By Jeff Dunsavage, Senior Research Analyst, Triple-I
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced last week that state regulators have secured nearly $1 billion in premium refunds for Progressive auto insurance policyholders in the state, due to cost savings achieved through litigation reform.
DeSantis, who signed sweeping tort reform legislation bills into law in 2022 and 2023, said the refunds are a direct result of declining litigation expenses in Florida’s auto insurance market.
“Florida was really considered a litigation hellhole by a lot of folks,” DeSantis said. “That contributed to consumers having to bear more costs with respect to auto insurance.”
He pledged Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworksy is negotiating with other major auto carriers for similar reimbursements to their customers.
Mark Friedlander, Triple-I’s director of communications, told Spectrum News Florida that reduced lawsuit expenses has enabled auto insurers to lower average costs and, in some cases, return premium to customers.
“When you take that out of the equation — all of those abusive lawsuits — this brings down the expenses, and that in turn gets passed along to the consumer,” Friedlander said. “The consumer wins with legal system reform.”
By Jeff Dunsavage, Senior Research Analyst, Triple-I
“Risk-based pricing” is a basic insurance concept that might seem intuitively obvious when described – yet misunderstandings about it regularly sow confusion and spark calls for government intervention that would likely do consumers more harm than good.
Simply put, it 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, lower-risk drivers would necessarily subsidize riskier ones.
Confusion ensues when actuarially sound rating factors intersect with other attributes in ways that can be perceived as unfairly discriminatory. A new Triple-I Issues Brief sorts out the reasons for such confusion and explains why legislative involvement in insurance pricing is not the answer to rising premiums. In fact, the report says, such involvement would tend to drive premiums up, not down.
Worries about equity
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. This confusion is understandable, given the complex models used to assess and price risk. 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.
Triple-I’s brief shows how one frequently criticized rating factor for auto insurance – insurance-based credit scores – effectively tracks collision claim frequency. Drivers with the worst 10 percent of scores have twice as many collision claims as the best 10 percent. The sophisticated tools actuaries and underwriters use ensure fair, accurate pricing, and insurers do everything they can to see that all valid claims are paid on time and in full.
Climate and inflation
Areas that were once less vulnerable to certain natural perils – such as wildfire and hurricane-related flooding – increasingly are being affected by these costly events. Furthermore, more people have been moving into at-risk areas on the coasts and in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), putting more property into harm’s way.
Insurance pricing must reflect these increased risks to maintain policyholder surplus – the funds regulators require insurers to keep on hand to pay claims. In some states, this increased risk – combined with regulatory decisions that make it hard to raise premium rates to the levels needed to adequately meet it – has forced some insurers to reduce their exposure and not write as many policies and even withdrawing from states completely. In these states, not only has homeowners’ coverage become less affordable – in some cases, it has also become less available.
Another factor driving up premiums is inflation. As material and labor costs rise, the cost to repair and replace damaged homes and vehicles increases. If premium rates don’t reflect these increased costs, insurers would quickly exhaust their policyholder surplus. If their losses and expenses exceed their revenues by too much for too long, they risk insolvency.
A role for governments
Policymakers naturally want to address the impact of rising costs – including insurance premiums – on their constituents. A good start would be to help reduce risk by modernizing building codes and incorporating resilience into their infrastructure investments. Reduced risk and less costly damages would, over time, translate into lower premium rates.
Governments also can work with insurers and other stakeholders to incentivize homeowners to invest in mitigation and resilience. The Strengthen Alabama Homes program is a great example of one such collaboration between state government and the insurance industry that has measurably improved results and is beginning to be imitated by other states.
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.
Amid a summer full of deadly fires and storm-related flooding, the Trump Administration appears to be rolling back some of the spending cuts imposed upon the National Weather Service (NWS) by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – of which NWS is a part – announced at an internal all-hands meeting earlier this month that they will hire 450 meteorologists, hydrologists, and radar technicians. CNN reported the announcement, citing an unnamed NOAA official. In jointly timed press releases, Congressmen Mike Flood and Eric Sorensen (D-Ill.) and Mike Flood (R-Neb.) acknowledged the planned hirings.
