Category Archives: Regulation

Auto Insurance, Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Emerging Risks, Flood Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Hurricane, Industry Awards & Events, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Regulation, Risk Management, Severe Convective Storm, Tornado, Wildfire, Wind

Insurance Affordability, Availability Demand Collaboration, Innovation

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

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.

Learn More

Significant Tort Reform Advances in Louisiana

Louisiana Senator Seeks Resumption of Resilience Investment Program

Louisiana Reforms: Progress, But More Is Needed to Stem Legal System Abuse

Louisiana Is Least Affordable State for Personal Auto Coverage Across the South and U.S.

Who’s Financing Legal System Abuse? Louisianans Need to Know

Study Touts Payoffs From Alabama Wind Resilience Program

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

Resilience Investments Paid Off in Florida During Hurricane Milton

Auto Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Legal Environment, Regulation

Significant Tort Reform Advances in Louisiana

Leave a comment

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.

Learn More:

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: Louisiana Insurance Market (Members only)

Louisiana Senator Seeks Resumption of Resilience Investment Program

Louisiana Reforms: Progress, But More Is Needed to Stem Legal System Abuse

Louisiana Is Least Affordable State for Personal Auto Coverage Across the South and U.S.

Who’s Financing Legal System Abuse? Louisianans Need to Know

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Regulation, Risk Management, Wildfire

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

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

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.

Learn More:

Despite Progress, California Insurance Market Faces Headwinds

California Insurance Market at a Critical Juncture

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis In California

Tariff Uncertainty May Strain Insurance Markets, Challenge Affordability

Issues Brief: California Struggles to Fix Insurance Challenges (Members only)

Issues Brief: Wildfire: Resilience Collaboration & Investment Needed (Members only)

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Floods, Insurance News, Regulation

Undisclosed Flood Risks Spur Wave of State Laws

Leave a comment
Hurricane Helene flood damage in North Carolina

Source: Getty Images

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.”

View the Milliman report here.

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

Claims Volume Up 36%
in 2024; Climate, Costs, Litigation Drive Trend

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

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.”

Learn More:

Tenfold Frequency Rise for Coastal Flooding Projected by 2050

How Tariffs Affect P&C Insurance Prospects

What Florida’s Misguided Investigation Means for Georgia Tort Reform

Florida Bills Would Reverse Progress on Costly Legal System Abuse

Florida Reforms Bear Fruit as Premium Rates Stabilize 

Georgia Targets Legal System Abuse

Severe Convective Storm Risks Reshape U.S. Property Insurance Market

New Triple-I Issue Brief Puts the Spotlight on Georgia’s Insurance Affordability Crisis

P/C Replacement Costs Seen Outpacing CPI in 2025

California Insurance Market at a Critical Juncture

Florida’s Progress in Legal Reform: A Model for 2025

Louisiana Reforms: Progress, But More Is Needed to Stem Legal System Abuse

Data Fuels the Assault on Climate-Related Risk

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

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

Insurance Industry, Insurance News, Market Conditions, Regulation, Specialty Coverage

South Carolina Analysis Shows Liquor Liability Insurance Market in Crisis

Leave a comment

South Carolina’s liquor liability insurance market is in crisis, with insurers losing an average of $1.77 for every $1.00 of premium earned since 2017, while claim frequencies significantly outpace neighboring states, according to a recent study by the state’s Department of Insurance.

The comprehensive analysis, initiated following a 2019 request by the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee, reveals a deeply troubled marketplace where insurers are losing money.

“The data seem to confirm the anecdotal assertions, made by both insurance companies and small businesses, of a very troubled and challenged marketplace,” the report stated.

Current Market Landscape

The liquor liability insurance market in South Carolina has maintained a relatively stable number of participants in recent years. Since 2019, the number of insurance groups operating in this sector has held steady at around 48 participants. This consistency in market players suggests a mature, albeit challenging, insurance environment.

Despite the overall stability in participant numbers, the market is characterized by the dominance of three major insurance groups.

Premium Trends

While the number of market participants has remained relatively constant, earned premiums have experienced remarkable growth over a five-year period. From 2017 to 2022, earned premiums in the South Carolina liquor liability insurance market more than doubled to $17.0 million from $7.6 million.

This dramatic surge in premiums can be attributed to various factors, but rising insurance rates play a crucial role, the report noted.

