By Loretta Worters, Vice President, Media Relations, Triple-I
Lightning-related homeowners’ insurance claims totaled $1.04 billion in 2024, a 16.5 percent decrease from 2023, according to new data from the Insurance Information Institute and State Farm, the largest writer of homeowners’ insurance in the United States. The number of lightning-caused claims also fell significantly, dropping 21.5 percent, to 55,537, the lowest level recorded since before 2017.
More than half of all claims came from the top 10 states, with Florida, Texas, and California leading the country in lightning-related property losses.
“Fewer claims and a decline in severity indicate increased awareness and improved mitigation,” said Sean Kevelighan, CEO, Triple-I. “Nonetheless, lightning remains a significant threat to property and safety, particularly during storm season.”
Key lightning claim stats for 2024
Total number of claims: 55,537 (down from 70,787 in 2023)
Total claims value: $1.04 billion (down from $1.24 billion)
National average cost per claim: $18,641
Highest state average: $38,558 in Texas
Top three states by lightning losses
Florida – 4,780 claims, $113M in damages
Texas – 4,369 claims, $168M in damages
California – 4,005 claims, $75M in damages
“Lightning remains a costly and unpredictable threat, with ground surges causing nearly half of all claims,” said Michal Brower of State Farm. “These events can cause extensive damage to electrical systems, appliances, and even structural issues. The damage underscores the critical need for homeowners to be aware of the risks, invest in protective measures, and stay prepared, especially in high-risk regions where lightning strikes are most frequent and damaging.”
Lightning strikes can cause more than just a power outage. Common impacts include:
Fires in attics, roofs, or walls
Power surges that destroy electronics and appliances
Structural damage
Injury or even death
How to Stay Protected
Homeowners can protect their families and property by following a few guidelines:
Install whole-home surge protection and unplug devices during storms;
Consider a certified lightning protection system;
Check your homeowners’ insurance policy for lightning and surge-related coverage; and
Stay indoors and avoid wired devices during thunderstorms.
Damage caused by lightning, such as fire, is covered by standard homeowners’ insurance policies. Some policies provide coverage for power surges that are the direct result of a lightning strike.
The Lightning Protection Institute (LPI) notes that lightning strikes can occur at an astonishing rate of 100 times per second.
“Whether it’s a family home or a mission-critical facility, no property is immune to lightning,” said Tim Harger, Executive Director at LPI, whose organization provides resources for the design, installation, and inspection of lightning protection systems. “The most effective time to prevent lightning damage is before a storm. A lightning risk assessment paired with a professionally installed protection system can make all the difference in keeping people safe and operations uninterrupted.”
While lightning-related claims may be down, the risk is still very real, especially in high-strike areas like Florida, Texas, and California. Taking preventive steps now can reduce exposure to costly damage later.
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.
Advertising is one of the most common methods companies use to sell their products and services and influence public perceptions. While the issue brief doesn’t argue that general advertising or filing for due process is problematic, it does offer a risk management-based lens for viewing how aggressive attorney advertising campaigns can fuel costs associated with settling claims.
Key Findings
Legal service providers spent $2.5 billion on 26.9 million ads across the United States.
Research suggests that legal advertising increases the number of plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation (MDL), which are large lawsuits consisting of multiple civil cases involving one or more common questions of fact but pending in different districts.
Product liability cases, which accounted for 38 percent of pending MDLs as of August 2023, emerged as the single largest category of MDLs, while other case types have decreased from 2012 to 2022.
The third-party litigation funding market, with an estimated size of $16 billion, is a likely resource for advertising budgets for mass torts; however, 12 states and two jurisdictions have enacted or are considering disclosure requirements.
Ads for legal services and lawsuits saturate all channels of communication – public billboards, radio and television broadcasts, and social media – dangling the lure of a financial windfall. Legal services marketing isn’t uniquely used for mass litigation cases. Nonetheless, it is overall geared to recruit as many lawsuit filers as possible. Therefore, aggressive advertising for legal services introduces the risk of fueling higher claim costs via problematic litigation.