While the decision is welcome news, both congressmen continued to urge their colleagues to pass their bipartisan Weather Workforce Improvement Act to ensure these positions will remain permanent and not be subject to any future reductions.
“For months, Congressman Flood and I have been fighting to get NOAA and NWS employees the support they need in the face of cuts to staff and funding,” Sorenson said. “Hundreds of unfilled positions have caused NWS offices across the country to cancel weather balloon launches, forgo overnight staffing, and force remaining meteorologists to overwork themselves.”
“For decades the National Weather Service has helped keep our communities safe with accurate and timely forecasts,” said Flood, adding that the NOAA announcement “sends a message that they’re focused on strengthening the NWS for years to come.”
NOAA and FEMA cuts raised fears
It’s not just the NOAA and NWS cuts that have raised concerns. On April 4, 2025, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that it would be ending its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and cancel all BRIC applications from fiscal years 2020-2023. Congress established BRIC through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 to ensure a stable funding source to support mitigation projects annually. The program has allocated more than $5 billion for investment in mitigation projects to alleviate human suffering and avoid economic losses from floods, wildfires, and other disasters.
At the time, Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), called the decision to terminate BRIC “beyond reckless.”
“Although ASFPM has had some qualms about how FEMA’s BRIC program was implemented, it was still a cornerstone of our nation’s hazard mitigation strategy, and the agency has worked to make improvements each year,” Berginnis said. “Eliminating it entirely — mid-award cycle, no less — defies common sense.”
Resilience investment is key to long-term insurance availability and affordability. Average insured catastrophe losses have been on the rise for decades, reflecting a combination of climate-related factors and demographic trends as more people have moved into harm’s way.
Efforts have been made to save BRIC, and a U.S. District Judge in Boston recently granted a preliminary injunction sought by 20 Democrat-led states while their lawsuit over the funding moves ahead. Judge Richard G. Stearns ruled the Trump Administration cannot reallocate $4 billion meant to help communities protect against natural disasters.
In his ruling, Stearns said he was not convinced Congress had given FEMA any discretion to redirect the funds. The states had also shown that the “balance of hardship and public interest” was in their favor.
“There is an inherent public interest in ensuring that the government follows the law, and the potential hardship accruing to the States from the funds being repurposed is great,” Stearns wrote. “The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives.”
Identifying key risk trends amid an increasingly complex risk landscape was a dominant theme throughout Triple-I’s 2025 Joint Industry Forum – particularly during the panel spotlighting some of the insurance industry’s C-suite leaders.
Moderated by CNBC correspondent Contessa Brewer, the panel consisted of:
J. Powell Brown, president and CEO of Brown & Brown Inc.;
John J. Marchioni, chairman, president, and CEO of Selective Insurance Group;
Susan Rivera, CEO of Tokio Marine HCC (TMHCC); and
Rohit Verma, president and CEO of Crawford & Co.
Their discussion provided insight into how insurers can transform these uncertainties into opportunities for business development and for cultivating deeper connections with consumers.
Recouping policyholder trust
Given the volatility of the current risk environment – exacerbated by various ongoing geopolitical conflicts and the rising frequency and severity of natural catastrophes – it is more imperative than ever to reaffirm the intrinsic human element of insurance, the panelists agreed.
“That’s one of the most underappreciated aspects of our industry,” Marchioni said. “We make communities safer and put people’s lives and businesses back together after an unexpected loss. Being the calming force when you have unsettling events like this happen around the world is a big part of what we do.”
Yet prevailing public perception continues to indicate otherwise, even as insurers report repeated losses or nominal profits compared to other industries.
“The insurance industry may be the only industry where record profits are a problem,” CNBC’s Brewer added, because consumers tend to “not care whether it’s coming from your investments, or whether it’s coming from your underwriting business or your reinsurance. They just hear that you’re making record profits.”
