Tag Archives: COVID-19 p/c insurance impact

Business Insurance, Business Risk, Catastrophes, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Floods, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment

Policyholder Surplus Matters: Here’s Why

Leave a comment

Perhaps the most emotionally compelling data point invoked by those who would compel insurers – through litigation and legislation – to pay business-interruption claims explicitly excluded from the policies they wrote is the property/casualty insurance industry’s nearly $800 billion policyholder surplus.

 Many Americans hear “surplus” and think of a bit of cash they have stashed away for emergencies. And when you consider that nearly 40 percent of Americans surveyed by the Federal Reserve said they would either have to borrow or sell something to cover an unexpected $400 expense – or couldn’t pay it at all – that number may sound like overkill. 

Not as much as you think

But policyholder surplus isn’t a “rainy day fund.” It’s an essential part of the industry’s ability to keep the promises it makes to policyholders. And although a number like $800 billion may raise eyebrows, when we look more closely at its components, the amount available to cover claims turns out to be considerably less.

Insurers are regulated on a state-by-state basis. Regulators require them to hold a certain amount in reserve to pay claims based on each insurer’s own risk profile. The aggregation of these reserves – required by every state for every insurer doing business in those states – accounts for about half the oft-cited industry surplus.

Call it $400 billion, for simplicity’s sake.

Each company’s regulator-required surplus can be thought of as that company’s “running on empty” mark – the point at which alarms go off and regulators start talking about requiring it to set even more aside to make sure no policyholders are left in a lurch.

By extension, $400 billion is where alarms begin going off for the entire industry.

It gets worse – or better, depending on your perspective.

In addition to state regulators’ requirements, the private rating agencies that gauge insurers’ financial strength and claims-paying ability don’t want to see reserves get anywhere near “Empty.” To get a strong rating from A.M. Best, Fitch, S&P, or Moody’s, insurers have to keep even more in reserve. 

Why do private agency ratings matter? Consumers and businesses use them to determine what insurer they’ll buy coverage from. Also, stronger ratings can contribute to lower borrowing expenses, which can help keep insurers’ operating costs – and, in turn, policyholders’ premiums – at reasonable levels. 

So, let’s say these additional reserves amount to about $200 billion for the industry. The nearly $800 billion surplus we started with now falls to about $200 billion.

To cover claims by all personal and commercial policyholders in a given year without prompting regulatory and rating agency actions that could drive up insurers’ costs and policyholders’ premiums.

Which brings us to today.

Losses ordinary and extraordinary

In the first quarter of 2020, the industry experienced its largest-ever quarterly decline in surplus, to $771.9 billion. This decline was due, in large part, to declines in stock value related to the economic recession sparked by the coronavirus pandemic.

Nevertheless, the industry remains financially strong, in large part because the bulk of insurers’ investments are in investment-grade corporate and governmental bonds. And it’s a good thing, too, because the conditions underlying that surplus decline preceded an extremely active hurricane season, atypical wildfire activity, and damages related to civil unrest approaching levels not seen since 1992 – involving losses that are not yet reflected in the surplus.

Insured losses from this year’s Hurricane Isaias are estimated in the vicinity of $5 billion. Hurricane Laura’s losses could, by some estimates, be as “small” as $4 billion or as large as $13 billion.

And the Atlantic hurricane season has not yet peaked.

The 2020 wildfire season is off to a horrific start. From January 1 to September 8, 2020, there were 41,051 wildfires, compared with 35,386 in the same period in 2019, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. About 4.7 million acres were burned in the 2020 period, compared with 4.2 million acres in 2019.

In California alone, wildfires have already burned 2.2 million acres in 2020 — more than any year on record. For context, insured losses for California’s November 2018 fires were estimated at more than $11 billion.

And the 2020 wildfire season still has a way to go.

All this is on top of routine claims for property and casualty losses.

Four billion here, 11 billion there – pretty soon we’re talking about “real money,” against available reserves that are far smaller than they at first appear.