These advertisements often employ an exaggerated sense of urgency, urging the target audience to take immediate legal action without considering alternative options for resolution. These ads may also often overpromise results by implying guaranteed windfalls (i.e., “We’ll get you your money’’), creating unrealistic expectations for plaintiffs and, thus, potentially impacting the time to settle. Additionally, when ads mention a particular product or brand, attorneys communicate plaintiff-biased information to potential jurors. In essence, a juror may recall seeing a flood of advertisements about the product and think, “Where there’s smoke, there must be fire.”
The brief focuses on MDLs because these are complex, huge, and slow-paced cases that may sometimes involve hundreds, even thousands of individual lawsuits. Therefore, these cases inherently carry the risk of driving up legal costs. Also, the large number of plaintiffs introduces the risk that questionable claims might slip into the lawsuit. For example, a particular product may have indeed caused harm to some, but not all, of the plaintiffs who used it.
Pummeling the world with ads can be expensive. Enter the third-party litigation funding (TPLF) market, which, despite tighter capital controls in recent years, grew to $16 billion in 2024, up from $15.2 billion in 2023. TPLF offers discretionary funding to the litigation industry, which can, in turn, use the money to fuel more lawsuits seeking large settlements — a boon for the firms and the funder. The brief outlines how several states and jurisdictions are moving to create transparency around TPLF involvement.
Practices that foster unnecessary or drawn-out litigation are among several hard-to-measure forces that can shift loss ratios for insurers and disrupt forecasts, making cost management more challenging. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to consumers, adversely impacting coverage affordability and availability. Triple-I is committed to advancing conversations with business leaders, government regulators, consumers, and other stakeholders to attack the risk crisis and chart a path forward.
Read the issue brief to find out more about how attorney advertising can contribute to legal system abuse. To join the discussion, register for JIF 2025. Follow our blog to learn more about trends in insurance affordability and availability across the property/casualty market.
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.
By Loretta L. Worters, Vice President of Media Relations, Triple-I
When Karla Scott first entered the insurance industry, she didn’t set out with a grand plan to become a leader in marine underwriting.
“I fell into it,” she admits. Starting at a brokerage firm focused on logistics insurance, she quickly discovered a passion for global trade and cargo underwriting.
“It’s different every day,” says Scott, who is global logistics product leader and senior managing director, Ocean Marine, The Hartford. She joined the company after The Hartford acquired Navigators in 2019.
“The technical work keeps my skills sharp, while the camaraderie and shared purpose offer personal and professional fulfillment.”
– Karla Scott
Scott works with clients, agents, and brokers around the world to ensure that businesses have the protection they need through the product’s entire supply-chain life cycle. Her team insures raw materials and finished goods that are transported on containerships, planes, trains, and trucks. From geopolitics to commodity shifts, it’s an ever-evolving, complex industry that demands constant awareness and adaptation.
Now, with 24 years in marine insurance, Scott reflects on a career shaped by resilience, strong mentorship, and a deep commitment to community. Her journey underscores both the opportunities and challenges faced by women in a traditionally male-dominated field.
“Disrupting trade with…China, Canada, or Mexico would affect cost and the availability of insurance coverage.”
– Karla Scott
A Sea Change for Women
“Fifteen years ago, I sat at a table with 35 industry leaders and was the only woman,” Scott says. “But progress is happening. While marine insurance remains a niche within the broader insurance world, more women are entering the field and rising into leadership roles.”
There continues to be a gender pay gap and lack of career advancement opportunities, but Scott says “part of the reason, frankly, is that women tend not to self-advocate. It’s critical in the marine insurance space to promote yourself, but women often feel uncomfortable doing that. Self-advocacy is not boastfulness. No one is going to put you in the spotlight unless you step into it. Those are the skills we need to teach women coming up in this business.”
Being a woman on the West Coast in an East Coast-dominated industry meant navigating additional hurdles.