Profitability Crisis in South Carolina

Since 2017, liquor liability insurers have lost about $1.77 for every $1.00 of premium earned over the six years observed. In the best performing of those six years (2018), the industry lost roughly $0.91 per $1.00 of premiums earned, while losing about $2.60 per $1.00 of premiums earned in the worst performing year, 2022.

“Combined ratios for the industry make it clear that this sub-line of insurance is being written at massive underwriting losses,” the report’s authors stated.

Source: South Carolina Department of Insurance

The severity of South Carolina’s liquor liability insurance crisis becomes even more apparent when compared to their neighboring states, where these same insurers have realized a net profit over time, the report noted.

Over the same 2017-2022 period analyzed, for example, North Carolina’s estimated liquor liability combined ratio ranged between 45% and 76%. In 2022, when South Carolina’s estimated combined ratio hit 290%, North Carolina’s stood at 62%.

Claims Severity and Frequency

The liquor liability insurance market in South Carolina also has experienced significant fluctuations in claim severity over recent years. In 2022, the average incurred claim per $1 million of earned premium reached $281,071, a substantial increase from $121,761 the previous year. This figure, however, falls within a broader historical context of volatility. The state witnessed its highest average claim of $338,244 in 2017, followed by a dramatic drop to $121,761 in 2021.

Despite these fluctuations, recent data suggests that South Carolina’s claim severity is aligning more closely with neighboring states in recent years, according to the report.

While severity trends show signs of alignment with regional norms, claim frequency in South Carolina presents a more pressing challenge.

From 2019 to 2022, South Carolina’s claim frequency (number of incurred claims per $1 million of earned premium) has outpaced that observed in the other states considerably. The claims frequency rate was nine in 2022, 13 in 2021, 10 in 2020 and 12 in 2019. During that same period, none of its neighboring states — Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — reported a claims frequency rate higher than five.

View the full South Carolina report here.

Auto Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Insurance Industry, Regulation, Risk Management

New Triple-I Issue Brief Puts the Spotlight on Georgia’s Insurance Affordability Crisis

Leave a comment

Insurance affordability in Georgia is dwindling as claim frequency and insurer costs soar, according to the latest issue brief from Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I), Trends and Insights: Georgia Insurance Affordability.  

Given the state’s below-average income vs. above-average insurance expenditures, Georgia ranks 42nd on the list of affordable states for homeowners insurance and 47th (plummeting from the 2006 high of 27th) for personal auto affordability, according to reports by the Insurance Research Council. This brief provides an overview of how several factors, including skyrocketing costs from litigation, pose risks to coverage affordability, availability, and other potential economic outcomes for Georgia residents. Tort reform is discussed as a legislative solution to the challenge of legal system abuse – excessive policyholder or plaintiff attorney practices that increase costs and time to settle insurance claims. 

The Georgia insurance market grapples with multiple risk factors 

From 1980–2024, Georgia was impacted by 134 confirmed weather/climate disaster events in which losses exceeded $1 billion each. At least 38 of those events happened in the last five years, with 14 in 2023. Homeowners in Georgia’s most climate-risk-vulnerable counties, such as the coastal and most southern parts of the state, can face double-digit premium hikes or nonrenewals. Also, data indicates the rate of underinsured motorists in Georgia is twice as high as the national average, and the rate of uninsured motorists is 25 percent higher. Injury claim severity in the state is slightly higher than in the rest of the country.   

Data indicates that litigation costs have become a pervasive concern for risk management. 

Rising claim frequency and litigation costs put coverage affordability and availability at risk. For example, the IRC findings across personal auto lines show a dual trend in Georgia of increased claims and litigation. Property damage liability claims per 100 insured vehicles are 15 percent higher, and relative body injury claims frequency is 60 percent higher. According to IRC, the rate for private passenger litigation in Georgia is nearly three times that in the median state. 

The Georgia Office of Commissioner of Insurance and Safety Fire (“OCI”) reviewed all lines across personal and commercial auto, personal and commercial umbrella, and commercial general liability (homeowners liability was excluded). The five-year average count for liability claims increased 24.9 percent (2014 – 2018 at 583,756 vs. 2019-2023 at 729,191). A rising percentage of claims with payment are full-limit claims, and the OCI analysis indicates litigation is driving that increase. While costs rose for both litigated and non-litigated claims, the number of claims with legal involvement dominated paid indemnity for most lines of business, and litigated claims comprised a growing portion of the total paid indemnity. 

