Category Archives: Risk Management

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

Federal “Reinsurance” Proposal Raises Red Flags

Leave a comment

By Sean Kevelighan, Triple-I CEO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Kevelighan, CEO, Triple-I

Learn from history

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

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

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

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

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

Time-tested principles

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

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

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

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

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

Consumers deserve real solutions

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

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

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

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

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

Learn More:

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

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

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

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

Matching Price to Peril Helps Keep Insurance Available and Affordable

Policyholder Surplus Matters: Here’s Why

Triple-I Issues Brief: Flood

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

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

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

Triple-I Issues Brief: Race and Insurance Pricing

Auto Insurance, Coastal Property, Disaster Preparedness, Homeowners Insurance, Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Risk Management, Theft

Chubb Highlights Perils Keeping High-Net-Worth People Awake at Night

Leave a comment

According to a recent Chubb survey of 800 high-net-worth individuals in the United States and Canada, 92 percent are concerned about the size of a verdict against them if they were a defendant in a liability case – yet only 36 percent have excess liability insurance.

When it comes to liability, Chubb says respondents are most worried about auto accidents, allegations of assault or harassment, and someone working in their home getting hurt. Damage awards are rising dramatically for a number of reasons, according to Laila Brabander, head of North American personal lines claims for Chubb.

“Economic damages historically were based on factors such as the extent of an injury and resultant medical expenses or past and future loss of income,” she said. “But we are seeing a rise in non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering and post-traumatic stress disorder, that overshadow actual economic losses.”

Brabander described a case in which a client at a yoga studio fell onto the person next to her and was sued by the injured party for pain and suffering.

“The same plaintiffs’ tactics to encourage large verdicts in commercial trucking, auto liability, product liability and medical malpractice suits are now being utilized to push for larger jury awards against our high-net-worth clients,” Brabander said.

Another factor driving up the cost of settlements is the third-party litigation funding, in which firms  provide funding to plaintiffs and their lawyers in exchange for a percentage of the settlement. These private-equity firms began in the commercial space and are now funding lawsuits against individuals and their insurers.

High-net-worth people also are deeply concerned about the threats posed to their homes by extreme weather and climate-related events. Much of this concern may be due to increased development in coastal areas vulnerable to tropical storms and flooding and in the wildland-urban interface – areas in which development places property into proximity with fire-prone wilderness (see links below).

Chubb’s findings are based on a survey of 800 wealthy individuals in the United States (650 respondents) and Canada (150 respondents). Respondents had investable assets of at least $500,000, with the majority reporting assets of $1.5 million to $50 million and 12 percent reporting assets of more than $50 million.

Learn More:

Triple-I Issues Brief – State of the Risk: Wildfire

Triple-I Issues Brief – State of the Risk: Hurricanes

What Is Third-Party Litigation Funding and How Does It Affect Insurance Pricing and Affordability?

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Homeowners Insurance, Risk Management

Despite High-Profile Events, U.S. Wildfire Severity, Frequency
Have Been Declining

Leave a comment

With record-breaking wildfires making headlines in recent years, it may be surprising to learn that U.S. wildfire frequency and severity for in 2023 are on track to be the lowest in the past two decades. In fact, the trend has been generally downward since 2000, according to a recently published Triple-I Issues Brief.

Despite catastrophic losses in Washington State, Hawaii, Louisiana, and elsewhere, California – a state often considered synonymous with wildfire – is in the midst of its second mild fire season in a row. This may be due to drought-breaking rains and snows, but Texas is experiencing fewer wildfires than in 2022, despite worsening drought conditions. About 37 percent of the continental U.S. remains under some form of drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

At the same time, Swiss Re reports that wildfire’s share of insured natural catastrophe losses has doubled over the past 30 years. How can those trends be reconciled? At least part of the answer resides in population trends – specifically, growing numbers of people choosing to live in the wildland-urban interface (WUI), the zone between unoccupied and developed land, where structures and human activity intermingle with vegetative fuels.

