Category Archives: Regulation

Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Regulation

How Georgia Might Learn From Florida Reforms

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

Georgia – frequently featured on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s list of “Judicial Hellholes” – may want to consider imitating its neighbor Florida in pursuing legal system abuse reforms, Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan suggested in a recent  interview for WBS News/Talk Radio. 

In 2022 – the year Category 4 Hurricane Ian tore through the southeast United States – over 70 percent of all homeowners insurance litigation nationally was generated in Florida, when the state accounted for only about 9 percent of total homeowners claims.

“We actually saw six insurers go insolvent even before Ian hit,” Kevelighan said. 

An exodus of insurance carriers, paired with an estimated $10 billion loss in post-Ian litigated claims, prompted Florida policymakers to enact laws targeting excessive one-way attorney fees and prohibiting assignment of benefits (AOB) to curtail gratuitous or fraudulent litigation.

Legal system abuse drives up costs for everyone

Such litigation increases the costs and time to settle insurance claims, which insurers must account for when predicting loss trends and setting rates. 

“The price of insurance is the price of the risk,” Kevelighan explained. “If you have a high-litigation area, that’s risky, and it’s going to be more expensive.” 

Costly, protracted claims disputes – especially ones involving unnecessary judicial intervention – can outprice consumers and insurers, leading many to cease offering coverage in the state or to declare insolvency.

Insurance costs in Florida have stabilized since legislators passed legal system abuse reforms in 2022 and 2023, reducing premium growth and attracting nine new property insurers to the market this year, Kevelighan said.

Under these reforms, “the risk level is getting lower and that allows the cost of insurance to go down,” he said. Underwriting losses in 2023 reflected this trend, as Florida’s property insurance market recorded a much smaller loss than in recent years. Most Florida carriers have filed for no rate increases – or even decreases – this year, Kevelighan said.

Though Hurricanes Helene and Milton will likely constrain Florida’s 2024 underwriting profitability, insurers are well-equipped to settle claims more quickly, with some industry experts suggesting the market could sufficiently cover another hurricane later this season.

Lessons for Georgia

Plaintiffs’ attorneys who profited from claim fraud in Florida have transferred their exploitative practices and billboard marketing to states with fewer and/or antiquated regulations – especially Georgia, recently ranked one of the least affordable states for auto insurance by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), a division of The Institutes.

“The litigation is just creeping across the border into Georgia,” he said. “It’s estimated that the GDP of legal system abuse impacts the economy about $13 billion annually in Georgia alone.”

In Georgia, Kevelighan said, unfettered anchoring tactics – which “anchor” juries to extraordinary non-economic damage awards as a baseline – propel Georgia’s abnormally high rate of excessive verdicts.

Profuse and inflated litigation impedes coverage affordability and availability and creates undue “tort taxes” that cost individual Georgians $1,372 per year, even as trial attorneys in the state invested hundreds of millions into advertising in 2023.

A new IRC survey supports a positive correlation between consumers who consult attorneys and those who are exposed to attorney advertising. Though most consumers believe this advertising increases the cost of auto insurance, most also remain impartial. Greater public outreach and tort reform are needed to stop and prevent legal system abuse.

While amending a court system hostile to defendants requires extensive coordinated efforts, Florida’s recent legislative reforms have already improved the state’s insurance landscape, demonstrating the efficacy of passing similar laws in other areas. To advocate for tort reform in Georgia, the Triple-I recently launched a multi-faceted campaign that includes highway and digital bus shelter billboards promoting an educational consumer website.

“We want to inform consumers that litigation doesn’t need to be a first step in claim disputes, but should be more of a last resort,” Kevelighan said. “We’re trying to help raise awareness so that reform does pass, and that we can reduce the risk level, so that we can reduce the price levels.”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s interest in addressing tort reform during the 2025 Georgia General Assembly promises “more movement,” Kevelighan added.

It’s not too late to register for Triple-I’s “Joint Industry Forum” in Miami November 19th and 20th, where legal system abuse will be a major topic of conversation.

Learn More:

Triple-I Launches Campaign to Highlight Challenges to Insurance Affordability in Georgia

Georgia Is Among the Least Affordable States for Auto Insurance

U.S. Consumers See Link Between Attorney Involvement in Claims and Higher Auto Insurance Costs: New IRC Report

Auto Insurance, ESG, Homeowners Insurance, Regulation, Technology

Actuarial Studies Advance Discussion
on Bias, Modeling, and A.I.