No end in sight

Oh, yeah – and the pandemic-fueled recession isn’t expected to reverse any time soon. Economic growth worldwide remains depressed, with nearly every country experiencing declines in gross domestic product (GDP) – the total value of goods and services produced. GDP growth for the world’s 10 largest insurance markets is expected to decrease by 6.99 percent in 2020, compared to Triple-I’s previous estimate of a 4.9 percent decrease. 

If insurers were required to pay business-interruption claims they never agreed to cover – and, therefore, didn’t reserve for – the cost to the industry related to small businesses alone could be as high as $383 billion per month.

This would bankrupt the industry, leaving many policyholders uninsured and insurance itself an untenable business proposition.

Fortunately, Americans seem to be beginning to get this.  A recent poll by Future of American Insurance and Reinsurance (FAIR) found the majority of Americans believe the federal government should bear the financial responsibility for helping businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic. Only 16 percent of respondents said insurers should bear the responsibility, and only 8 percent said they believe lawsuits against insurers are the best path for businesses to secure financial relief.

Further Reading:

POLL: GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE BUSINESS INTERRUPTION SUPPORT

TRIPLE-I GLOBAL OUTLOOK: CONTINUED PRESSURE ON INVESTMENTS & PREMIUMS

BATTLING FIRES, CALIFORNIA ALSO STRUGGLES TO KEEP HOMEOWNERS INSURED

LAURA LOSS ESTIMATES: $4 BILLION TO $13 BILLION

ATYPICAL WILDFIRE ACTIVITY? OF COURSE — IT’S 2020

SWISS RE: A KATRINA-LIKE HURRICANE COULD CAUSE UP TO $200 BILLION IN DAMAGE TODAY

U.K. BUSINESS INTERRUPTION LITIGATION SEEMS UNLIKELY TO AFFECT U.S. INSURERS

RECESSION, PANDEMIC TO IMPACT P/C UNDERWRITING RESULTS, NEW REPORT SHOWS

BUSINESS INTERRUPTION VS. EVENT CANCELLATION: WHAT’S THE BIG DIFFERENCE?

CHUBB CEO SAYS BUSINESS INTERRUPTION POLICIES ARE A GOOD VALUE AND WORK AS THEY SHOULD

TRIPLE-I CHIEF ECONOMIST: P/C INDUSTRY STRONG, DESPITE SURPLUS DROP

INSURED LOSSES DUE TO CIVIL UNREST SEEN NEARING 1992 LEVELS

COVID-19 AND SHIPPING RISK

BUSINESS INTERRUPTION COVERAGE: POLICY LANGUAGE RULES

Industry Financials, Insurers and the Economy

Triple-I Global Outlook: Continued Pressure on Investments & Premiums

Leave a comment

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to depress economic growth around the world, with nearly every country experiencing declines in gross domestic product (GDP) – the total value of goods and services produced. GDP growth for the world’s 10 largest insurance markets is expected to decrease by 6.99 percent in 2020, compared to Triple-I’s previous estimate of a 4.9 percent decrease. 

Forward-looking growth proxies, such as interest rates, government spending, equity markets, and commodity prices, are sending mixed to negative messages about growth into 2021. 

Against this backdrop, Triple-I experts report, the global insurance industry has continued to issue new policies, service existing ones, and process and pay claims. While the final numbers on the extent of the pandemic and recession’s impact on the industry won’t be clear until 2021-2022, early indicators point to flat premium growth in 2020 globally and to significant differences in how the pandemic, monetary policy, and the recession are affecting insurers in the United States versus abroad. 

In its Global Macro and Insurance Outlook for the third quarter, published this week, Triple-I noted that global central banks kept benchmark interest rates mostly on hold in the third quarter at an average of 0.6 percent, reflecting the limits imposed by near-zero interest rates policies. 

Concerns about lower long-term interest rates are increasing as global central banks have pushed rates even lower during the pandemic, the report says. In a recent survey, about 33 percent of U.S. insurers said they assume flat long-term benchmark rates, while 50 percent reported having changed, or say they are in the process of changing, their investment strategy. These changes are likely to accelerate now that the U.S. Federal Reserve officially changed the focus of its monetary policy and central banks around the world follow.  

