurers for premiums deemed excessive, effectively generating “fewer choices and greater instability,” the statement continued.

While calls for the bill began in July, following homeowners’ insurance rate hikes, Illinois has a history of legislative challenges to actuarially sound pricing. Similar legislation in Louisiana passed that same month, amid record rate filing rejections in Pennsylvania and two California lawsuits accusing insurers of deliberately underinsuring policyholders to maximize profits.

Such trends underscore pervasive misunderstandings surrounding risk-based pricing, the practice under which insurers offer different prices for the same coverage based on risk factors specific to the insured. Without it, insurers could not adequately cover mounting natural catastrophe losses, inflationary pressures, and other rising costs, leading to an insufficient policyholder surplus to pay claims. When surplus falls below a certain threshold, insurers must raise premium rates, adjust their coverage availability, or, in extreme cases, become insolvent.

Under this pricing methodology, Illinois benefits from better coverage affordability compared to the national average and a competitive insurance market of more than 200 operating insurers.

“Illinois has a very stable insurance marketplace,” said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. “Restrictive legislation could lead to a California-like regulatory environment that would impact insurance affordability and availability in the state, rather than help consumers as intended.”

Rather than involve themselves in the complexity of insurance pricing, policymakers in Illinois and elsewhere would do a greater service to their constituents by exploring and investing in risk reduction through cost-saving mitigation and resilience investments. The property/casualty insurance industry can be a valuable partner in such beneficial approaches.

Learn More: 

New Illinois Bills Would Harm — Not Help — Auto Policyholders

Resilience Investment Payoffs Outpace Future Costs More Than 30 Times

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

California Insurance Market at a Critical Juncture

Despite Headwinds,
P/C Insurance Industry Maintains Course in 2025

By William Nibbelin, Senior Research Actuary, Triple-I

The U.S. property/casualty (P/C) insurance industry is on track for a second consecutive year of underwriting profitability in 2025, and is projected to grow faster than the broader U.S. economy, according to the latest Insurance Economics and Underwriting Projections: A Forward View report from Triple-I and Milliman. The report, which is based on data through the first half of 2025, highlights continued progress despite persistent geopolitical and natural catastrophe uncertainties.

Positive Economic Signals and Lingering Concerns

The industry’s economic outlook remains cautiously optimistic. According to Michel Léonard, Ph.D., CBE, chief economist and data scientist at Triple-I, the industry has benefited from stronger-than-expected underlying growth. He also noted that P/C replacement costs continue to rise more slowly than overall inflation.

However, Léonard also pointed to factors that make the outlook for 2026 especially important to watch.

 “Ongoing risks, including tariffs, labor market softening and persistent inflation,” could pose challenges, he said. While the impact of tariffs has been less severe than initially anticipated, their long-term effect remains an open question.

Underwriting Performance: A Mixed Bag

Overall underwriting profitability for 2025 is expected to be a repeat of 2024, but to a lesser degree. The performance gap between personal lines and commercial lines is narrowing.  

“Favorable second-quarter results for homeowners helped narrow the anticipated 2025 gap between personal and commercial lines performance created by the Los Angeles fires in the first quarter,” said Patrick Schmid, Ph.D., Triple-I’s chief insurance officer.

Schmid also noted that personal lines premium growth is expected to remain higher than commercial lines by one point in 2025. That difference is projected to disappear by 2027.

Personal Lines

  • Personal Auto: The personal auto sector continues to be a highlight, with its forecast 2025 Net Combined Ratio (NCR) on track for continued profitability. The forecast has also slightly improved from prior estimates.
  • Homeowners: Despite favorable results in the second quarter, the homeowners’ NCR forecast for 2025 is still expected to be unprofitable for the year.

Commercial Lines

  • General Liability: This continues to be a line of concern. According to Jason B. Kurtz, FCAS, MAAA, a principal and consulting actuary at Milliman, “We see underwriting losses continuing in 2025, with the 2025 net combined ratio for GL forecast at 107.1.” He also said that, while slight improvement is expected in 2026-2027, “we estimate GL combined ratios to remain above 100.” Kurtz added, “Direct incurred loss ratios through mid-2025 have not improved relative to 2024’s poor result. Forecasted net written premium growth of 8.0 percent is 4.8 points above 2024 as premiums respond to recent performance.”
  • Workers Compensation: In contrast to general liability, workers’ compensation remains the strongest-performing major line in the P/C industry. Preliminary 2025 results from NCCI show calendar year combined ratios in the range of 85–93 percent. Donna Glenn, Chief Actuary at NCCI, noted, “If this holds, it will represent 12 consecutive years of combined ratios under 100% for private carriers.” For more details on the preliminary Workers Comp 2025 results, see NCCI’s full analysis in 2025 in Sight, 2024 in Review: The Latest Results for Workers Compensation.