Brown noted that consumer mistrust derives, in part, from “a very active plaintiffs’ bar,” which the American Tort Reform Association estimates spent over $2.5 billion for nearly 27 million ads across the United States last year. He further discussed how, though the average homeowners’ insurance premium rate in Florida will increase this year, his home state has enjoyed far more stable rates after tort reforms eased litigation costs on insurers.
Previous research by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) – like Triple-I, an affiliate of the Institutes – showed that most consumers perceive the link between attorney advertising and higher insurance costs. Crawford’s Verma, however, emphasized that this awareness does not necessarily translate into consumers understanding their own agency.
“It’s easier for homeowners to understand how the weather impacts potential losses and the fact that weather patterns have changed,” Verma said. “But when it comes to [legal system abuse], I don’t think that connection is as well understood.”
Reflecting on a record high in nuclear verdicts last year, Rivera suggested insurers must reconfigure how they communicate legal system abuse to consumers.
“Where are those hospital professional liability verdicts going to go?” he said. “They’re going to go back into the cost of health care at the end of the day.”
Leading the AI charge
Maintaining consumer centricity while implementing or experimenting with technological innovations – especially generative AI – was a unifying objective for all the panelists.
“We look at AI as an enabler,” Brown said, “so we can put teammates in a position to spend more time with customers, which is the most important thing.”
For Tokio Marine’s Rivera, AI “ultimately helps all of our insureds” by boosting operational efficiency while reducing operational costs, as well as facilitating more proactive risk management than ever before. A growing percentage of insurance executives appear to agree, as generative AI models continue to expedite data processing across the insurance value chain, reshaping underwriting, pricing, claims, and customer service.
Such efficiency, paired with the potential for improved decision-making, is crucial “in our dramatically changing environment,” Marchioni stressed.
“We have thousands of claims every day,” he said. “Thinking about lawsuit abuse as a backdrop – a claims adjuster, every day, has to make decisions regarding, ‘Do I settle this claim based on injuries or venue? What’s the value of the injury and of the claim? Who’s the plaintiffs’ attorney?’ These tools give more refined information so your knowledge workers can make better, more timely decisions.”
Generative AI fails, however, when base datasets are insufficient, outdated, or inaccurate, Brown pointed out. Training AI models uncritically can lead to outputs containing false and/or nonsensical information, commonly known as “hallucinations”.
At their current capacity, at least, AI models cannot draw the kinds of salient conclusions that adjustors and underwriters can, meaning AI could “change the way we work, but it’s not going to replace the jobs,” Verma said.
Though they do not currently exist in the United States at the federal level, AI regulations have already been introduced in some states, following a comprehensive AI Act enacted last year in Europe. With more legislation on the horizon, insurers must help lead these conversations to ensure that AI regulations suit the complex needs of insurance, without hindering the industry’s commitments to equity and security.
A 2024 report by Triple-I and SAS, a global leader in data and AI, centers the insurance industry’s role in guiding conversations around ethical AI implementation on a global, multi-sector scale, given insurers’ unique expertise in analyzing and preserving data integrity.
Insurance industry executives and thought leaders gathered yesterday for Triple-I’s Joint Industry Forum (JIF) in Chicago to discuss the trends, economics, geopolitics, and policy influencing the market today, as well as ways to navigate these complexities while focusing on making their products affordable and available for consumers.
Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan in his opening remarks, noted that effective risk management depends on collaboration across stakeholder groups, as interconnected perils “present a community problem, not just an industry problem.”
JIF keynote speaker Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple said facilitating community resilience planning is a top priority for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The NAIC’s 2025 initiative – “Securing Tomorrow: Advancing State-Based Regulation” – aims to improve disaster mitigation and recovery by consolidating “the collective expertise of experienced state regulators from across the country, who can share real-time insights and proven strategies,” Temple said.