Interest rates matter because insurers get the bulk of their profits from investment earnings. U.S. insurers, in particular, rely on fixed-income financial instruments like corporate and government bonds.  If lower interest rates put pressure on insurers’ investment earnings, they will have to compensate by raising premiums paid by policyholders or adjusting their risk profiles to reduce claim payouts.   

“COVID-19 and lower economic activity continue to hinder premium growth in property, workers compensation, and auto,” the report says, “while a recent survey indicates that COVID-19 led to a reduction in life premium.” 

The report says it’s too early to determine whether increasing demand for warranty, indemnity, and cyber coverage and a surge of interest in captive insurers will make up for  downward pressure on premium growth across the industry. 

Business Insurance, Business Risk, Emerging Risks

U.K. Business Interruption Litigation Seems Unlikely to Affect U.S. Insurers

Leave a comment

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates insurers in the United Kingdom, has indicated that it doesn’t believe COVID-19-related losses trigger most business insurance policies because such policies typically require a direct connection between financial loss and physical damage to the insured property.

Think fire, flood, wind, or earthquake damage.

The FCA is now litigating a test case involving policies of eight insurers that don’t require property damage to trigger coverage (Hear a three-minute explainer from the Centers for Better Insurance).

Is this case relevant to U.S. property/casualty insurers? It depends on whom you ask.

The FCA is looking at 17 policy wordings from the eight insurers and asking whether COVID-19 triggers a payout. Based on other policies the regulator has studied, the Financial Times reports, the court’s ruling are “expected to apply to nearly 50 insurers, who sold coverage to 370,000 customers.”

Senior executives from specialist insurance and reinsurance underwriter Hiscox Group warned that the FCA’s eventual findings could drive additional COVID-19 losses to its reinsurance book, Artemis reports.

Tom Baker – an expert in insurance law and policy at the University of Pennsylvania – called the U.K. case a “one-way ratchet” for U.S. insurers.

“If the carriers lose or end up having a lot of coverage, that’s going to be bad for them here” in the United States,  Baker said. “I think if the carriers win, the insurance policies [in the U.K.] are really different. They tend to be named-peril, rather than all-risks policies. I think it will be easy to distinguish them.”

Jason Schupp, founder and managing member of Centers for Better Insurance, disagrees that an adverse ruling for U.K. insurers will have much of an effect on their U.S. counterparts.  

“In Europe, [FCA] authorization to provide miscellaneous financial loss insurance allows an insurance company to write business interruption insurance that does not require evidence of property damage” to pay a claim, Schupp says. Even though the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union, Schupp says, “U.K. law itself recognizes the miscellaneous financial loss class of insurance.”

What does this mean for pandemic business interruption coverage in the United States? Not much, according to Schupp.

“The outcome of the U.K. litigation is unlikely to be relevant to the dozens – or perhaps hundreds – of business interruption lawsuits making their way through U.S. courts, where the property damage question is front and center,” Schupp says.

He goes on to say that proposals coming out of Europe or the U.K. for pandemic insurance going forward – such as a Lloyd’s framework – contemplate non-property-damage business interruption insurance solutions…. These proposals do not appear compatible with the current U.S. insurance regulatory system.”

A ruling by the FCA is expected in mid-September. Last week, the regulatory body said that, while the case doesn’t address how any resulting claims payments would be calculated, “We may intervene and take further actions where firms do not appear to be meeting our expectations and treating their customers fairly.”

Business Insurance, Business Risk, Legal Environment

Business Interruption vs. Event Cancellation: What’s the Big Difference?

Leave a comment

As I’ve written previously, the question of whether business interruption provisions in commercial property insurance apply to COVID-19-related losses has become a major topic of debate during this pandemic. Suits have been filed seeking to establish that policyholders are entitled to coverage for such losses – even when losses associated with infectious disease are specifically excluded in the policy language.

This debate has been muddied in some circles by people confusing business interruption coverage with event cancellation insurance.

Citing the fact that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had its claim paid when it cancelled its annual men’s basketball tournament, as did the All England Lawn Tennis Association when it canceled its Wimbledon event, some wonder why many other businesses’ claims are being rejected.