Leave a comment

The Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) has added to its growing body of research to help actuaries detect and address potential bias in property/casualty insurance pricing with four new reports. The latest reports explore different aspects of unintentional bias and offer forward-looking solutions.

The first  – “A Practical Guide to Navigating Fairness in Insurance Pricing” – addresses regulatory concerns about how the industry’s increased use of models, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) may contribute to or amplify unfair discrimination. It provides actuaries with information and tools to proactively consider fairness in their modeling process and navigate this new regulatory landscape.

The second new paper — “Regulatory Perspectives on Algorithmic Bias and Unfair Discrimination” – presents the findings of a survey of state insurance commissioners that was designed to better understand their concerns about discrimination. The survey found that, of the 10 insurance departments that responded, most are concerned about the issue but few are actively investigating it. Most said they believe the burden should be on the insurers to detect and test their models for potential algorithmic bias.

The third paper – “Balancing Risk Assessment and Social Fairness: An Auto Telematics Case Study” – explores the possibility of using telematics and usage-based insurance technologies to reduce dependence on sensitive information when pricing insurance. Actuaries commonly rely on demographic factors, such as age and gender, when deciding insurance premiums. However, some people regard that approach as an unfair use of personal information. The CAS analysis found that telematics variables –such as miles driven, hard braking, hard acceleration, and days of the week driven – significantly reduce the need to include age, sex, and marital status in the claim frequency and severity models.

Finally, the fourth paper – “Comparison of Regulatory Framework for Non-Discriminatory AI Usage in Insurance” – provides an overview of the evolving regulatory landscape for the use of AI in the insurance industry across the United States, the European Union, China, and Canada. The paper compares regulatory approaches in those jurisdictions, emphasizing the importance of transparency, traceability, governance, risk management, testing, documentation, and accountability to ensure non-discriminatory AI use. It underscores the necessity for actuaries to stay informed about these regulatory trends to comply with regulations and manage risks effectively in their professional practice.

There is no place for unfair discrimination in today’s insurance marketplace. In addition to being fundamentally unfair, to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation – or any factor that doesn’t directly affect the risk being insured – would simply be bad business in today’s diverse society.  Algorithms and AI hold great promise for ensuring equitable risk-based pricing, and insurers and actuaries are uniquely positioned to lead the public conversation to help ensure these tools don’t introduce or amplify biases.

Learn More:

Insurers Need to Lead on Ethical Use of AI

Bringing Clarity to Concerns About Race in Insurance Pricing

Actuaries Tackle Race in Insurance Pricing

Calif. Risk/Regulatory Environment Highlights Role of Risk-Based Pricing

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

New Illinois Bills Would Harm — Not Help — Auto Policyholders

Corporate Social Responsibility, Legal Environment, Regulation, Technology, Webinars

Insurers Need to Lead
on Ethical Use of AI

Leave a comment

 

Every major technological advancement prompts new ethical concerns or shines a fresh light on existing ones. Artificial intelligence is no different in that regard. As the property/casualty insurance industry taps the speed and efficiency generative AI offers and navigates the practical complexities of the AI toolset, ethical considerations must remain in the foreground.  

Traditional AI systems recognize patterns in data to make predictions. Generative AI goes beyond predicting – it generates new data as its primary output.  As a result, it can support strategy and decision making through conversational, back-and-forth “prompting” using natural language, rather than complicated, time-consuming coding.

A recently published report by Triple-I and SAS, a global leader in data and AI, discusses how insurers are uniquely positioned to advance the conversation for ethical AI – “not just for their own businesses, but for all businesses; not just in a single country, but worldwide.” 

AI inevitably will influence the insurance sector, whether through the types of perils covered or by influencing how insurance functions like underwriting, pricing, policy administration, and claims processing and payment are carried out. By shaping an ethical approach to implementing AI tools, insurers can better balance risk with innovation for their own businesses, as well as for their customers.