 Mitigation is necessary – but not sufficient

The improvements in frequency and severity are likely due to investments in mitigation. State and local authorities have invested heavily to mitigate the human causes of wildfire. In addition, the federal Infrastructure and Jobs Act of 2021 included billions to support wildfire-risk reduction, homeowner investment in mitigation, and improved responsiveness to fires. More recently, the Biden Administration announced $185 million for wildfire mitigation and resilience as part of the Investing in America Agenda, which should help continue the declines in frequency and severity.

But with more people living in the WUI – nearly 99 million, or one third of the U.S. population, according to the U.S. Fire Administration – more than 46 million homes with an estimated value of $1.3 trillion are at risk.

According to the 2022 Annual Report of Wildfires produced by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), 68,988 wildfires were reported and 7.5 million acres burned in 2022.  Of these fires, 89 percent were caused by human activity and burned 55 acres per fire. By contrast, the 11 percent of fires caused by lightning resulted in an average of 563 acres burned, 10 times more than human-caused fires.

This difference may shed light on why the number of fires has been decreasing more dramatically than acres burned. Further, population shifts into the WUI are increasing the proximity of property to places prone to fire, helping to explain the rise in wildfire’s increased percentage of insured losses.

Catastrophes, Coastal Property, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, ESG, Floods, Homeowners Insurance, Risk Management

CSAA: When It Comes
to Fighting Climate Risk, We’re All On the Same Side

Leave a comment

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

CSAA Insurance Group – a AAA insurer – is spurring innovation in the insurance industry through several initiatives tackling the dangers of climate risk.

“We’ve been on a journey to reduce our environmental footprint for a long time,” said Debbie Brackeen, Chief Strategy & Innovation Officer with CSAA, in a recent executive exchange with Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. “We are seeking to reduce our carbon footprint by 50 percent by 2025. We view this work as aligned with our mission: to help our members prepare for and recover from climate risk.”

CSAA has taken several steps to help achieve its goals, including:

  • Leading the first-ever Innovation Challenge on climate resilience with IDEO and Aon, along with several other sponsors;
  • Working on the California Innovation Fund in partnership with Blue Forest, a $50 million fund that CSAA contributed half that capital, focused on forest restoration and reducing fuel in a smart and sustainable way; and
  • Supporting the Wildfire Interdisciplinary Research Center at San Jose State University, which conducts work around predictive modeling, among other endeavors.

While this may seem like a new development, Kevelighan noted that insurers have long worked toward these goals.

“We’ve seen the ESG movement take a hold in the past few years, but it’s been in the DNA of the Triple-I and the insurance industry generally for a long time,” Kevelighan said. “More than half the battle is recognizing that the risk is increasing, while identifying solutions.”

Still, with the increasing consequences associated with climate risk, more work needs to be done.

“There were billion-dollar wildfire losses at CSAA in my first two years in the industry,” Brackeen said. “I wondered if this was normal. It ignited in me that, whatever we do in innovation, it will have to do with wildfire risk. However, what concerns me the most is that risks are becoming uninsurable. This is from the cumulative effects of several different types of losses, including convective storms.”

“We have to seek different types of innovative partnerships to address these issues,” Brackeen concluded. “In this fight for our industry, there are no competitors. We have to be on the same side of the table.”

Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Earthquakes, Emerging Risks, ESG, Flood Insurance, Floods, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Regulation, Risk Management

Triple-I Town Hall Amplified Calls
to Attack Climate Risk

Leave a comment

By Jeff Dunsavage, Senior Research Analyst, Triple-I

I’m pleased and proud to have been part of Triple-I’s Town Hall — “Attacking the Risk Crisis” — in Washington, D.C. In an intimate setting at the Mayflower Hotel on November 30, 120-plus attendees got to hear from experts representing insurance, government, academia, nonprofits, and other stakeholder groups on climate risk, what’s being done to address it, and what remains to be done.  