Attorneys appear to have revved up their mining for lawsuits in Georgia. Law firms spent $160 million on advertising in Georgia, according to preliminary data from the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). Outdoor ads for lawsuits increased by 119 percent in GA during that time. It might not be a surprise then to see that the Georgia OCI report shows legal (attorney involved) claims dominated Personal Auto claims for Bodily Injury, comprising 62 percent of claims and 86 percent of total indemnity paid for closed claims in Accident Year 2023. A review of losses of $1 million or more by accident year that have closed during the 2014 to 2023 period shows that each accident year cohort surpasses the count from the previous accident years.   

Recently introduced state tort reform legislation may help to stabilize insurance costs. 

Analysts estimate that litigation costs Georgia residents $880 million annually, or an average of $1,415 per resident.  Sean Kevelighan, Triple-I CEO, says “understanding how these trends drive up costs and identifying policy levers for tort reform legislation can ultimately bring positive outcomes for Georgia’s economy and its consumers and business owners.” 

As part of our commitment to educating stakeholders, Triple-I has launched a multi-faceted campaign to raise awareness of the mounting costs of legal system abuse in Georgia and other states. We invite you to view the video statement by our CEO Sean Kevelighan, interviews capturing the opinions of consumers about legal system abuse, and read the full issue brief, Trends and Insights: Georgia Insurance Affordability. 

Disaster Resilience, Regulation, Wildfire

California Insurance Market at a Critical Juncture

Leave a comment

Guest column by Sean Kevelighan, Chief Executive Officer of the Insurance Information Institute, published in the Ventura County Star.

As catastrophic wildfires blaze through Southern California, the human toll is heartbreaking, and the financial aftermath is staggering. For the millions impacted, the first step is safety. But as the flames subside, families will turn to insurers — California’s financial first responders — for recovery and rebuilding. Yet, even as insurers deliver on their promise to customers, the state’s insurance market continues to face headwinds.

The truth is, California’s insurance system has been in crisis for years. Wildfires are burning through not only our forests and communities but also the fragile foundation of an insurance market that has struggled under decades-old regulations.

Recent reforms, including the long-awaited “Sustainable Insurance Strategy,” are a step in the right direction. With implementation beginning in 2025, the new strategy poses a potential to fix the troubles of the past and rebuild with a more robust, sustainable and insurable market after what may be the worst wildfires in California’s history. However, there is some damage done that we need to overcome.

For years, insurers have sounded the alarm. They have warned policymakers about the urgent need to modernize regulations so the system can function in the face of increasing climate risks. But change has been slow, and the consequences are now clear.

Some insurers have made the difficult decision to stop writing policies in California or leave the market entirely. These companies do not want to abandon the state — California is the largest insurance market in the U.S. and one of the largest economies in the world. But without the ability to manage and price risk effectively, their hands are tied.

For decades, California has not allowed insurers to model future catastrophic risks, such as wildfires, for pricing purposes. Additionally, rate increases above 7% have been subjected to an arduous approval process, forcing insurers to submit not actuarially sound rates capped at 6.9%. Meanwhile, the costs of claims have skyrocketed. Between 2019 and 2022, inflation drove homeowners’ replacement costs up by a cumulative 55% nationally. When inflation is paired with worsening wildfire risks year after year, the math simply does not add up.

One of the biggest lessons from California’s risk crisis is the need for collective action. The rising frequency and severity of wildfires demand a united effort to build resilience. While preventative measures like brush clearing and fireproofing homes are helpful, they are not enough when wildfires of this magnitude strike. It is clear we need large-scale solutions, including investments in fire prevention, smarter land-use planning and policies that incentivize sustainable development.

It is disheartening that it often takes a major catastrophe to spur action. But this is California’s opportunity to address the root causes of this crisis. A resilient future requires modernizing our insurance market, adopting climate-conscious policies, and committing to long-term investments in disaster prevention and recovery.

Insurers want to serve Californians, and they want to be in California. But without systemic changes, the cycle of crisis will only continue. This is not just about insurance — it is about protecting our homes, our communities and the state from the growing risks of a changing climate. The time to act is now, before the next disaster strikes.