Conversely, failure to help guide AI’s evolution could leave insurers — and their clients — at a disadvantage. Without proactive engagement, insurers will likely find themselves adapting to practices that might not fully consider the specific needs of their industry or their clients. Further, if AI is regulated without insurers’ input, those regulations could fail to account for the complexity of insurance – leading to guidelines that are less effective or equitable.

“When it comes to artificial intelligence, insurers must work alongside regulators to build trust,” said Matthew McHatten, president and CEO of MMG Insurance, in a webinar introducing the report. “Carriers can add valuable context that guides the regulatory conversation while emphasizing the value AI can bring to our policyholders.” 

During the webinar, Peter L. Miller, CPCU, president and CEO of The Institutes, noted that generative AI already is helping insurers “move from repairing and replacing after a loss occurs to predicting and preventing losses from ever happening in the first place,” as well as enabling efficiencies across the risk-management and insurance value chain.

Jennifer Kyung, chief underwriting officer for USAA, discussed several use cases involving AI, including analyzing aerial images to identify exposures for her company’s members. If a potential condition concern is identified, she said, “We can trigger an inspection or we can reach out to those members and have a conversation around mitigation.”

USAA also uses AI to transcribe customer calls and “identify themes that help us improve the quality of our service.”  Future use cases Kyung discussed include using AI to analyze claim files and other large swaths of unstructured data to improve cost efficiency and customer experience.

Mike Fitzgerald, advisory industry consultant for SAS, compared the risks associated with generative AI to the insurance industry’s early experience with predictive models in the early 2000s. Predictive models and insurance credit scores are two innovations that have benefited policyholders but have not always been well understood by consumers and regulators.  Such misunderstandings have led to pushback against these underwriting and pricing tools that more accurately match risk with price.

Fitzgerald advised insurers to “look back at the implementation of predictive models and how we could have done that differently.”

When it comes to AI-specific perils, Iris Devriese, underwriting and AI liability lead for Munich Re, said, “AI insurance and underwriting of AI risk is at the point in the market where cyber insurance was 25 years ago. At first, cyber policies were tailored to very specific loss scenarios… You could really see cyber insurance picking up once there was a spike of losses from cyber incidents. Once that happened, cyber was addressed in a more systematic way.”

Devriese said lawsuits related to AI are currently “in the infancy stage. We’ve all heard of IP-related lawsuits popping up and there’ve been a few regulatory agencies – especially here in the U.S. – who’ve spoken out very loudly about bias and discrimination in the use of AI models.”

She noted that AI regulations have recently been introduced in Europe.

“This will very much spur the market to form guidelines and adopt responsible AI initiatives,” Devriese said.

The Triple-I/SAS report recommends that insurers lead by example by developing their own detailed plans to deliver ethical AI in their own operations. This will position them as trusted experts to help lead the wider business and regulatory community in the implementation of ethical AI. The report includes a framework for implementing an ethical AI approach.

LEARN MORE AT JOINT INDUSTRY FORUM

Three key contributors to the project – Peter L. Miller, Matthew McHatten, and Jennifer Kyung — will share their insights on AI, climate resilience, and more at Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum in Miami on Nov. 19-20. 

Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Regulation

Economic Climate Makes Understanding Insurance Increasingly Important

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Guest Blogger for Triple-I

Insurance coverage has long been “a grudge purchase – a once-or-twice-a-year transaction that many consumers didn’t want to think about,” Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan said in a recent episode of the “All Eyes on Economics” podcast.

But in today’s dynamic economic environment – marked by inflation the likes of which most insurance purchasers have never experienced – it has become more important than ever for consumers and policymakers to understand how insurance is underwritten and priced.

One of Triple-I’s chief objectives is “helping people understand what insurance can do for you, but also what you can do to change the situation,” Kevelighan told podcast host and Triple-I Chief Economist and Data Scientist Michel Léonard. “The narrative seems, at least from my standpoint, to be less about, ‘Why is my insurance so high?’ It’s more about, ‘What can we do to get it lower?’”

Rising insurance premium rates are the effect of risk levels, loss costs, and economic considerations like inflation. Too often, though, they’re discussed as if they were the cause.

High property/casualty premium rates are the result of numerous coalescing factors: Increased litigation, inflation, antiquated state regulations, losses from natural catastrophes, and pervasive post-pandemic high-risk behaviors, to name a few.