“There’s a current you swim against,” she says.
Overcoming Barriers
Support from forward-thinking male mentors and advisors helped her stay the course.
“I am indebted to three mentors who presented different strengths,” Scott says. “I learned how to manage people, to motivate people, technical skills, how important your reputation is in this industry, and how to push hard and be aggressive in certain situations and not aggressive in other situations.”
She also candidly addresses the internal battles many women face — imposter syndrome.
“I’ve experienced it myself and have reached out to my mentors, who are great at listening to my frustrations,” she says. “Having a strong network can help you work through those issues. Now that I’m on the other side, I’m pushing my mentees through those obstacles, helping them find their voice and teaching them to self-advocate—skills critical to closing the gender pay gap.”
The Power of Community
Scott’s involvement with the American Institute of Marine Underwriters (AIMU) and the Board of Marine Underwriters in San Francisco has been instrumental in her career. She has served as president of the latter twice and speaks passionately about the importance of collaboration in the insurance industry.
“One of the most unique parts of marine insurance is that we work in partnership with competitors to solve industry problems,” she says. “The technical work keeps my skills sharp, while the camaraderie and shared purpose offer personal and professional fulfillment.”
Trade Tensions and Industry Impacts
As global trade faces increasing scrutiny and tariff battles, Scott is already seeing the effects.
“Clients are canceling freight contracts, and volumes are dropping,” she says. “The result means lower trade volume, higher valuation of goods, and potential inflationary cycles may hit consumers hard.”
She points out that the lack of federal stimulus (unlike during the pandemic) leaves little room for economic cushioning.
“It’s a ‘hold your breath’ kind of moment,” Scott says.
Cargo theft is another growing concern.
“It spikes when inflation rises,” Scott notes, pointing out how easy it has become to resell stolen goods on platforms like Amazon and eBay.
Talk of reshoring manufacturing often overlooks the complexity of global trade.
“You can’t flip a light switch and manufacture everything in the U.S.,” she explains. “Machinery to build those goods often comes from Germany or Japan.
“Disrupting trade with top partners like China, Canada, or Mexico would significantly affect both cost and the availability of insurance coverage,” Scott says. “If consumer confidence drops and trade volumes fall, insurance demand will, too.”
Scott also highlights a deeper economic risk: the potential erosion of the U.S. dollar’s dominance in global trade. “If that shifts, the American economy could face even greater challenges.”
The Institutes’ Pete Miller and Francis Bouchard of Marsh McLennan discuss how AI is transforming property/casualty insurance as the industry attacks theclimate crisis.
“Climate” is not a popular word in Washington, D.C., today, so it would take a certain audacity to hold an event whose title prominently includes it in the heart of the U.S. Capitol.
For two days, expert panels at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center discussed climate-related risks – from flood, wind, and wildfire to extreme heat and cold – and the role of technology in mitigating and building resilience against them. Given the human and financial costs associated with climate risks, it was appropriate to see the property/casualty insurance industry strongly represented.
Peter Miller, CEO of The Institutes, was on hand to talk about the transformative power of AI for insurers, and Triple-I President and CEO Sean Kevelighan discussed – among other things – the collaborative work his organization and its insurance industry members are doing in partnership with governments, non-profits, and others to promote investment in climate resilience. Triple-I is an affiliate of the Institutes.
Sean Kevelighan of Triple-I and Denise Garth, Majesco’s chief strategy officer, discuss how to ensure equitable coverage against climate events.
You can get an idea of the scope and depth of these panels by looking at the agenda, which included titles like:
Building Climate-Resilient Futures: Innovations in Insurance, Finance, and Real Estate;
Fire, Flood, and Wind: Harnessing the Power of Advanced Data-Driven Technology for Climate Resilience;
The Role of Technology and Innovation to Advance Climate Resilience Across our Cities, States and Communities;
Pioneers of Parametric: Navigating Risks with Parametric Insurance Innovations;
Climate in the Crosshairs: How Reinsurers and Investors are Redefining Risk; and
Safeguarding Tomorrow: The Regulator’s Role in Climate Resilience.