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Insurers and the Economy, Regulation, Technology, Wildfire

California Finalizes Updated Modeling Rules, Clarifies Applicability Beyond Wildfire

Leave a comment

California’s Department of Insurance last week posted long-awaited rules that remove obstacles to profitably underwriting coverage in the wildfire-prone state. Among other things, the new rules eliminate outdated restrictions on use of catastrophe models in setting premium rates.

The measure also extends language related to catastrophe modeling to “nature-based flood risk reduction.” In the original text, “the only examples provided of the kinds of risk mitigation measures that would have to be considered in this context involved wildfire. However, because the proposed regulations also permit catastrophe modeling with respect to flood lines, it was appropriate to add language to this subdivision relating to flood mitigation.”

The relevant language applies “generally to catastrophe modeling used for purposes of projecting annual loss,” according to documents provided by the state Department of Insurance.

Benefits for policyholders

As a result, the department said in a press release, “Homeowners and businesses will see greater availability, market stability, and recognition for wildfire safety through use of catastrophe modeling.”

For the past 30 years, California regulations – specifically, Proposition 103 – have required insurance companies to apply a catastrophe factor to insurance rates based on historical wildfire losses. In a dynamically changing risk environment, historical data alone is not sufficient for determining fair, accurate insurance premiums. According to Cal Fire, five of the largest wildfires in the state’s history have occurred since 2017. 

The state’s evolving risk profile, combined with the underwriting and pricing constraints imposed by Proposition 103, has led to rising premium rates and, in some cases, insurers deciding to limit or reduce their business in the state.

With fewer private insurance options available, more Californians have been resorting to the state’s FAIR Plan, which offers less coverage for a higher premium. This isn’t a tenable situation.

“Put simply, increasing the number of policyholders in the FAIR Plan threatens the solvency of insurance companies in the voluntary market,”  California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara explained to the State Assembly Committee on Insurance. “If the FAIR Plan experiences a massive loss and cannot pay its claims, by law, insurance companies are on the hook for the unpaid FAIR Plan losses…. This uncertainty is driving insurance companies to further limit coverage to at-risk Californians.”

“Including the use of catastrophe modeling in the rate making process will help stabilize the California insurance market,” said Janet Ruiz, Triple-I’s California-based director of strategic communication. “Homeowners in California will be able to better understand their individual risk and take steps to strengthen their homes.”

The new measure also requires major insurers to increase the writing of comprehensive policies in wildfire-distressed areas equivalent to no less than 85 percent of their statewide market share. Smaller and regional insurance companies must also increase their writing.

Requirements for insurers

It also requires catastrophe models used by insurers to account for mitigation efforts by homeowners, businesses, and communities – something not currently possible under existing outdated regulations today.

Moves like this by state governments – combined with increased availability of more comprehensive and granular data tools to inform underwriting and mitigation investment – will go a long way toward improving resilience and reducing losses.

Learn More:

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

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: Proposition 103 and California’s Risk Crisis

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

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

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Floods, Insurers and the Economy, Market Conditions, Regulation, Risk Management

JIF 2024: What Resilience Success Looks Like

Leave a comment

By Lewis Nibbelin, Contributing Writer, Triple-I

The efficacy of collaboration and investment by “co-beneficiaries” in resilience initiatives was a dominant theme throughout Triple-I’s 2024 Joint Industry Forum – particularly in the final panel, which celebrated leaders behind recent real-world impacts of such investments.

Moderated by Dan Kaniewski, Marsh McLennan (MMC) managing director for public sector, the panelists discussed how their multi-industry backgrounds inform their innovative mindsets, as well as their knowledge on the profound ripple effects of targeted resilience planning.

The panel included:

  • Jonathan Gonzalez, co-founder and CEO of Raincoat;
  • Bob Marshall, co-founder and CEO of Whisker Labs;
  • Dawn Miller, chief commercial officer of Lloyd’s and CEO of Lloyd’s Americas; and
  • Lars Powell, director of the Alabama Center for Insurance Information and Research (ACIIR) at the University of Alabama and a Triple-I Non-Resident Scholar.

Productive partnership

Kaniewski – who spent most of his career in emergency management, previously serving as the second-ranking official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the agency’s first deputy administrator for resilience – kicked off the panel by raising the question “how do we define success?”

He characterized success as “putting theory into practice” and “having elected officials taking steps to reduce risk and transfer some of this risk from federal, state, or local taxpayers.”

But, as participants in earlier panels and this one made clear, government efforts can only go so far without private-sector collaboration. 