While superficially similar, these claims couldn’t be more different from the business interruption cases currently being litigated.

Business Interruption: Physical Damage Required

Property insurance covers physical loss or damage to an insured’s property. The business interruption provisions of commercial property policies typically require a direct relationship between a physical loss or damage and the resulting lost income. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) form for commercial property coverage – the basis of many policies – specifies that any covered loss due to “necessary suspension” of operations must be caused by “direct physical loss of or damage to property at premises which are described in the Declarations.”

This is a critical point, as most business losses related to COVID-19 are due to employees and customers remaining absent, supply chain disruptions, and other factors – not to physical damage.

 “A property policy may, for example, pay to repair the damage caused by a fire and may cover the loss of business during the reconstruction period,” writes Michael Menapace, a professor of insurance law at Quinnipiac University School of Law and a Triple-I Non-Resident Scholar. “But here’s the rub.  Are the business interruptions related to COVID-19 caused by physical damage to property?”

Insurers say no, arguing that “damage to property” requires structural alteration like one would find when, say, a fire destroys the interior of a building or wind damages windows. The virus leaves no visible imprint. Even if remediation is needed – like cleaning mold from metal surfaces – insurers cite cases in which judges have ruled there’s no physical damage from mold if the mold can be cleaned off.

Add to this the fact that most policies exclude coverage for losses related to infectious diseases and it’s hard to imagine U.S. courts finding in favor of the plaintiffs – particularly when pandemic insurance existed well before COVID-19 and was largely ignored by business owners and risk managers.

Event Cancellation Insurance

COVID-19 has led to the cancellation of events from weddings to business conferences to the Tokyo Summer Olympics. Individuals and businesses buy event cancellation insurance against losses resulting from a cancellation due to circumstances beyond their control, including:

  • Weather or other natural events like hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes, and
  • Human-caused events such as labor strikes and acts of terrorism.

If a policy is an “all-cause” or otherwise unlimited policy, it could cover cancellations due to COVID-19, particularly if purchased before 2020.

Wimbledon’s organizers were among the few who bought event cancellation insurance that specifically included coverage for losses related to “communicable disease” after the 2003 SARS outbreak. They paid about £25.5 million (US$33 million) in premiums since then and are set to receive around £114 million (US$142 million) for this year’s cancelled tournament, according to GlobalData.

GlobalData said the event still faces a net loss. The total Wimbledon revenue loss is estimated at around £250 million (US$328 million).

The NCAA had a policy for its “March Madness” tournament that had to be cancelled.  Its event cancellation policy covered just $270 million, even though the tournament generates more than $800 million a year. The organization reportedly was better prepared for a cancellation several years ago, when it built up savings of nearly $500 million to help mitigate the financial impact of a lost tournament.

“Then, in 2015, new leadership decided to spend more than $400 million of those savings without increasing the NCAA’s insurance coverage by following a questionable theory about the risk of saving that much money,” the Washington Post reports, citing former NCAA employees.

The availability of such coverage without exclusions for infectious disease may be limited or even more expensive in the wake of the current pandemic.

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience

Isaias Expected to ApproachFlorida This Weekend

Leave a comment

Hurricane Isaias is expected to strengthen somewhat, to a strong Category 1 hurricane, as it crosses over the Bahamas Friday and Saturday. The National Hurricane Center (NHC) now forecasts Isaias will come extremely close to the east coast of Florida later this weekend. 

According to the National Weather Service (NWS), the strongest winds in Florida will be felt from Pompano Beach to Palm Bay, where there’s potential for winds from 58 mph to 73 mph. Miami-Dade and most of Broward are predicted to see winds from 39 mph to 57 mph.

The NHC recently posted hurricane watches from north of Deerfield Beach to the Volusia-Brevard County line and forecasts two to four inches of rainfall from south-central to southeastern Florida, with potential totals of six inches. There is also the potential for some storm surge, with exact levels dependent on the future track and intensity of Isaias.

Residents are strongly encouraged to prepare for Isaias and other storms during this above-average hurricane season – particularly with the additional challenge of COVID-19.

Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony said South Floridians should “start to examine what other opportunities or options they may have to be out of South Florida.”

