Category Archives: Risk-Based Pricing

Illinois Lawmakers
Reject Risk-Based
Pricing Challenge

By Lewis Nibbelin, Research Writer, Triple-I 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn More: 

New Illinois Bills Would Harm — Not Help — Auto Policyholders

Resilience Investment Payoffs Outpace Future Costs More Than 30 Times

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

California Insurance Market at a Critical Juncture

Triple-I Brief Explains Benefits of Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance

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.

Learn More:

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

Easing Home Upkeep to Control Insurance Costs

Study Touts Payoffs From Alabama Wind Resilience Program

Insurance Affordability, Availability Demand Collaboration, Innovation

Outdated Building Codes Exacerbate Climate Risk

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

Data Granularity Key to Finding Less Risky Parcels in Wildfire Areas

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

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

Accurately Writing Flood Coverage Hinges on Diverse Data Sources