Every dollar invested in disaster resilience could save 13 in property damage, remediation, and economic impact costs, according to a recent joint report from Allstate and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As areas vulnerable to climate disasters become increasingly populated, it’s important for policyholders to develop resilience measures against the wildfire, hurricane, severe convective storm, and flood risks their property faces.

Consumer education and community involvement in mitigation and resilience offer a path toward greater control over claims.

However, regulatory barriers to fair, accurate underwriting also contribute to higher insurance costs. Despite tort reforms, rampant litigation has kept upward pressure on rates in Florida and Louisiana. California’s outdated Proposition 103 – by barring insurers from using modeling to price risk prospectively and from taking reinsurance costs into account when setting rates – has   impeded insurers from using actuarially sound insurance pricing.

Confusion around industry practices and effective mitigation is understandable, and during periods of economic instability and unforeseen disasters, blaming the insurance industry may seem the most direct way to regain control.

But rising rates are “not just an insurance problem,” Kevelighan said. “It’s a risk problem, and we all play a role in addressing that risk.”

The full interview is available now on Spotify, Audible, and Apple.

Catastrophes, Coastal Property, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods, Homeowners Insurance, Legal Environment, Regulation, Wildfire

Triple-I Experts Speak
on Climate Risk, Resilience

Leave a comment

Hurricane Beryl’s rapid escalation from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane does not bode well for the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane season, which is already projected to be of above-average intensity, warns Triple-I non-resident scholar Dr. Philip Klotzbach.

“This early-season storm activity is breaking records that were set in 1933 and 2005, two of the busiest Atlantic hurricane seasons on record,” Dr. Klotzbach, a research scientist in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, recently told The New York Times.

The quick escalation was a result of above-average sea surface temperatures. A hurricane that intensifies faster can be more dangerous as it leaves less time for people in its path to prepare and evacuate. Last October, Hurricane Otis moved up by multiple categories in just one day before striking Acapulco, Mexico, as a Cat-5 that killed more than 50 people.

After weakening to a tropical storm, Beryl made landfall as a Cat-1 hurricane near Matagorda, Texas, around 4 a.m. on July 8, according to the National Hurricane Center, making it the first named storm in the 2024 season to make landfall in the United States.  Beryl unleashed flooding rains and winds that transformed roads into rivers and ripped through power lines and tossed trees onto homes, roads, and cars. Restoring power to millions of Texans could take days or even weeks, subjecting residents who will not have air conditioning to further risk as a sweltering heatwave settles over the state.

Extreme heat was just one climate-related topic addressed by Triple-I Chief Insurance Officer Dale Porfilio in an interview with CNBC’s “Last Call” on July 9. While most farmers are insured against crop damage due to heat conditions and homeowners insurance typically covers wildfire-related losses, Porfilio noted, a “more subtle impact is on roofs that we thought were built to a 20-year lifespan.”

When subjected to extreme heat, roofs can become more brittle and prone to damage from wind or hail.

“So, you have to think about the roof coverage on your home insurance policy,” Porfilio said.

He also pointed out that flood risk represents “one of the biggest insurance gaps in this country. Over 90 percent of homeowners do not have the coverage.”

Many people incorrectly believe homeowners insurance covers flood damage or that they don’t need the coverage if their mortgage lender does not require it.

In an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan discussed the potential impact of the predicted “well above-average” 2024 season on the U.S. property/casualty market.

“This is what the insurance industry is prepared for,” Kevelighan said. “It keeps capital on hand after writing policies to make sure that those promises can be kept.” The P/C industry has $1.1. trillion in surplus as of March 31, 2024.

Kevelighan pointed out that the challenges to the industry go beyond climate-related trends, explaining how legal system abuse, regulatory environments, shifting populations, and inflation are impacting insurers’ loss costs.

In Florida, for example, “you’ve got over 70 percent of all homeowners insurance litigation residing in that state, whereas it represents less than 10 percent of the overall claims.”

He pointed out that Florida’s insurance market has improved – with homeowners insurance premium growth  flattening somewhat – as a result of tort reform legislation and added that Louisiana’s legislature addressed insurance reform during its most recent session.

“In California, insurers can’t catch up with inflationary costs because of regulatory constraints,” Kevelighan noted. “They are not able to model [climate risk] and are not able price reinsurance into their policies.”