As expected, the panels and “fireside chats” went deep into the role of technology; but the importance of partnership, collaboration, and investment across stakeholder groups was a dominant theme for all participants. Coming as the Trump Administration takes such steps as eliminating FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program; slashing budgets of federal entities like the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS); and revoking FEMA funding for communities still recovering from last year’s devastation from Hurricane Helene, these discussions were, to say the least, timely.
Helge Joergensen, co-founder and CEO of 7Analytics, talks about using granular data to assess and address flood risk.
In addition to the panels, the event featured a series of “Shark Tank”-style presentations by Insurtechs that got to pitch their products and services to the audience of approximately 500 attendees. A Triple-I member – Norway-based 7Analytics, a provider of granular flood and landslide data – won the competition.
Earth Day 2025 is a good time to recognize organizations that are working hard and investing in climate-risk mitigation and resilience – and to recommit to these efforts for the coming years. What better place to do so than walking distance from both the White House and the Capitol?
The Trump Administration’s unwinding of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and cancellation of all BRIC applications from fiscal years 2020-2023 reinforce the need for collaboration among state and local government and private-sector stakeholders in climate resilience investment.
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. FEMA announced on April 4 that it is ending BRIC .
Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), called the decision “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.”
While the FEMA press release called BRIC a “wasteful, politicized grant program,” Berginnis said investments in hazard mitigation programs “are the opposite of ‘wasteful.’ “ He pointed to a study by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) that showed flood hazard mitigation investments return up to $8 in benefits for every $1 spent.
“At this very moment, when states like Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee are grappling with major flooding, the Administration’s decision to walk away from BRIC is hard to understand,” Berginnis said.
Heading into hurricane season
Especially hard hit will be catastrophe-prone Florida. Nearly $300 million in federal aid meant to help protect communities from flooding, hurricanes, and other natural disasters has been frozen since President Trump took office in January, according to an article in Government Technology.
The loss of BRIC funding leaves dozens of Florida projects in limbo, from a plan to raise roads in St. Augustine to a $150 million effort to strengthen canals in South Florida. According to Government Technology, the agency most impacted is the South Florida Water Management District, responsible for maintaining water quality, controlling the water supply, ecosystem restoration and flood control in a 16-county area that runs from Orlando south to the Keys.
“The district received only $6 million of its $150 million grant before the program was canceled,” the article said. “The money was intended to help build three structures on canals and basins in North Miami -Dade and Broward counties to improve flood mitigation.”
Florida’s Division of Emergency Management must return $36.9 million in BRIC money that was earmarked for management costs and technical assistance. Jacksonville will lose $24.9 million targeted to raise roads and make improvements to a water reclamation facility.
FEMA announced the decision to end BRIC the day after Colorado State University’s (CSU) Department of Atmospheric Science released a forecast projecting an above-average Atlantic hurricane season for 2025. Led by CSU senior research scientist and Triple-I non-resident scholar Phil Klotzbach CSU research team forecasts 17 named storms, nine hurricanes – four of them “major” (Category 3, 4, or 5). A typical season has 14 named storms, seven hurricanes – three of them major.
Nationwide impacts
More than $280 million in federal funding for flood protection and climate resilience projects across New York City — “including critical upgrades in Central Harlem, East Elmhurst, and the South Street Seaport” – is now at risk, according to an article in AMNY. The cuts affect over $325 million in pending projects statewide and another $56 million of projects where work has already begun.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Gov. Kathy Hochul warned that the move jeopardizes public safety as climate-driven disasters become more frequent and severe.
“In the last few years, New Yorkers have faced hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, wildfires, and even an earthquake – and FEMA assistance has been critical to help us rebuild,” Hochul said. “Cutting funding for communities across New York is short-sighted and a massive risk to public safety.”
According to the National Association of Counties, cancellation of BRIC funding has several implications for counties, including paused or canceled projects, budget and planning adjustments, and reduced capacity for long-term risk reduction.