Delving Deeper: A Members-Only View

For members who want to dig deeper into the projections, the full Insurance Economics and Underwriting Projections: A Forward View report offers a more granular analysis, including:

  • A detailed look at personal auto and commercial auto results, breaking down the quarterly experience between auto liability and physical damage.
  • A forecast of net combined ratio and net written premium growth specific to farmowners insurance.
  • A comparison of commercial property sub-lines.
  • A breakdown of commercial multiple peril results, differentiating between property and liability performance.

The next quarterly report will be presented at a members-only webinar in January 2026.

Study Supports Defensible Space, Home Hardening as Wildfire Resilience Tools

A recent paper published in Nature that  analyzes five major California wildfires confirms what insurers, fire scientists, and risk modelers have long asserted: Defensible space and home hardening help mitigate wildfire risk and improve resilience.

The study found that clearing vegetation and flammable materials within 1.5 meters of a structure — an area known as “Zone 0” — is one of the most effective actions a homeowner can take. When this is paired with home-hardening features like non-combustible siding, enclosed eaves, and vent screens, the results are staggering: predicted losses dropped by as much as 48 percent, according to the study.

Homes built after 1997, when California adopted stricter building codes, consistently outperformed older structures. These newer homes incorporated fire-resistant materials and design features that significantly improved survival rates.

From an insurance perspective, such steps – by leading to reduced losses and fewer, less-costly claims – can alleviate some of the upward pressure on premium rates in areas at higher risk for wildfire. In the long term, they can improve insurance affordability and availability in fire-vulnerable geographies.

Wildfire risk is strongly conditioned by geographic considerations that vary widely across and within states. A recent paper by Triple-I and Guidewire – a provider of software solutions to the insurance industry – used case studies from three California areas with very different geographic and demographic characteristics to go deeper into how such tools can be used to identify properties with attractive risk properties, despite their location in wildfire-prone areas. The use of such data-driven analysis can help insurers identify less risky properties within higher-risk geographies. 

The study in Nature examined five major fires from recent history in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) – Tubbs (2017), Thomas (2017), Camp (2018), Kincade (2019), and Glass (2020) – using machine learning to analyze on-the-ground post-fire data collection, remotely sensed data, and fire reconstruction modeling to assess patterns of loss and mitigation effectiveness.

Using a tool called an XGBoost classifier, the study found that “structure survivability can be predicted to 82 percent.” The study reported that “spacing between structures is a critical factor influencing fire risk…while fire exposure, the ignition resistance (hardening) of structures, and clearing around structures (defensible space) work in combination” to mitigate that risk.

“With the science-based information from this report, we can reduce risk and make our communities safer from wildfire,” said Janet Ruiz, Triple-I’s California-based director of strategic communication.  Accuracy of 82 percent on predictability of structures burning is a major improvement, and mitigation is the key.”

Coordinated community-wide strategies like vegetation management, building code enforcement, and distance between structures are essential. Triple-I and its members and partners are working to inform, educate, and drive behavioral change to reduce risk and build resilience.

Learn More:

Triple-I Brief Highlights Wildfire Risk Complexity

P&C Insurance Achieves Best Results Since 2013; Wildfire Losses, Tariffs Threaten 2025 Prospects

Data Granularity Key to Finding Less Risky Parcels in Wildfire Areas

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

Can a Fire-Prevention Device Be a “Gateway Drug” to Home Resilience?

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

Tying a fire-prevention IoT device to the distribution networks of major insurers may have cracked the code for modifying human behavior toward risk prediction and prevention, says the CEO of Whisker Labs, the producer of Ting.

Ting helps protect homes from electrical fires by using AI to detect arcing – the precursor to most electrical fires. Once connected to an outlet, Ting analyzes 30 million measurements per second to detect tiny electrical anomalies and power-quality problems. On average, Ting detects and mitigates fire hazards in 1 out of every 60 homes it protects.

Whisker Labs works with a growing community of insurers who provide Ting to their customers for free.  More than one million Tings are deployed in the United States, and approximately 50,000 are installed each month. In his second appearance on Triple-I’s Executive Exchange video series in two years, Whisker Labs founder and CEO Bob Marshall reported to Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan on the product’s results to date.

“One of the cool things we’ve learned over the last couple of years is that insurers have found that Ting is like the gateway drug,” Marshall said. “I mean, if you actually get Ting into your customer’s home and we deliver a great experience to them, they’re much more willing to engage in water-loss prevention after that. So, it’s really critical that the homeowners engage.”

Ease of use has been critical to Ting’s success, Marshall said, pointing out that earlier attempts at similar products were “too complicated for the customer, too complicated for the carrier, and that’s why they didn’t work. With Ting, you just plug it in and it does its thing.”