Triple-I’s first-ever Town Hall was designed as a logical step in its multi-disciplinary, action-oriented effort to change behavior to drive resilience. Capping a year in which headlines about “insurance crises” in several states garnered major media attention, Triple-I and its members and partners recognized the need for clarification.

“What we’re seeing is not an ‘insurance crisis’,” Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan told the standing-room-only audience. “We’re in the midst of a risk crisis. Rising insurance premium rates and availability difficulties are not the cause but a symptom of this crisis.”

Whisker Labs CEO Bob Marshall discusses innovation with moderator Jennifer Kyung, Vice President and Chief Underwriter at USAA.

While the insurance industry has a critical role to play and is uniquely well equipped to lead the attack, simply transferring risk is not enough. A recurring theme at the Town Hall was the need to shift from a focus on assessing and repairing damage to one of predicting and preventing losses.

Three moderated discussions – examining the nature of climate risk and its costs; highlighting the need of strategic innovation in mitigating those risks and building resilience; and exploring the role and impact of government policy – gave panelists the opportunity to share their insights with a diverse audience focused on collaborative action.

The agenda was:

Climate Risk Is Spiraling: What Can Be Done?

Moderator: David Wessel, Senior Fellow and Director at the Brookings Institution and former Economics Editor for The Wall Street Journal.

Panelists:

Dr. Philip Klotzbach, Colorado State University, researcher and Triple-I non-resident scholar.

Dan Kaniewski, Managing Director, Public Sector at Marsh McLennan, Former FEMA Deputy Administrator.

Jacqueline Higgins, Head, North America & Senior Vice President, Public Sector Solutions, Swiss Re

Jim Boccher, Chief Development Officer, ServiceMaster.

Jeff Huebner, Chief Risk Officer, CSAA.

Innovation, High- and Low-Tech: How Insurers Are Driving Solutions

Moderator: Jennifer Kyung, VP, Chief Underwriter, USAA.

Panelists:

Partha Srinivasa, EVP, CIO, Erie Insurance.

Sam Krishnamurthy, CTO, Digital Solutions, Crawford.

Bob Marshall, CEO, Whisker Labs.

Stephen DiCenso, Principal,Milliman.

Charlie Sidoti, Executive Director, InnSure.

Outdated Regs to Legal System Abuse: It Will Take Villages to Fix This

Moderator: Zach Warmbrodt, financial services editor, Politico.

Panelists:

Parr Schoolman, SVP and Chief Risk Officer, Allstate.

Tim Judge, SVP, Head Modeler, Chief Climate Officer, Fannie Mae.

Dan Coates, Deputy Director, DRS, Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Fred Karlinsky, Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Global Insurance Regulatory & Transactions Practice Group.

Panelists and participants alike appreciated the compact, action-focused, conversational nature of the single-afternoon event, as well as the opportunity to discuss areas in which their diverse industry- or sector-specific priorities and efforts overlapped.

If you weren’t able to join us in Washington, don’t worry. In his closing remarks, Kevelighan announced plans to take the program on the road with a local and regional focus, so stay tuned. You can contact us if you’re interested in participating in future Town Halls or other Triple-I events. You also can join the “Attacking the Risk Crisis” LinkedIn Group to be part of the ongoing conversation.

Lightning, Risk Management

Assess, Measure, Mitigate Your Lightning Risk

Leave a comment

By Kelley Collins, Director of Business Development and Communications, Lightning Protection Institute

Our lives are filled with risk assessment and mitigation. From grabbing an umbrella for a rainy day to stocking up on supplies for an impending natural disaster, we assess and measure the potential risks before an event occurs to be prepared and protect ourselves from unwanted consequences.

For many, however, assessing and mitigating lighting risk isn’t necessarily top of mind. We know lightning is going to strike – more than 31 million cloud-to-ground strikes occur annually. But being personally affected seems so unlikely that people may think preparation isn’t necessary or even possible. Understanding how to mitigate risks associated with lightning is essential to individuals and property owners.