Florida has recently experienced a surge in COVID-19 cases. In preparation for the storm, the Florida Department of Emergency Management has closed all state-run COVID-19 testing sites.

“The more that we can do as individuals and focus on the things we can do to reduce the burden on government will be extremely helpful as the mayor, the county administrator are tackling different new challenges and trying to be innovative to the point where we’re not shutting down government completely, but at the same time, we’re not unnecessarily allowing for hazards and exposures to this virus,” Tony said.

Wind-caused property damage is covered under standard homeowners, renters, and business insurance policies. Renters’ insurance covers a renter’s possessions while the landlord insures the structure.

Property damage to a home, a renter’s possessions, and a business – resulting from a flood – is generally covered under FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies, if the homeowner, renter, or business has purchased one. Several private insurers also offer flood insurance.

Private-passenger vehicles damaged or destroyed by either wind or flooding are covered under the optional comprehensive portion of an auto insurance policy. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. drivers choose to purchase comprehensive coverage.

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience

Isaias Meets COVID-19: South Floridians Advised to Consider Evacuation

Leave a comment

South Floridians should “start to examine what other opportunities or options they may have to be out of South Florida,” Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony said in a virtual press conference as a broad area of low pressure looked increasingly likely to turn into Tropical Storm Isaias.

Tropical storm-force gusts could arrive in Florida as early as Friday night, but Saturday is much more likely, according to the National Weather Service (NWS) Miami.  

Tony said the biggest hurdle officials anticipate during the 2020 hurricane season is the ability to effectively maintain social distance while taking in large numbers of people at county storm shelters. Florida has recently experienced a surge in COVID-19 cases.

“The more that we can do as individuals and focus on the things we can do to reduce the burden on government will be extremely helpful as the mayor, the county administrator are tackling different new challenges and trying to be innovative to the point where we’re not shutting down government completely, but at the same time, we’re not unnecessarily allowing for hazards and exposures to this virus,” Tony said.

In preparation for the storm, the Florida Department of Emergency Management has said it will close all state-run COVID-19 testing sites at the end of business day today.

The storm knocked out power to more than 300,000 clients across Puerto Rico, according to the island’s Electric Power Authority. Minor damage was reported elsewhere in the island, where tens of thousands of people still use tarps as roofs over homes damaged by Hurricane Maria in September 2017.

Business Insurance, Business Risk

COVID-19 and Shipping Risk

Leave a comment

The shipping industry has largely proved resilient to the coronavirus outbreak, and insurance claims related to risks of the sea could be reduced as fewer vessels venture out, insurer Allianz reports in its Safety and Shipping Review 2020. 

However, new challenges have emerged that could lead to more claims. 

“One of the biggest issues,” Allianz reports, “has been the inability to change crews easily because of pandemic restrictions.” 

Crew relief is essential to ensuring the safety and health of seafarers. Fatigued crew members make errors that Allianz says contribute to 75 percent to 96 percent of marine incidents. Damaged goods and containers account for more than one in five shipping claims. 

“The pandemic has heightened the risk environment around high-value and temperature-sensitive goods in particular as supply chains have come under pressure, cargo-handling companies have shut down abruptly, and ports operated under restrictions,” Allianz says. 

COVID-19 also has made it hard to obtain parts and materials like lubricants that are essential to maintenance and repair. This could make ships and the equipment on board them less safe, potentially leading to groundings or collisions. 

Such an outcome could impede or reverse the industry’s steadily improving safety record.  

The number of total losses of large ships fell in 2019 to 41, Allianz reported – “the lowest total this century and a close to 70% fall over 10 years.” 

The insurer credits improved ship design, technology, regulation, and risk management as contributing to the long-term reduction in losses. 

But improved technology can be a two-edged sword as vessels become more reliant on computers and software, making them vulnerable to cyber incursions. The coronavirus outbreak has affected this risk, too, Allianz says, reporting that companies have faced a 400% increase in attempted cyber-attacks since the pandemic began.  