California’s wildfire situation is complex, and the state’s Proposition 103 has hindered insurers’ ability to profitably write homeowners coverage in that disaster-prone state. In late September 2023, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara announced a package of executive actions aimed at addressing some of the challenges included in Proposition 103. Lara has given the department a deadline of December 2024 to have the new rules completed.

Learn More:

Florida Homeowners Premium Growth Slows as Reforms Take Hold, Inflation Cools

Lightning-Related Claims Up Sharply in 2023

Less Severe Wildfire Season Seen; But No Less Vigilance Is Required

Accurately Writing Flood Coverage Hinges on Diverse Data Sources

IRC: Homeowners Insurance Affordability Worsens Nationally, Varies Widely by State

Legal Reforms Boost Florida Insurance Market; Premium Relief Will Require More Time

2024 Wildfires Expected to Be Up From Last Year, But Still Below Average

CSU Researchers Project “Extremely Active” 2024 Hurricane Season

Triple-I Issues Brief: Hurricanes

Triple-I Issues Brief: Attacking Florida’s Property/Casualty Risk Crisis

Triple-I Issues Brief: California’s Risk Crisis

Triple-I Issues Brief: Legal System Abuse

Triple-I Issues Brief: Wildfires

Triple-I Issues Brief: Severe Convective Storms

Triple-I Issues Brief: Flood

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods, Homeowners Insurance, Legal Environment, Regulation, Risk Management

Evolving Risks Demand Integrated Approaches

Leave a comment

Even as the Smokehouse Creek Fire – the largest wildfire ever to burn across Texas – was declared “nearly contained” this week, the Texas A&M Service warned that conditions are such that the remaining blazes could spread and even more might break out.

“Today, the fire environment will support the potential for multiple, high impact, large wildfires that are highly resistant to control” in the Texas Panhandle, the service said.

This year’s historic Texas fires – like the state’s 2021 anomalous winter storms, California’s recent flooding after years of drought, and a surge in insured losses due to severe convective storms across the United States – underscore the variability of climate-related perils and the need for insurers to be able to adapt their underwriting and pricing to reflect this dynamic environment. It also highlights the importance of using advanced data capabilities to help risk managers better understand the sources and behaviors of these events in order to predict and prevent losses.

For example, Whisker Labs – a company whose advanced sensor network helps monitor home fire perils, as well as tracking faults in the U.S. power grid – recorded about 50 such faults in Texas ahead of the Smokehouse Creek fires.

Bob Marshall, Whisker Labs founder and chief executive, told the Wall Street Journal that evidence suggests Xcel Energy’s equipment was not durable enough to withstand the kind of extreme weather the nation and world increasingly face. Xcel – a major utility with operations in Texas and other states — has acknowledged that its power lines and equipment “appear to have been involved in an ignition of the Smokehouse Creek fire.”

“We know from many recent wildfires that the consequences of poor grid resilience can be catastrophic,” said Marshall, noting that his company’s sensor network recorded similar malfunctions in Maui before last year’s deadly blaze that ripped across the town of Lahaina.

Role of government

Government has a critical role to play in addressing the risk crisis. Modernizing building and land-use codes; revising statutes that facilitate fraud and legal system abuse that drive up claim costs; investing in infrastructure to reduce costly damage related to storms – these and other avenues exist for state and federal government to aid disaster mitigation and resilience.

Too often, however, the public discussion frames the current situation as an “insurance crisis” – confusing cause with effect. Legislators, spurred by calls from their constituents for lower premiums, often propose measures that would tend to worsen the problem because they fail to reflect the importance of accurately valuing risk when pricing coverage.

The federal “reinsurance” proposal put forth in January by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff of California is a case in point. If enacted, it would dismantle the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and create a “catastrophic property loss reinsurance program” that, among other things, would set coverage thresholds and dictate rating factors based on input from a board in which the insurance industry is only nominally represented.

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (also of California) has proposed a Wildfire Insurance Coverage Study Act to research issues around insurance availability and affordability in wildfire-prone communities. During  House Financial Services Committee deliberations, Waters compared current challenges in these communities to conditions related to flood risk that led to the establishment of NFIP in 1968. She said there is a precedent for the federal government to step in when there is a “private market failure.”