Among the initiative’s goals is aggregating more data from insurers to better understand challenges to affordability and availability on state levels, which the NAIC can then translate into actionable policy proposals. Such data calls, Temple said, help regulators, legislators, and policyholders focus on improving the cost drivers of insurance rates.
Louisiana has consistently been among the least affordable states for homeowners and auto insurance, according to the Insurance Research Council (IRC), in part because of its reputation for being plaintiff-friendly in civil litigation. Significant tort legislation has been approved in the state, but resistance to reform remains a challenge.
Getting to the roots of high premiums
After a recent data call in his home state, Temple told the JIF audience, “For the first time in Louisiana, we’re not talking about only premiums. We’re talking about why premiums are where they are.”
A critical lack of transparency surrounding cost drivers persists, however. Temple criticized the National Flood Insurance Program’s Risk Rating 2.0 reforms for not publicly disclosing more information “for individuals and communities to identify and address factors driving up their premiums,” such as “whether increased rates take into account levee systems, pump stations, and other things designed to help mitigate against floods.”
Conversely, government programs like Strengthen Alabama Homes – and the numerous programs it inspired, including in Louisiana – have demonstrated success in communicating the benefits of resilience investments for consumers and policymakers.
“We’re seeing major positive results after just a few short years,” Temple said, noting that, since early 2024, over 5,000 homeowners not chosen for Louisiana’s grant program still decided to invest in the same hazard mitigation, as they may still qualify for the corresponding state-mandated insurance discounts.
“As natural disasters become more frequent and severe, state regulators will continue to drive forward common-sense policies that protect consumers and ensure that insurance remains available and reliable for at-risk communities,” Temple concluded. Developing the database required for such policies is a necessary first step.
Keep an eye on the Triple-I Blog for further JIF coverage.
Louisiana’s Senate passed five tort reform bills last week to curb legal system abuse driven by billboard attorneys in the Pelican State. The legislative success represents the culmination of sustained advocacy efforts – including a Triple-I-backed awareness campaign, StopLegalSystemAbuse.org – to build public support.
The new legislation addresses Louisiana’s longstanding challenges with high insurance premiums and the state’s reputation for being plaintiff-friendly in civil litigation. The reforms include stricter limits on damages, clearer standards for expert testimony, and other procedural changes designed to restore balance to the courts while reducing financial burdens on Louisiana families and businesses.
However, an additional measure intended to change state regulations for approving rate filings for auto and home insurance overshadowed the positive actions taken by lawmakers, the Times-Picayune reported.
House Bill 431, which would prevent drivers who are at least 51 percent at fault in an accident from receiving any compensation for their own injuries, requires final House approval due to Senate amendments. So do Senate Bill 231, which would allow insurers’ lawyers to present jurors with the actual amount paid for medical bills, rather than the total billed, and House Bill 436, which would ban undocumented immigrants injured in car accidents from receiving general (non-economic) damages.
House Bill 434, which would increase the threshold from $15,000 to $100,000 for uninsured drivers to collect medical expenses for bodily injuries in accidents, and House Bill 450, which would require plaintiffs in car accident lawsuits to prove their injuries were actually caused by the accident, are awaiting Gov. Jeff Landry’s signature.
Two lawsuits filed in Los Angeles claim major California insurers colluded illegally to impede coverage in wildfire-prone areas, forcing homeowners into the state’s last-resort FAIR Plan. Accusing carriers of violating antitrust and unfair competition laws, the two suits exemplify an ongoing disconnect between public and insurer perceptions of insurance market dynamics, exacerbated by legislators’ resistance to accommodating the state’s evolving risk profile.
An untenable situation
Both suits claim the insurers conspired to “suddenly and simultaneously” drop existing policies and cease writing new ones in high-risk communities, deliberately pushing consumers into the FAIR Plan. Left underinsured by the FAIR Plan, the plaintiffs argue they were wrongfully denied “coverage that they were ready, willing, and able to purchase to ensure that they could recover after a disaster,” Michael J. Bidart, who represents homeowners in one of the cases, said in a statement.