Health & Safety, Workers Compensation

Wrap-up: COVID-19 and Workers Comp

Leave a comment

Lauded for their service and hailed as heroes, essential workers who become infected with the coronavirus on the job have no guarantee in most states that they’ll qualify for workers compensation to cover lost wages and medical care, Associated Press reports. 

Fewer than one-third of the states have enacted policies that shift the burden of proof for coverage of job-related COVID-19 so workers like first responders and nurses don’t have to show they got sick by reporting for a risky assignment. 

And for most employees going back to job sites as the economy reopens, there’s even less protection than for essential workers. In nearly all states, they have to prove they got the virus on the job to qualify for workers comp. 

Workers comp is not health insurance, or an unemployment benefit. In exchange for coverage, workers give up the right to sue their employers for job-related harms. Employers pay premiums to support the system. Complex rules differ from state to state. 

Dealing with job-related injuries is fairly straightforward, but diseases have always been trickier for workers’ comp, and COVID-19 seems to be in a class of its own. 

“You don’t know per se where you inhaled that breath whereby you became infected,” said Bill Smith, president of the Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group, a professional association of lawyers representing workers.  

Read more: 

Families of health workers killed by COVID-19 fight for denied workers comp benefits (Philadelphia Inquirer, July 16, 2020) 

Workers comp in the new world of the COVID-19 pandemic (Law.com, July 16, 2020) 

Report: Sharp drop in California workers’ comp premiums expected from COVID-19 (Insurance Journal, July 14, 2020) 

Insurance Industry, Insurers and the Economy

Triple-I: Insurers Poised to Withstand Challenging Economic Times

Leave a comment

The economic uncertainty brought about by COVID-19 has impacted the U.S. insurance industry’s investment portfolios this year yet insurers cumulatively entered 2020 in a strong financial condition, according to a just-released Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) Economic Snapshot report.

“The good news is the industry is well positioned to provide the safety net we need,” said Dr. Steven Weisbart, Chief Economist and Senior Vice President, Triple-I. “We recognize there’s been deterioration in investment income during the past few months, but the industry was financially strong before the pandemic hit. If a vaccine is discovered, most economists believe the economy will have little trouble bouncing back. Until then, it’s just going to be a longer process than we originally thought.”

The financial fortunes of the U.S.’s property/casualty (P/C) insurers are generally tied to the U.S.’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as auto, home, and business (e.g., construction, workers compensation (w/c)) activity are reflective of the economy’s overall health.

Weisbart says while a combination of government restrictions and personal fear is delaying economic recovery, the insurance industry has been able to provide some relief and flexibility for its private-passenger auto insurance policyholders. More than $14 billion in premium relief had been offered to the nation’s drivers in 2020 as of the end of May, a Triple-I analysis found, and insurers continue to monitor the claims experience of motorists.

The Triple-I report shows some additional positive news for insurers. For example, during the past four years the number of owner-occupied homes has risen following a decade during which there was no increase. This is significant for the P/C insurance industry because virtually every owner-occupied home has homeowners insurance while only about half of renters buy renters insurance.

Pandemic-related changes may also affect workers compensation insurance as some states consider changes to the way w/c claims are processed for front-line workers, such as those in health care and law enforcement. On the other hand, some economists suggest w/c claims may experience a decrease due to the number of people working from home.

The Economic Snapshot’s special topic section focuses on life insurance. Although this sector generated its largest pre-tax operating loss of any quarter in at least 18 years, deaths due to the COVID-19 virus weren’t responsible. Instead, the plunge in interest rates was so steep and is expected to last so long that the industry booked an unprecedented increase in aggregate reserves. Reserves rose to $103.5 billion—a $57 billion increase since the third quarter of 2019.

A copy of the 2Q 2020 P/C Industry Economic Snapshot is available to Triple-I members by logging into the members-only portal at www.iii.org.  Please contact members@iii.org for log in instructions, or information about membership.

Emerging Risks, Legal Environment

Social Inflationand COVID-19

Leave a comment

“Social inflation” refers to rising litigation costs and their impact on insurers’ claim payouts, loss ratios, and, ultimately, how much policyholders pay for coverage. While there’s no universally agreed-upon definition, frequently mentioned aspects of social inflation are growing awards from sympathetic juries and a trend called “litigation funding”, in which investors pay plaintiffs to sue large companies – often insurers – in return for a share in the settlement.