However, flood risk in 1968 and wildfire risk in 2024 could not be more different. Before FEMA established the NFIP, private insurers were generally unwilling to underwrite flood risk because the peril was considered too unpredictable. The rise of sophisticated computer modeling has since given private insurers much greater confidence covering flood (see chart).

In California, some insurers have begun rethinking their appetite for writing homeowners insurance – not because wildfire losses make properties in the state uninsurable but because policy and regulatory decisions made over 30 years ago have made it hard to write the coverage profitably. Specifically, Proposition 103 and its regulatory implementation have blocked the use of modeling to inform underwriting and pricing and restricted insurers’ ability to incorporate reinsurance costs into their premium pricing.

California’s Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara last year announced a Sustainable Insurance Strategy for the state that includes allowing insurers to use forward-looking risk models that prioritize wildfire safety and mitigation and include reinsurance costs into their pricing. It is reasonable to expect that Lara’s modernization plan will lead to insurers increasing their business in the state.

It’s understandable that California legislators are eager to act on climate risk, given their long history with drought, fire, landslides and more recent experience with flooding due to “atmospheric rivers.” But it’s important that any such measures be well thought out and not exacerbate existing problems.

Partners in resilience

Insurers have been addressing climate-related risks for decades, using advanced data and analytical tools to inform underwriting and pricing to ensure sufficient funds exist to pay claims. They also have a natural stake in predicting and preventing losses, rather than just continuing to assess and pay for mounting claims.

As such, they are ideal partners for businesses, communities, governments, and nonprofits – anyone with a stake in climate risk and resilience. Triple-I is engaged in numerous projects aimed at uniting diverse parties in this effort. If you represent an organization that is working to address the risk crisis and your efforts would benefit from involvement with the insurance industry, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact us with a brief description of your work and how the insurance industry might help.

Learn More:

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

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

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

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance

Stemming a Rising Tide: How Insurers Can Close the Flood Protection Gap

Tamping Down Wildfire Threats

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Insurers and the Economy, Regulation, Risk Management

NAIC, FIO to Collaborate on Data Collection Around Climate Risk

Leave a comment

When the U.S. Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office (FIO) announced in December 2022 that it was considering a new data-reporting mandate for certain property/casualty insurers, it raised red flags for insurers and policyholders.

In response to a request for comments on the proposed data call, Triple-I told FIO the requested data would be duplicative, could lead to misleading conclusions, and – by increasing insurers’ operational costs – would ultimately lead to higher premium rates for policyholders.

“Fulfilling this new mandate would require insurers to pull existing staff from the work they already are doing or hire staff to do the new work, increasing their operational costs,” Triple-I wrote. “As FIO well knows, state-by-state regulation prevents insurers from ‘tweaking’ their cash flows in response to change the way more lightly regulated industries can. Higher costs inevitably drive increases in policyholder premium rates.”

In its own response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) emphasized the importance of collaboration with the industry to avoid such unintended consequences.

“While we recognize the Treasury’s desire to better understand the impact of climate risk and weather-related exposures on the availability and affordability of the homeowners’ insurance market,” NAIC wrote, “we are disappointed and concerned that Treasury chose not to engage insurance regulators in a credible exercise to identify data elements gathered by either the industry or the regulatory community.”

FIO has listened and responded appropriately. The agency has abandoned its plan to gather data on home insurance rates and availability in high-risk states. Instead, NAIC announced that it has implemented a nationwide Property & Casualty Market Intelligence Data Call (PCMI) in collaboration with FIO.

“The PCMI data call represents the collaborative, nonpartisan work that state insurance regulators have undertaken through the NAIC to address the critical challenge of the affordability and availability of homeowners’ insurance and the financial health of insurance companies,” said NAIC president Andrew Mais, who also serves as Connecticut’s insurance commissioner.

The change in approach is important both on its own merits – in ensuring that FIO obtains the information it needs without excessively and unnecessarily burdening the insurance industry – and in the recognition it reflects that federal actions affecting the insurance industry should involve the industry. For example, legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff earlier this year to create a federal “catastrophe reinsurance program” raises several concerns that warrant scrutiny and discussion – not the least of which is that it would set coverage thresholds and dictate rating factors based on input from a board in which the insurance industry is only nominally represented.