North Dakota, for example, has 10 projects that were authorized for federal funding. Those dollars will now be rescinded. Impacted projects include $7.1 million for a water intake project in Washburn; $7.8 million for a regional wastewater treatment project in Lincoln; and $1.9 million for a wastewater lagoon project in Fessenden.
“This is devastating for our community,” said Tammy Roehrich, emergency manager for Wells County. “Two million dollars to a little community of 450 people is huge.”
The cancellation of BRIC roughly coincides with FEMA’s decision to deny North Carolina’s request to continue matching 100 percent of the state’s spending on Hurricane Helene recovery.
“The need in western North Carolina remains immense — people need debris removed, homes rebuilt, and roads restored,” said Gov. Josh Stein. “Six months later, the people of western North Carolina are working hard to get back on their feet; they need FEMA to help them get the job done.”
Resilience key to insurance availability
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.
“Investing in the resilience of homes, businesses, and communities is the most proactive strategy to reducing the damage caused by climate,” said Triple-I Chief Insurance Officer Dale Porfilio. “Defunding federal resilience grants will slow the essential investments being made by communities across the U.S.”
Flood is a particularly pressing problem, as 90 percent of natural disasters involve flooding, according to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The devastation wrought by Hurricane Helene in 2024 across a 500-mile swath of the U.S. Southeast – including Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, and Tennessee – highlighted the growing vulnerability of inland areas to flooding from both tropical and severe convective storms, as well as the scale of the flood-protection gap in non-coastal areas.
Coastal flooding in the U.S. now occurs three times more frequently than 30 years ago, and this acceleration shows no signs of slowing, according to recent research. By 2050, flood frequency is projected to increase tenfold compared to current levels, driven by rising sea levels that push tides and storm surges higher and further inland.
In addition to the movement of more people and property into harm’s way, climate-related risks are exacerbated by inflation (which drives up the cost of repairing and replacing damaged property); legal system abuse, (which delays claim settlements and drives up insurance premium rates); and antiquated regulations (like California’s Proposition 103) that discourage insurers from writing business in the states subject to them.
Thanks to the engagement and collaboration of a range of stakeholders, some of these factors in some states are being addressed. Others – for example, improved building and zoning codes that could help reduce losses and improve insurance affordability – have met persistent local resistance.
As frequently reported on this blog, the property/casualty insurance industry has been working hard with governments, communities, businesses, and others to address the causes of high costs and the insurance affordability and availability challenges that flow from them. Triple-I, its members, and partners are involved in several of these efforts, which we’ll be reporting on here as they progress.
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.”
In 2023, despite nearly universal legal requirements to have auto insurance, more than one in seven drivers (15.4 percent) nationally were uninsured, and more than one in six drivers (18.0 percent) were underinsured, according to the new report, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorists: 2017–2023, by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), affiliated with The Institutes. Across the fifty states and the District of Columbia, one in three drivers (33.4 percent) were either uninsured or underinsured in 2023, a 10 percentage point increase in the combined rate since 2017.
Using data submitted by 17 insurers — representing approximately 55 percent of the private passenger auto insurance market countrywide — this latest report estimated the prevalence of uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) by comparing the frequency of UM claims and UIM claims, respectively, to the frequency of bodily injury (BI) claims. Findings included an analysis of trends and contributing factors to variations in UM and UIM rates across states.
The IRC analyzed UM, UIM, and BI liability exposure and claim count data from participating companies for 2017 through 2023. Because of the disruption of the pandemic shutdowns, the changes over time were split into three periods (details outlined in the report).
Key IRC findings include:
UM rates varied substantially across the nation (50 states and the District of Columbia)
Nearly every state saw a rise in the UM rate in 2020 with the onset of the pandemic, but the experience from 2020 to 2023 was mixed.
Every state, except for New York and the District of Columbia, experienced a rise in UIM rate between 2017 and 2023.