If the idea of social inflation was controversial before the start of the coronavirus pandemic and subsequent economic lockdown, with some calling it a hoax, the subject must now be looked at through the additional lens of COVID-19’s long-term impact on liability questions, plaintiff expectations, and juror attitudes.

A.M. Best said early in the crisis that COVID-19 could produce a big increase in social inflation. The reason: expectations that businesses would sue their insurers in an attempt to access their business interruption coverage for losses relating to the coronavirus pandemic. Such lawsuits have been and continue to be brought.

Hiscox warns about rising Florida risk

Despite reports of rate increases across the property catastrophe reinsurance sector at the mid-year renewals, a Hiscox executive has warned that these improvements could be offset by rising costs of risk in Florida, Reinsurance News reported

After consecutive heavy loss years, some fairly significant loss creep and low interest rates, coupled with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, reinsurance rates reportedly trended in a positive manner at the mid-year renewals, with rises of 20% – 30%, or more in some instances. While reinsurers will welcome rate increases after a prolonged soft market and subsequent pressured returns, the improvements might not be sufficient to account for the increased risk in the region’s market, according to Ross Nottingham, Chair of North America at Hiscox Re and ILS, a division of global insurer and reinsurer Hiscox.

“Why? Because these increases haven’t yet covered our own view of the increased risk in the Florida market, which suggests that the amount of risk going into these programmes is a lot higher than thought last year,” Nottingham said. “That means you might get a 30 percent increase on the programme, but if you’ve measured the risk to the layer and established that it’s potentially worth 40 percent more in premium than it was last year, the margin has in fact decreased.”

Nottingham said the increases being seen in the Florida market in 2020, while positive, are barely covering the additional risk that is out there as evidenced by the substantial levels of adverse loss development on prior year events.

“And what’s continuing to drive loss creep? The villain of the piece is social inflation – a factor not yet captured in the vendor cat models the industry benchmarks for measuring hurricane risk.”

Nottingham says that in Florida social inflation comes from a variety of sources, ranging from assignment of benefits (AOB) litigation to loss adjustment inflation.

AOB abuse has been mitigated somewhat by recent reform legislation. But Nottingham says this reform is expected to have a limited impact on catastrophic claims being litigated and related inflation of a claim once lawyers start to get involved through other avenues.

“Despite insurers’ best efforts to change their original policy forms or to de-risk in the worst performing areas, it is expected that AOB or equivalent abuse will continue after the next big loss event,” says Nottingham. “Two years ago, the market thought the physical attributes of Irma were akin to a one in 10-year event. The loss now – with the advent of social inflation-fueled loss creep – looks more like the cost of a one in 20-year event, but there is no new science to show the expected vulnerability or hazard has changed.”

Another important element impacting reinsurance rates this year is the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which, Nottingham says hasn’t been factored into pricing for the months ahead. Forecasters predict an above-average level of hurricane activity in the Atlantic in 2020, which, coupled with the unprecedented impacts of the virus outbreak, presents unique challenges for the industry.

How Court Lockdowns May Turn Social Inflation Tide

COVID-19 may affect some aspects of social inflation in a different manner, Claims Journal reports.

Speaking at a recent Advisen event – Social Inflation: Truth or Fiction – defense attorney Ellen Greiper reported receiving more than the usual number of phone calls from plaintiffs’ attorneys.

“I have had a flurry of phone calls from plaintiffs who are now willing to take that [settlement] amount I had offered before,” said Greiper, a partner with Lewis Brisbois, Brisgaard & Smith. With courts having been closed as part of the general pandemic lockdown and now slowly reopening, “Those plaintiffs are realizing that they are not going to get a trial for at least two years, no matter what status their case may be and whether it’s discovery or past that. So now they are coming out of the woodwork.”

She added that the plaintiffs are “starting to realize that when we all come back and the jurors don’t have jobs or they’ve been furloughed, they’re not getting $10 million on a cervical fusion. They may realize that’s a ridiculous amount of money.”