“It doesn’t matter who makes that investment, whether it’s the homeowner, the business owner, or the government,” Kaniewski explained. “The reality is we all benefit from that one investment. If we can acknowledge that we benefit from those investments, we should do our best to incentivize them.”

Kaniewski and Raincoat’s Gonzalez were both integral in the development of community-based catastrophe insurance (CBCI), developed in the wake of Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

“A lot of the neighborhoods that experienced flooding due to Sandy didn’t have access to insurance prior to the flooding – and then, post flooding, the government really had to step up to figure out how to keep those families in those houses,” Gonzalez said.

In collaboration with the city, a nonprofit called the Center for NYC Neighborhoods developed the concept of buying parametric insurance on behalf of these communities, with any payouts going toward helping families stay in their homes after disasters. Unlike traditional indemnity insurance, a parametric policy pays out if certain agreed-upon conditions are met – for example, a specific wind speed or earthquake magnitude in a particular area – regardless of damage.  Parametric insurance eliminates the need for time-consuming claim adjustment. Speed of payment and reduced administration costs can ease the burden on both insurers and policyholders.

In this case, Kaniewski said, success was reflected in the fact that the pilot program received sufficient funding not only for renewal but expansion, bringing needed protection to even more vulnerable communities.

Powell reinforced this sentiment in explaining ACIIR’s research on the FORTIFIED method, a set of voluntary construction standards created by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) for durability against severe weather. The insurance industry-funded Strengthen Alabama Homes program issues grants and substantial insurance premium discounts to homeowners to retrofit their houses along these guidelines, prompting multiple states to replicate the program.

Such homes in Alabama sustained 54 to 76 percent reduced loss frequency from Hurricane Sally compared to standard homes, Powell reported, and an estimated 65 to 73 percent could have been saved in claims if standard homes were FORTIFIED.

Incentivizing contractors to learn FORTIFIED standards was especially critical, Powell explained, because they further advertised these skills and expanded the presence of FORTIFIED homes beyond the grant program.

“A lot of companies have said for several years, ‘we don’t know if we’re comfortable writing these…we haven’t seen it on the ground,’” Powell said. “Well, now we’ve seen it on the ground. We need to have houses that don’t burn down or blow over. We know how to do it, it’s not that expensive.”

Addressing concerns to drive adoption

Miller described how Lloyd’s Lab works to ease that discomfort by creating a space for businesses to nurture and integrate novel insights and products without fear. With mentor support, companies are encouraged to test new ideas while free from the usual degree of financial and/or intellectual property risks attached to innovation investments.

“It’s about having an avenue out to try,” Miller said. “Having that courage, as we continue to work together, to try to understand what’s working, what’s not, and being brave to say, ‘this isn’t working, but we can course correct.’”

Whisker Labs’ Marshall noted that numerous insurance carriers have taken a chance on his company’s front-line disaster mitigation devices, Ting, by paying for and distributing them to their customers.

Ting plug-in sensors detect conditions that could lead to electrical fires through continuous monitoring of a home’s electrical system. Statistically preventing more than 80 percent of electrical fires, communities benefit – not only by preventing individual home fires but also by providing data about the electrical grid and potentially heading off grid-initiated wildfires.

“There are so many applications for the data,” Marshall said, but “to have a true impact on society…we have to prove that we’re preventing more losses than the cost, and we have to do that in partnership with insurance carriers.”

Everyone wins if everyone plays

Cultivating innovative solutions is pivotal to enhancing resilience, the panelists agreed – but driving them forward requires more than just the insurance industry’s support.

He pointed to a project last year – funded by Fannie Mae and developed by the National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) – that culminated in a roadmap for resilience investment incentives, focusing on urban flooding. 

The co-authors of the project, including Triple-I subject-matter experts, represented a cross-section of “co-beneficiary” groups, such as the insurance, finance, and real estate industries and all levels of government, Kaniewski said.

Implementation of the roadmap requires participation from communities and multiple co-beneficiaries. Triple-I and NIBS are exploring such collaborations with potential co-beneficiaries in several areas of the United States.

Learn More:

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

Rising Interest Seen in Parametric Insurance

Community Catastrophe Insurance: Four Models to Boost Resilience

Attacking the Risk Crisis: Roadmap to Investment in Flood Resilience

Mitigation Matters – and Hurricane Sally Proved It