Recent research demonstrated the efficacy and value provided by Ting. In partnership with Triple-I and Octagram Analytics, Whisker Labs found that Ting resulted in 0.39 fewer electrical fire claims per 1,000 home years of experience, translating to a fire claims reduction benefit of $81 per customer per year by the third year after installation. As Whisker Labs works with its growing community of insurers to extend Ting’s reach, Marshall believes these figures could improve even further.

“What we see in that study is that the claims frequency drops dramatically in the days, weeks, and months after you plug in Ting,” Marshall said, noting that the source for this finding “is not our data – it’s data from all the carriers that we work with.”

Kevelighan agreed that “from a carrier perspective, getting more of these into the community will make the community more resilient and more insurable,” particularly within dense neighborhoods and cities where fires can spread quickly. Such settings highlight the collective responsibility of risk mitigation on consumers as well as insurers, who play a key role in disseminating prevention solutions, Kevelighan stressed.

Though more public education surrounding IoT is needed, Marshall noted that homeowners familiar with Ting’s success are often receptive to additional IoT solutions for other risks, potentially sending ripple effects of risk mitigation throughout the industry. His firm and their research collaborators aim for similar versatility with the Ting study, whose methodology has broad applicability for many types of prevention solutions.

“‘Predict and prevent’ – that’s a vision that, I think, rings true for everybody,” Marshall concluded, because “the best claim is the one that never happens. We just want to be a key part of it and help drive it.”

Learn More:

E-Mobility Battery Fire Data Exposes Potential “Blind Spot” for Insurers

IoT Solutions Offer Homeowners, Insurers Value — But How Much?

Human Needs Drive Insurance and Should Drive Tech Solutions

Predict & Prevent: From Data to Practical Insight

Beyond Fire: Triple-I Interview Unravels Lightning-Risk Complexity

Calls for Insurance-Price Legislation Would Hurt Policyholders, Not Help

Increased legislative involvement in regulating homeowners’ insurance pricing and rates – as recently called for by some officials in Illinois – would hurt insurance affordability in the state, rather than helping consumers as intended, Triple-I says in its latest Issues Brief.

Rising premiums are a national issue. They reflect a combination of costly climate-related weather events, demographic trends, and rising material and labor costs to repair and replace damaged or destroyed property. Average insured catastrophe losses have been increasing for decades, fueled in part by natural disasters and population shifts into high-risk areas. More recently, these and other losses to which the property/casualty insurance industry is vulnerable were exacerbated by inflation related to the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Tariffs and changes in U.S. economic policies have since put even more upward pressure on costs.

These increasing costs – if not addressed – threaten to erode the policyholder surplus insurers are required to keep on hand to pay claims. If surplus falls below a certain level, insurers have no choice but to increase premium rates or adjust their willingness to assume risks in certain areas.

To avoid this, many insurers have filed with state regulators for rate increases – requests that often meet with resistance from consumer advocacy groups and legislators. Illinois would not be the first state to try to ease consumers’ pain by constraining insurers’ ability to accurately set coverage prices to reflect increasing levels of risk and costs.

Practicality, not politics

Such efforts, while perhaps politically popular, confuse one symptom (higher premiums) of a growing risk crisis with its underlying cause (increasing losses and rising costs). Using the blunt instrument of legislation to address the complexities and sensitivities of underwriting and pricing would tend to disrupt the market and further hurt insurance affordability – and, in some areas, availability.

Rather than target insurers with misguided legislation, the brief says, states would be wiser to work with the industry to improve their risk profiles by investing in mitigation and resilience. The brief describes the causes of higher premium rates nationally and in Illinois and how other states have successfully collaborated to address those causes and reduce upward pressure on – and eventually bring down –premium rates.

“Triple-I welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with state policymakers to develop constructive approaches to risk mitigation and resilience that will benefit communities and consumers,” the brief says.

Learn More:

Revealing Hidden Cost to Consumers of Auto Litigation Inflation

Easing Home Upkeep to Control Insurance Costs

Survey: Homeowners See Value of Aerial Imagery for Insurers; Education Key to Comfort Levels

Nonprofit to Rescue NOAA Billion-Dollar Dataset

2025 Cat Losses to Date Are 2nd-Costliest Since Records Have Been Kept

2025 Tornadoes Highlight Convective Storm Losses

Auto Premium Growth Slows as Policyholders Shop Around, Study Says

Litigation Reform Works: Florida Auto Insurance Premium Rates Declining

IoT Solutions Offer Homeowners, Insurers Value — But How Much?

Texas: A Microcosm of U.S. Climate Perils

New Illinois Bills Would Harm — Not Help — Auto Policyholders

Illinois Bill Highlights Need for Education on Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance Coverage

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

Easing Home Upkeep to Control Insurance Costs

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

With home repair and remodeling costs rising 61 percent over the past decade, many homeowners are delaying or forgoing routine maintenance for older homes. In a recent Executive Exchange discussion with Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan, PreFix founder and CEO James Bilodeau discussed how his Texas-based company can help insurers promote such maintenance to mitigate more expensive losses down the line.