“Triple-I commends the decision by FIO and NAIC to collaborate on a joint comprehensive property/casualty insurance data call to gather insights into the dramatic changes we’re seeing in the insurance marketplace,” said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. “Insurance companies are committed to finding solutions for how we can predict and prevent property damage from natural disasters, as well as keeping costs of coverage at competitive levels. Data calls are time-consuming and expensive. A unified collection of data will help make this a more efficient process.”

Learn More:

Federal “Reinsurance” Proposal Raises Red Flags

FEMA Reauthorization Session Highlights Importance of Risk Transfer and Reduction

NAIC Seeks Granular Data From Insurers to Help Fill Local Protection Gaps

Data Call Would Hinder Climate-Risk Efforts More Than It Would Help

It’s Not an “Insurance Crisis” – It’s a Risk Crisis

Complex Risks in a Complicated World: Are Federal Backstops the Answer?

Triple-I Responds to SEC’s Proposed Climate-Risk Disclosure Requirements

Triple-I CEO: Insurance Leading on Climate Risk

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety, Legal Environment, Regulation

New Illinois Bills
Would Harm — Not Help — Auto Policyholders

Leave a comment

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.

Learn More

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

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

How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis in California

Louisiana Still Least Affordable State for Personal Auto, Homeowners Insurance

IRC Outlines Florida’s Auto Insurance Affordability Problems

Education Can Overcome Doubts on Credit-Based Insurance Scores, IRC Survey Suggests

Colorado’s Life Insurance Data Rules Offer Glimpse of Future for P&C Writers

It’s Not an “Insurance Crisis” – It’s a Risk Crisis

Indiana Joins March Toward Disclosure of Third-Party Litigation Funding Deals

Litigation Funding Law Found Lacking in Transparency Department

Catastrophes, Disaster Resilience, Insurers and the Economy, Regulation, Risk Management

Federal “Reinsurance” Proposal Raises Red Flags

Leave a comment

By Sean Kevelighan, Triple-I CEO

Legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to create a federal “catastrophe reinsurance program” raises several concerns that warrant scrutiny and discussion – starting with the question: Does what’s being proposed even qualify as insurance?

If enacted into law, the bill would establish a “catastrophic property loss reinsurance program…to provide reinsurance for qualifying primary insurance companies.” To qualify, insurers would have to offer:

  • An all-perils property insurance policy for residential and commercial property, and
  • A loss-prevention partnership with the policyholder to encourage investments and activities that reduce insured and economic losses from a catastrophe peril.

The proposed program would phase in coverage requirements peril by peril over several years and discontinue FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It would set coverage thresholds and dictate rating factors based on input from a board in which the insurance industry is only nominally represented.

And nowhere in the 22-page proposal do any of the following words or phrases appear:

  1. “Actuarial soundness”;
  2. “Risk-based pricing”;
  3. “Reserves”; or
  4. “Policyholder surplus”.

Actuarially sound risk-based pricing and the need to maintain adequate reserves and policyholder surplus to ensure financial strength and claims-paying ability are the bedrock of any insurance program worthy of the name – not technical fine print to be worked out down the road while existing mechanisms are being dismantled and market forces distorted through government involvement.

Insurance is a complicated discipline, and prior federal attempts at providing coverage have struggled to balance their goal of increasing availability and reducing premiums against the need to base underwriting and pricing on actuarially sound principles to ensure sufficient reserves for paying claims.

Actuarially sound risk-based pricing and the need to maintain adequate reserves and policyholder surplus…are the bedrock of any insurance program worthy of the name – not technical fine print to be worked out down the road…

Sean Kevelighan, CEO, Triple-I

Learn from history

NFIP is a strong case in point. Created in 1968 to protect property owners for a peril that most private insurers were reluctant to cover, NFIP’s “one-size-fits-all” approach to underwriting and pricing has led to the program now owing more than $20 billion to the U.S. Treasury because it lacked the reserves to fully pay claims after major events like Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy. It also often led to lower-risk property owners unfairly subsidizing coverage for higher-risk properties.