Lightning strikes about 100 times every second. Incorporate assessment of lightning risk into our daily lives.

Impact of Lightning: Homes, Businesses, Critical Facilities

About 6,000 times a minute, there is a lightning strike that contains an electrical discharge hotter than the sun. One strike can cause immense damage that goes beyond fire. The damage to the electrical infrastructure and the electronics connected to that infrastructure can be destroyed – bringing communication, security and productivity to a halt. 

Convective storms – which are associated with thunder, lightning, and other weather changes – caused $38 billion in insured losses in the first half of 2023. 

“Assessing your risk to lightning before a storm enables homeowners and business owners to predict and mitigate their risks to losses due to a lightning strike,” said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. 

If any of the following structures are hit by lightning, there are consequences beyond the repairs from a fire. When there are surges and/or damages to the electrical system, here are just a few consequences that impact time, money, and – in the worst cases – can cost lives:

Homes: Costly repairs and equipment replacement (TVs, washer/dryer, computers);  

Businesses: Emails and communication stopped, production downtime and loss of revenue; and

Critical Facilities: Inability to meet the emergencies of individuals or the community. 

Lightning protection systems are scientifically proven to mitigate these risks. When properly installed, a lightning protection system makes a building resilient to the damage of lightning strike. These systems protect the structure, the electrical system, and the humans within the building.

Lightning risk assessment

From homeowners to design/build experts, learning how to measure and mitigate the risks of lightning is vital to the prevention of lightning damage. For personal safety, assess the current and future weather conditions; if you see lightning, get indoors. For protecting homes, buildings, and structures, there are a few ways to conduct an assessment to determine the risks of lightning. If the assessment determines that there are perceived risks of lightning, lightning protection systems can be installed to mitigate those risks.

Key assessment factors

The NFPA 780 standard for lightning protection is one option that offers a simple and complex approach to assessments. At the advanced level, an assessment involves a complex equation with several variables (ie., Nd= Ngx Aex C1 x10-6). At the very least, consider the key assessment factors within three general areas of a structure: 

  • External criteria
  • Structure, design, and use
  • Internal activity

External Criteria

When you first walk up to a building or structure, scan the surroundings and conduct a visual inspection. This involves identifying potential lightning strike paths, such as tall trees, antennas, or nearby structures. Evaluate the building’s height and design. Now, assess how that structure compares to other buildings or objects near it. 

  • Is it the tallest building? 
  • Is it situated on a hill or by itself?

If you are designing a new building, assess how that building will be incorporated into these surroundings to ensure proper consideration for making that building more sustainable to a lightning strike.

What is the propensity for lightning strikes in that city, county, or state? Different regions have varying levels of lightning activity, and this information is crucial in determining the necessary level of protection. Lightning frequency data can be obtained from local weather services or scientific experts, such as Vaisala, who collect data on lightning activity. 

Structure Design and Use

Evaluate the materials and use of the building.

  • What are the building materials: Glass, wood, brick, etc.? 
  • Does the design impact the propensity for a lightning strike: Taller points or roof attachments?
  • What is the use of the building: 
    • Does it contain hazardous or flammable objects?
    • Does it store valuable and/or historical objects?
    • Does it perform critical services?

Internal Activity

Identify people and activity on the inside of the structure. 

  • Are there many people inside this structure? 
  • What’s the likely panic level if a building evacuation is necessary? 
  • Can the people move quickly? For instance: In a nursing home or hospital, all occupants cannot quickly exit a building that was hit by lightning. In a large high-rise with large groups of occupants, a speedy exit may not be possible.

What is the building’s function? Identify the services that are being conducted in that building. If lightning hits the structure you are assessing, what happens to the people and services inside? Here are some key structures to protect in high-risk areas:

  • Data centers
  • Distribution centers
  • Schools and churches
  • Public works facilities
  • Critical facilities, such as fire, police, hospitals, emergency operation centers

Assessment leads to mitigation and protection. Having a general understanding of a lightning risk assessment enables all of us to make better choices. Individuals and homeowners can protect themselves and their homes. Design/build experts and facility managers can make choices to ensure their buildings are more resilient, sustainable, and safer with lightning protection systems.