PreFix pairs clients with individual repair technicians to deliver personalized, year-round home repair, including two annual maintenance visits for filter replacements and comprehensive home inspections, Bilodeau said.

For maintenance visits, Bilodeau explained, PreFix will “clean your AC condenser and condensate line; change your air and water filters; flush the sediment out of your water heater; clean the lint out of your dryer outtake; sanitize your washer and dishwasher with a natural cleansing agent; and change all the batteries in your smoke alarms,” among other tasks.

The firm also modifies its services based on insurer preferences and the specific risk profile of homes in a given area.

“We’re able to offer highly granular customized data collection on all of the homes that we service through direct observation of issues that can correlate to non-cat losses,” Bilodeau said, noting identification of corroded water valves, overhanging tree branches, and unsecured exterior doors can facilitate “resolution quickly, before extensive damage happens.”

By continuously monitoring and mitigating these risks, Bilodeau believes his firm can help lower underwriting costs and premiums, as well as support smart home telematics adoption and catastrophe risk modeling.

“While aggregation is useful – which is what many providers do – many of the component inputs like home inspection data degrade quickly over two to five years,” Bilodeau said. “Inaccuracy can then be exacerbated when the data is extrapolated to other homes using inference.”

Kevelighan added that initial inspections as part of the home buying process often overlook or fail to communicate the true risks a property faces, leaving homeowners unaware of risks until catastrophe strikes.

“If you can enter risk management into the process of home purchasing much sooner and help the customer understand what they are purchasing beyond the four walls of their house and the community that it’s in, that could very much create a win-win for the insurer and the customer,” Kevelighan said.

Kevelighan and Bilodeau agreed that removing friction from home maintenance is imperative not only to better accommodate consumers, but to facilitate the insurance industry’s shift beyond repairing and replacing damaged property to predicting and preventing damage to begin with. Solutions like PreFix highlight how proactive loss mitigation necessarily involves engages all affected parties that have a stake in mitigation and resilience.

Learn More:

Survey: Homeowners See Value of Aerial Imagery for Insurers; Education Key to Comfort Levels

IoT Solutions Offer Homeowners, Insurers Value — But How Much?

JIF 2025: U.S. Policy Changes and Uncertainty Imperil Insurance Affordability

Lightning-Related Homeowners Claims Fell 16.5% in 2024

Insurance Affordability, Availability Demand Collaboration, Innovation

Disasters, Litigation Reshape Homeowners’ Insurance Affordability

E-Mobility Battery Fire Data Exposes Potential “Blind Spot” for Insurers

LGBTQIA+ Homeownership Gap May Be Fueling Insurance Protection Gap

When No One’s Home: Understanding Role of Vacancy Insurance

Why Roof Resilience Matters More Than Ever

Study Touts Payoffs From Alabama Wind Resilience Program

2025 Tornadoes Highlight Convective Storm Losses

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

Data Granularity Key to Finding Less Risky Parcels in Wildfire Areas

Survey: Homeowners See Value of Aerial Imagery for Insurers; Education Key to Comfort Levels

Among homeowners surveyed by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), 88 percent recognize that aerial imagery is a beneficial tool for insurers.

Nearly all respondents said they recognize the value of using satellite, drone, and aircraft images for early problem detection, claims processing, and hazard identification before costly damage occurs. Most also said they believe aerial imaging can lead to fairer pricing.

Key findings:

  • Nine out of 10 respondents said they see at least one benefit from aerial imagery’s use in insurance. More than half said it leads to fairer insurance pricing.
  • While 60 percent have some awareness that insurers use aerial imagery, 40 percent know little or nothing about it.
  • When homeowners are familiar with the use of aerial imagery for underwriting, they are nearly twice as likely to think it makes insurance pricing fairer.
  • Homeowners worry more about accuracy than privacy in the context of aerial imagery. Accuracy emerges as the top individual concern, with 31 percent citing it as their biggest worry, compared to 24 percent who cite privacy as their primary concern.

Education and transparency are key to acceptance of this technology, the survey found.  Homeowners who were already familiar with aerial imagery applications were found to show consistently higher confidence levels, greater benefit recognition, and more positive sentiment across all insurance uses. Younger homeowners also demonstrated greater acceptance and higher confidence in the technology’s accuracy.

“Consumers see value in aerial imagery when they understand how it’s used in insurance,” said IRC President Pat Schmid. “Efforts to increase transparency and consumer knowledge can bridge the confidence gap, improve customer trust, and help homeowners realize the benefits of faster claims, fairer pricing, and better risk prevention.”

The IRC, like Triple-I, is an affiliate of The Institutes.