Many states with high UM rates often also have high UIM rates. However, some jurisdictions, such as Nevada and Louisiana, combine below-average UM rates with high UIM rates, while others, such as the District of Columbia, have high UM rates but low UIM rates.
Several factors, including economic factors, insurance costs, and state insurance laws and regulations, are associated with variations in UM and UIM rates across states.
After the initial shock of the pandemic, the UM rate increased steadily.
Before the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, UM rates were falling in most states. From 2017 to 2019, only 11 jurisdictions saw an increase. UM claim frequency fell slightly in 2020 to 0.11 claims per 100 insured vehicles, but the decline was much smaller than the drop in BI claim frequency. UM claim frequency recovered quickly and, in the years since 2020, has grown faster than BI claim frequency (39 percent compared with 29 percent).
As a result, the UM rate has increased steadily, reaching 15.4 percent in 2023. The range of the UM rates spanned from a low of 5.7 percent in Maine to a high of 28.2 percent in Mississippi. Outliers include eight states with UM rates above 20 percent and 11 states with rates lower than 10 percent.
States with above-average BI claim frequency and UM claim frequency tended to have higher UM rates. Yet, some states with low UM claim frequency rates have a relatively high UM rate. In Michigan, for example, strict no-fault rules limit the number of BI claims, so the ratio of UM-to-BI claim frequencies is high. Lower UM rates tended to occur in states with higher income, lower unemployment rates, lower insurance expenditures, low minimum limits, and a lack of stacking provisions.
UM rates were higher in states that don’t require UIM coverage. In 2023, the UM rate was 14.9 percent in states that do not require UIM insurance, compared with 11.6 percent in states that require it. Where UIM coverage isn’t required by law, UM rates were significantly higher in the years captured in this study, with the rate in 2023 at 18.9 percent in states that don’t require UIM insurance, compared with 13.3 percent in states that require it.
Nearly one in five accidents with injuries involved losses more than the at-fault driver’s coverage limits.
Over the study period, nearly every jurisdiction experienced an increase in its UIM rate. The only exceptions were a small decline (0.9%) in the District of Columbia and a 6.6 percent decline in New York. The largest increase occurred in Colorado, where the UIM rate rose 24.4 percentage points. Other states with above-average increases included Michigan, Kentucky, and Georgia.
UIM claim frequency showed a small increase between 2017 and 2019 before dropping slightly in 2020. In the years since the onset of the pandemic, with the severity of auto injury claims on the rise, UIM claim frequency has increased markedly, reaching 0.17 claims per 100 insured vehicles in 2023. Since 2020, the growth in UIM claim frequency was double the growth in BI frequency. As a result, the UIM rate has increased significantly, rising to 18.0 percent in 2023.
IRC analysis showed that characteristics associated with lower UIM rates included higher income, lower unemployment rates, lower insurance expenditures, high or medium minimum limits, lack of stacking provisions, and use of a limits trigger for UIM coverage rather than a damages trigger. States with high UM rates often also have high UIM rates. Florida, Colorado, and Michigan all rank relatively high for both measures, while Maine, Massachusetts, and Nebraska all rank relatively low.
“The increase in UIM rates points to higher UIM premiums in the future, worsening affordability and potentially increasing the likelihood of more uninsured drivers. This demonstrates the complex interconnectedness of these two coverages as insurers protect consumers from insufficient coverage by at-fault drivers,” said Dale Porfilio, president of the IRC and chief insurance officer at theInsurance Information Institute (Triple-I).
While state laws regarding mandatory requirements for uninsured and underinsured motorists vary, nearly all states have a legislation framework that requires all drivers to have some auto liability insurance to drive a motor vehicle. Drivers in most states are also required to purchase additional protection to provide coverage if the at-fault driver cannot afford to pay for the damage they caused. However, legislators in several states have enacted “no pay, no play” laws, which ban uninsured drivers from suing for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. A handful of states have programs to assist lower-income drivers, and drivers can check with their state’s insurance division to see if they are eligible.