Proper steps for a formal assessment and installation

If your general assessment leads you to question the structure’s vulnerability, the NFPA 780 guidelines specify that the formal assessment process should be carried out by qualified professionals who are knowledgeable about lightning protection systems. These professionals may include lightning protection system designers, engineers, or certified installers who have undergone specific training and have a comprehensive understanding of the guidelines. 

By following the lightning assessment process outlined by NFPA 780, property owners can ensure that their lightning protection systems are properly designed, installed, and maintained. Proper installation protects structures from the devastating effects of lightning strikes and promotes the safety of individuals inside.

 

Corporate Social Responsibility, Disaster Resilience, ESG, Risk Management

How Liberty Mutual Foundation BringsRisk ManagementInto Communities

Leave a comment

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

Nature-based solutions, green jobs, and resilient infrastructure are at the core of Liberty Mutual Foundation’s approach to helping marginalized communities that are most vulnerable to climate-related perils.

“We believe investing philanthropically in communities to help them mitigate and adapt to the impact of climate change is a natural extension that we do as a property-casualty insurer and an area where we can offer a lot of expertise,” Foundation President Melissa MacDonnell told Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan in a recent Triple-I Executive Exchange.

MacDonnell described the foundation’s three-pronged approach to community giving, which consists of:

  • Nature-based solutions, such as increasing access to locally grown food and green space to protect communities from sea-level rise or flooding;
  • Green jobs that provide training and skill development in the green economy for low-income and underrepresented youth and young adults; and
  • Resilient infrastructure for low-income neighborhoods and communities of color.

The foundation also supports existing partners in advancing their climate resiliency goals.

“Any organization in our philanthropic portfolio is eligible for these grants, so they can step back and consider how climate is impacting them,” MacDonnell said. “This includes homelessness shelters and job programs. This is our way of acknowledging that climate affects all of us.”

Kevelighan noted that this holistic approach is particularly important for residents of vulnerable communities.

“We’ve been talking at Triple-I about the role everyone plays in climate,” he said. “It’s encouraging that you’re bringing risk management into communities – particularly those that can’t provide themselves enough resources.”

Kevelighan and MacDonnell discussed how other insurers can become more involved in helping vulnerable communities.

“Insurers should carve out the time to listen to the communities” MacDonnell said. “Partnering with communities and public officials is also important. We are at an incredible moment in time where federal funding is available for climate projects” as a result of measures like the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022, which aims to build disaster resilience by identifying disadvantaged communities that are most at risk to natural disasters and providing funding for projects that mitigate those risks.

Risk Management

Triple-I CEO on Podcast: We’re All Risk Managers

Leave a comment

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

Economic turbulence, political unrest, climate catastrophes, and the aftermath of a global pandemic are just a few of the forces demanding that everyone – homeowners, consumers, businesses, and policymakers, as well as risk-management professionals – take responsibility for understanding and reducing the perils facing all of us, Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan said in a recent episode of the Predict & Prevent podcast.

Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan

“We’re simply living more and more in harm’s way,” Kevelighan told Peter Miller, president and CEO of The Institutes and host of the podcast, which explores how innovators are combating some of the biggest risk challenges facing society by working to eliminate losses before they occur. “We’re a riskier society in terms of our behavior, and this is placing pressure on the traditional risk-transfer tool that is insurance.”

“Even before we got into COVID, severity in catastrophes, both natural and manmade, had been increasing,” Kevelighan said. The two CEOs discussed this growth in severity and what it means for insurers and the policyholders they protect.

“There’s little doubt that predict and prevent is urgently needed,” Miller said. “But the big question remains how? How can we put these principles and practices into action?”