Established in response to the 1965 Watts Rebellion, the California FAIR Plan provides an insurance option for homeowners unable to purchase from the traditional market. Though FAIR Plans offer less coverage for a higher premium, they cover properties where insurance protection would otherwise not exist. California law requires licensed property insurers to contribute to the FAIR Plan insurance pool to conduct any business within the state, meaning they share the risks associated with those properties.
Intended as a temporary solution until homeowners can secure policies elsewhere, the FAIR Plan has become overwhelmed in recent years as more insurers pull back from the market. As of December 2024, the FAIR plan’s exposure was $529 billion – a 15 percent increase since September 2024 (the prior fiscal year end) and a 217 percent increase since fiscal year end 2021. In 2025, that exposure will increase further as FAIR begins offering higher commercial coverage for farmers, homebuilders, and other business owners.
With a policyholder count that has more than doubled since 2020, the FAIR Plan faces an estimated $4 billion total loss from the January fires alone.
Out of touch regulations
Homeowners are understandably frustrated with dwindling coverage availability, which currently afflicts many other disaster-prone states. Supply-chain and inflationary pressures, which could intensify under oncoming U.S. tariff policies, help fuel the crisis. But California’s problems stem largely from an antiquated regulatory measure that severely constrains insurers’ ability to manage and price risk effectively.
Despite a global rise in natural catastrophe frequency and severity, regulators have applied the 1988 measure, Proposition 103, in ways that bar insurers from using advanced modeling technologies to price prospectively, requiring them to price based only on historical data. It also blocks insurers from incorporating reinsurance costs into their prices, forcing them to pay for these costs from policyholder surplus and/or reduce their presence in the state.
Insurers must adjust their risk appetite to reflect these constraints, as they cannot profitably underwrite otherwise. Underwriting profitability is essential to maintain policyholder surplus. Regulators require insurers to maintain policyholder surplus at levels that ensure that every policyholder is adequately protected.
Restricting insurers’ use of prospective data, however, inhibits risk-based pricing and weakens policyholder surplus, facilitating policy nonrenewals and, in serious cases, insolvencies.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara implemented a Sustainable Insurance Strategy to mitigate these trends, including a new measure that authorizes insurers to use catastrophe modeling if they agree to offer coverage in wildfire-prone areas. The strategy has garnered criticism from legislators and consumer groups, one of whom is suing Lara and the California Department of Insurance over a 2024 policy aimed at expediting insurance market recovery after an extreme disaster.
“Insurers are committed to helping Californians recover and rebuild from the devastating Southern California wildfires,” Denni Ritter, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association’s department vice president for state government relations, said in a statement about the suit. “Insurers have already paid tens of billions in claims and contributed more than $500 million to support the FAIR Plan’s solvency – even though they do not collect premiums from FAIR Plan policyholders.”
A call for collective action
Litigation prolongs – it does not alleviate – California’s risk crisis. Government has a crucial role to play in addressing it, from adopting smarter land-use planning regulations to investing in long-term resilience solutions.
For instance, Dixon Trail, a San Diego County subdivision dubbed the country’s first “wildfire resilient neighborhood,” models the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) standards for wildfire preparedness, but not at a cost attainable to most communities, and few local governments incentivize them. Launched by state legislature in 2019, the California Wildfire Mitigation Program is on track to retrofit some 2,000 houses along these guidelines, with the goal of solving how to fortify homes more quickly and inexpensively. Funded primarily by FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grant program, the pilot has thus far avoided the same cuts befalling FEMA’s sister programs under the Trump Administration.
Regardless of what legislators do, California homeowners’ insurance premiums will need to rise. The state’s current home and auto rates are below average as a percentage of median household income, reflecting a combination of the increased climate risk and of the regulatory limitations preventing insurers from setting actuarially sound rates. Insurance availability will not improve if these rates persist.