Having thus learned the importance of risk-based pricing, NFIP has changed its underwriting and pricing methodology. The new approach – Risk Rating 2.0, announced in 2019 and fully implemented as of April 1, 2023 – more equitably distributes premiums based on home value and individual properties’ flood risk. As a result, premiums of previously subsidized policyholders – particularly in coastal areas with higher values – have risen, leading to outcries from many higher-risk owners who have seen their subsidies reduced.

In addition to leading to fairer pricing, Risk Rating 2.0 – by reducing market distortions – increases incentives for private insurers to get involved. For a long time, private insurers considered flood an untouchable peril, but improved data modeling and analytical tools have increased their comfort writing this business. As the charts below show, private insurers have been playing a steadily increasing role in recent years, covering a larger percentage of a growing risk pool.

Over time, this trend should lead to greater availability and affordability of flood insurance coverage.

Rather than incorporating the lessons generated by NFIP’s experience with a single peril, Rep. Schiff’s proposal would discontinue the reformed flood insurance program while adding a new layer of complexity to coverage across all perils and casting into question the future of various state insurance programs and residual market mechanisms currently in place.

Time-tested principles

Any attempt by the federal government to address insurance availability and affordability concerns must be made with an understanding of how insurance works – from pricing and underwriting to reserving and claim settlement. For example, the Schiff bill proposes piloting an all-perils policy with a term of five years. There are good reasons for property/casualty policies to be written with a one-year term. Specifically, the conditions that affect claims costs can change quickly, and insurers – as referenced above – must set aside sufficient reserves to be able to pay all legitimate claims. If they cannot revisit pricing annually, the financial results could be disastrous.

“Who would have thought in 2019 that replacement costs would increase 55 percent within three years?” asked Dale Porfilio, Triple-I’s chief insurance officer. Supply-chain disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine contributed to just such a replacement-cost spike. “Requiring five-year terms for policies would have led to a massive drain on policyholder surplus.” 

Policyholder surplus is the financial cushion representing the difference between an insurer’s assets and its liabilities.

In announcing his proposed legislation, Rep. Schiff said it is intended to “insulate consumers from unrestrained cost increases by offering insurers a transparent, fairly priced public reinsurance alternative for the worst climate-driven catastrophes.”

This language ignores the fact that, under state-by-state regulation, premium rate increases are anything but “unrestrained” and ratemaking is based on actuarially sound principles that are transparent and fair. Property/casualty insurance already is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.

Consumers deserve real solutions

Policyholders have legitimate concerns about affordability and, in some cases, availability of insurance. These concerns can create pressure for political leaders at both the state and federal levels to advance measures that are perceived as promising to help. Unfortunately, many recent proposals begin by mischaracterizing current trends as an “insurance crisis,” as opposed to what they really represent: A risk crisis.

Insurance premium rates tend to move in line with the frequency and severity of the perils they cover. They also are affected by factors like fraud and litigation abuse; climate, population, and development trends; and global economics and geopolitics. That is why insurers hire actuaries and data scientists and employ cutting-edge modeling technology to ensure that insurance pricing is actuarially sound, fair, and compliant with regulatory requirements in all states in which they do business.

That is how insurers keep lower-risk policyholders from unfairly subsidizing higher-risk ones.

To its credit, the federal government is working to reduce climate-related risks and investing in resilience through programs like Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZ) and FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law contains substantial funding to promote climate resilience. These are worthy endeavors aimed at addressing risks that drive up insurance costs.

But history has shown that direct government involvement in the underwriting and pricing of insurance products tends not to end well.  Any plan that would attempt to micromanage insurers’ coverage of all perils through a lens that ignores time-tested, actuarially sound risk-based pricing principles raises a host of red flags that must be discussed and addressed before such a plan is allowed to become law.

Learn More:

It’s Not an “Insurance Crisis” — It’s a Risk Crisis

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

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

Education Can Overcome Doubts on Credit-Based Insurance Scores, IRC Survey Suggests

Matching Price to Peril Helps Keep Insurance Available and Affordable

Policyholder Surplus Matters: Here’s Why

Triple-I Issues Brief: Flood

Triple-I Issues Brief: Proposition 103 and California’s Risk Crisis

Triple-I Issues Brief: Risk-based Pricing of Insurance

Triple-I Issues Brief: How Inflation Affects P/C Insurance Pricing – and How It Doesn’t

Triple-I Issues Brief: Race and Insurance Pricing

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.