Among other things, Kevelighan talked about the role of telematics and the Internet of Things in helping policyholders anticipate losses and mitigate them in advance by making investments or changing their behaviors. Automobile telematics, for example, shouldn’t simply be about getting discounted insurance premiums.

“It should be about helping people become safer drivers,” Kevelighan said.

Predicting and preventing costly losses has to involve collective responsibility by all parties. It’s no longer enough to simply buy an insurance policy and rest comfortably in the knowledge that, if something bad happens, you’ll get a payout.  A change in mindset is required.

As Kevelighan put it, “Nobody wins from a loss.”

The Predict & Prevent podcast can be found on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and Stitcher. Other recent episodes include:

 How FEMA Does Resiliency; Computer Vision Enhances Safety

Predicting Wildfires, Worker Injury with Better Risk Data

 Preventing Catastrophic Water Damage

Policymaker Perspectives

Hidden Dangers Uncovered

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Flood Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Risk Management

Weather Risk Isn’t “Someone Else’s Problem,” Triple-I Executive Tells Weather Channel Viewers

Leave a comment

Of the findings in Triple-I’s recent report on consumer perceptions of weather risk, the Weather Channel’s experts were most struck by the fact that 60 percent of homeowners said they’d taken no steps to prepare – so, they asked Triple-I Chief Insurance Officer Dale Porfilio for his perspective.

Ultimately, Porfilio said, it comes down to perceptions.

“Two thirds of the people surveyed said they don’t expect to be affected by weather risk in the next five years,” Porfilio told the Weather Channel. “If you don’t think you’re going to be impacted, why would you prepare with a home evacuation plan or a home inventory?”

Of course, anyone who is exposed to weather is exposed to weather-related risk, and it’s essential for homeowners to understand and address the most relevant risks in order to protect their investments and their families.

Porfilio also addressed a question regarding availability of flood insurance, explaining that coverage is generally available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program, as well as a growing number of private insurers, but “might be perceived as too expensive.”

It is possible, however, that some insurers might not be willing to offer coverage in areas that have been hit repeatedly by flood.

Awareness and preparation are key. The Triple-I survey, published in coordination with global reinsurer Munich Re, found that, among the 22 percent of respondents who reported understanding their level of flood risk, 78 percent said they had purchased flood insurance. The report, Homeowners Perception of Weather Risks, provides insights into trends, behavior and how experiencing a weather event impacts consumer perceptions of future events. 

Learn More:

Survey Suggests Few Homeowners Prepare for Weather-Related Risks

Climate Risk Isn’t All About Climate: Population, Land Use, Incentives Need to Be Addressed

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

Careers and Employment, Catastrophes, Emerging Risks, Risk Management

Church Mutual President: Getting, Keeping Talent Is “Number One Challenge”

Leave a comment

Of all the challenges facing property casualty insurers today – from growing catastrophe losses to social inflation – Church Mutual president Alan Ogilvie sees the “war for talent” as one of the most pressing.

“For us, the old adage is very true. Our best assets walk in the door in the morning, at the end of the day they leave, and you just hope and pray they come back,” Ogilvie said in a recent Executive Exchange conversation with Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan.

Ogilvie called talent acquisition and retention “our number one challenge.”

“We like to think we bring something a little bit unique to our employees, and that’s a sense of mission,” he said.

He pointed to Church Mutual’s status as 126-year-old mutual company – the largest writer of insurance for religious institutions, which has expanded to include coverage for health, educational, and nonprofit organizations – and said, “It’s pretty easy to get up in the morning when you’re protecting organizations that you know are doing tremendous things in our communities.”  

Ogilvie is committed to busting the myth that insurance is a boring business. Among the features of insurance he emphasizes to people early in their careers is the focus on technology and addressing the challenges of climate risk. Catastrophe management – viewed through the lens of artificial intelligence and predictive analytics – has become a cutting-edge discipline. 

This, combined with the fact that many insurance professionals are expected to be retiring over the next decade, “creates an incredible amount of opportunity,” Ogilvie said.