To quote Gabriel Sanchez, spokesperson for the state’s Department of Insurance: “Californians deserve a system that works – one where decisions are made openly, rates reflect real risk, and no one is left without options.” Insurers do not wield absolute control over that system, and neither do legislators, regulators, consumer advocates, or any other singular group. Confronting the root causes of these issues – i.e., the risks – rather than the symptoms is the only path towards systemic change.
New, alarming financial risks for homebuyers who are unaware of property flood histories has driven several states to implement new disclosure laws, helping protect consumers from unexpected costs after purchasing flood-prone homes, according to new research from Milliman.
Atmospheric conditions are intensifying flood risks across the U.S., with severe storms and rain events becoming more devastating and frequent. Despite this escalating threat, a significant regulatory gap has persisted: many states haven’t required home sellers to disclose previous flooding to potential buyers.
This omission creates a dangerous scenario where unsuspecting homebuyers invest their savings in properties with undisclosed flood histories.
As Joel Scata, senior attorney in the climate adaptation division at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), explains, “If a buyer doesn’t know the house is flood-prone, they don’t know they need to buy flood insurance. They don’t know they need to mitigate that risk, and that they could be in a really bad situation when the next flood happens.”
The issue became impossible to ignore in 2018 when Hurricane Florence inundated more than 74,000 buildings in North Carolina. At that time, sellers weren’t required to inform buyers about previous flooding, meaning hurricane-damaged homes could be cleaned up and sold without disclosure of this critical history. Since properties that have flooded once are likely to flood again, this lack of transparency created significant financial vulnerability for new homeowners, according to Milliman.
Quantifying the Financial Impact
To drive policy change, NRDC needed hard data quantifying the financial risks to homebuyers. They partnered with Milliman, where Larry Baeder, a senior data scientist, co-authored a study titled, “Estimating undisclosed flood risk in real estate transactions.”
Using catastrophe models, proprietary datasets, real estate transaction data, historical flood events and demographic patterns, Baeder analyzed the impact in three states with low marks on NRDC’s Flood Risk Disclosure Laws Scorecard: North Carolina, New York and New Jersey.
The findings revealed staggering financial disparities. In North Carolina, a home without flood history might face an average annual loss (AAL) of about $60. In contrast, a flood-prone property’s AAL jumped to approximately $1,200 — 20 times higher — and could exceed $2,000 based on future flood projections. Over 15 years, previously flooded North Carolina properties might require more than $18,000 in repairs.
The numbers were even more concerning in the Northeast. In New York, flood history could increase a property’s AAL from about $100 to $3,000. A previously flooded New Jersey home might incur $25,000 in damages over a 15-year period.
“These are big numbers, and they’re a scary reality that people are going to have to deal with,” Baeder noted. “If a homebuyer is taking on this risk, they should be aware of the risk.” Milliman’s research also found that more than 6% of all homes sold across these three states in 2021 had a record of flooding—with no requirement to warn new owners about this history.
Data-Driven Legislative Change
Armed with Milliman’s analysis, NRDC approached lawmakers with compelling evidence of the problem’s scale and impact.
“Before the report, I think legislators knew that people struggled to rebuild after a flood,” Scata said, “but I don’t think they realized just how much it costs a homeowner. These numbers helped lawmakers see this was a big problem, that their constituents were suffering, and that they should do something about it.”
The data-driven approach proved effective. In 2023, New Jersey began legally requiring sellers to disclose a property’s flood history. North Carolina and New York soon followed, with New York enacting disclosure requirements at the end of 2023 and North Carolina amending mandatory forms in 2024.
The impact extended beyond these three states. Four additional states — Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont — independently adopted disclosure requirements in 2024 after recognizing the need demonstrated elsewhere.
“The laws show the power of data,” Scata noted. “Having Milliman do this work was really important for showing the actual impacts of flood damage on homeowners and effecting change through the legislatures.”
The momentum continues as Baeder now leads a follow-up study for NRDC expanding the research to 25 additional states with insufficient disclosure laws. Scata hopes to eventually see strong disclosure requirements nationwide, providing all homebuyers and renters with insight into their flood risk.
“If we’re going to tell people about lead-based paint,” Scata concludes, referring to other widespread real estate disclosures, “if we’re going to tell people about asbestos, we should probably tell people about flooding, because flooding has such an impact on someone’s finances and health.”
U.S. property claims volume rose 36 percent in 2024, propelled by a 113 percent increase in catastrophe claims, according to a recent Verisk Analytics report.
While evolving climate risks fueled claim frequency, uncertain inflation trends and unchecked legal system abuse will likely further strain insurer costs and time to settle these claims, posing risks to coverage affordability and availability.
Abnormally active Atlantic hurricane season
In a “dramatic shift” from previous loss patterns, late-season hurricane activity – rather than winter storms – dictated fourth-quarter claims operations last year, Verisk reported. Hurricane-related claims comprised nearly 9 percent of total claims volume, at a staggering 1,100 percent increase from the third quarter of 2023. Flood and wind claims both also jumped by 200 percent in volume.
“This shift in risk patterns demands new approaches to risk assessment and resource planning, particularly in the Southeast, where costs increased at six times the national rate following hurricane activity,” Verisk stated. Notably, Hurricane Milton generated roughly 187,000 claims totaling $2.68 billion in replacement costs across the Southeast, with 8 percent of claims still outstanding as of the report’s release.
Another above-average hurricane season is projected for 2025 in the Atlantic basin, according to a forecast by Colorado State University’s (CSU) Department of Atmospheric Science. Led by CSU senior research scientist and Triple-I non-resident scholar Phil Klotzbach, the CSU research team forecasts 17 named storms, including nine hurricanes – four of them “major” – during the 2025 season, which begins June 1 and continues through Nov. 30. A typical Atlantic season has 14 named storms, seven hurricanes, three of them major. Major hurricanes are defined as those with wind speeds reaching Category 3, 4, or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale.
Water, hail, and wind events in the Great Plains and Pacific Northwest also contributed to unexpected claim volumes, Verisk added. In contrast, wind-related claims fell in the Northeast compared to the fourth quarter of 2023.
Such regional variations highlight “the importance of granular, location-specific analysis for accurate risk assessment,” Verisk stated.
Contributing economic factors
Labor and material costs continued to rise year over year, with commercial reconstruction costs seeing a more pronounced increase of 5.5 percent compared to residential’s 4.5 percent, Verisk reported. The firm projected moderate reconstruction cost increases within both sectors during the first half of 2025.
Looming U.S. tariffs, however, may complicate this trajectory. Inflationary pressures related to the Trump Administration’s tariffs could further disrupt supply chains still recovering from natural catastrophes and the COVID-19 pandemic. Any such disruptions would compound replacement costs for U.S. auto and homeowners insurers as material costs – such as lumber, a major import from Canada – become even more expensive.
Excessive litigation trends
Similarly, excessive claims litigation – which prolongs claims disputes while driving up claim costs – plagues several of the states Verisk identified as experiencing increased claim volumes. For instance, though hurricane activity helps explain higher claim frequency in Georgia, the Peach State also is home to a personal auto claim litigation rate more than twice that of the median state, with a relative bodily injury claim frequency 60 percent higher than the U.S. average.
Verisk’s preliminary Q4 data reveals a 7 percent decrease in average claims severity compared to the same period in 2023 – a figure the firm expects to rise as more complex claims reach completion. But costly and protracted claims litigation, paired with ongoing tariff uncertainty, could magnify this figure even beyond their projections.
Undoubtedly, both will challenge insurers’ capacity to reliably predict loss trends and set fair and accurate premium rates for the foreseeable future, underscoring Verisk’s point that “staying ahead of these evolving patterns is essential in building more resilient operations in the future.”
