Tag Archives: Disaster Resilience

Homeowners Insurance, Insurance Industry

New IRC report indicates that Most Homeowners Expect to Experience Severe Weather in Future and Feel Prepared. 

Leave a comment

While the perception of overall severe weather risks varies significantly by region, 65 percent of the participants nationwide believed their home is at risk from thunderstorms, according to the new report, Catastrophic Weather Events and Mitigation: Survey of Homeowners by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), a division of The Institutes. 

Overall, this and other key report findings revolve around the value of proactive measures for effective preparedness and mitigation strategies to address the increasing risks posed by severe weather events and the need for collaboration between homeowners, insurers, and governments to enhance resilience against natural disasters. The report highlights how interactions with contractors, public adjusters, and attorney involvement can significantly impact recovery timelines, claims frequency, and insurance costs. 

The online survey of over 1,500 respondents investigates U.S. public opinions and homeowners’ experiences with severe weather, offering insights on U.S. regional perceptions of future risks, preparedness levels, attitudes toward mitigation strategies, post-storm solicitations by contractors and service providers, and homeowners; opinions on the roles of insurance and government in managing severe weather-related risks.  

Disaster anticipation and preparedness 

Eighty percent of the responding homeowners expressed confidence in their preparedness for severe weather events. Homeowners participating in the survey who experienced severe weather events in the past five years were significantly more likely to believe that a similar event would occur within the next five years.  

Only 30 percent are aware of premium savings for implementing mitigation measures. However, Eighty-three percent of participants said they would consider implementing catastrophe preparedness and mitigation measures if it meant receiving savings on their insurance premiums, but most of those required premium savings large enough to offset the costs of these measures. Seventy percent revealed they would be willing to pay higher premiums for better protection against future severe weather events. Overall, 80 percent agreed that the government should provide emergency assistance.  

Weather Experiences 

Nearly half of the participants reported damage to their homes after a severe weather event. About 34 percent said they filed an insurance claim after experiencing damage to their homes, and 45 percent said they hired a contractor. Sixty-four percent of respondents reported receiving solicitation from contractors after a severe weather event. Also, 68 percent of participants who filed claims said they used Assignment of Benefits (AOB) to authorize the repair company to bill the insurance carrier. Fifty-four percent reported hiring public adjusters to handle repairs and insurance claims.  

For context, each year, there are about 100,000 thunderstorms in the U.S., about 10% of which reach severe levels, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Storms are classified as severe “ when containing one or more of the following: hail one inch or greater, winds gusting more than 50 knots (57.5 mph), or a tornado.” Data analysis from Munich Re indicates that by just the first six months of 2024, severe thunderstorms in the U.S. caused $45 billion in losses, $34 billion of which were insured, making 2024 the fourth-costliest thunderstorm year on record.  

Between 1980 and 2024 (as of November 1), the U.S. experienced 400 weather and climate disasters, with overall damage costs for each reaching or exceeding $1 billion. The cumulative cost for these 400 events exceeds $2.78 trillion. The yearly average for events during this period is 8.5, with the annual average for 2019 –2023 being 20.4. However, the U.S. experienced 28 events in 2023 and 27 events in 2024 costing at least 1 billion dollars each. 

Stakeholder Takeaways 

While climate risk plays a significant role in the number and severity of extreme weather events that cause insurance industry losses, Triple-I has kept an eye on the impact of the unpredictable confluence of attorney fee mechanisms, assignment of benefits (AOB), and other practices that can amplify claim costs. For example, involving third parties has the propensity to introduce the risk of claim inflation and may compound issues for the policyholder.  

When property owners are compelled to share their claim value (typically 30 – 40 percent to attorneys and 10 – 30 percent to public adjusters), this, in turn, may impact the final amount they feel necessary to settle a claim. Previous IRC research suggests that attorney involvement can increase claims costs and the time needed to resolve them (again, even while reducing value for claimants). Additionally, after a severe weather event, some exploitative actors can aggressively leverage assignment of benefits (AOBs) agreements to bill or even sue the insurer without further input from the policyholder. Policyholders lose the ability to work through and settle the claim efficiently. 

Triple-I and key insurance industry stakeholders define legal system abuse as policyholder or plaintiff attorney practices that increase costs and time to settle insurance claims, including situations when a disputed claim could have been fairly resolved without judicial intervention. Without measures such as regulatory intervention and increased policyholder awareness, coverage affordability and availability are at risk. Insurers, policyholders, and policymakers can take actionable steps to address the legal system’s impact on the cost of insurance. Triple-I remains committed to advancing the conversation and exploring actionable strategies with all stakeholders.  

To learn more, read this latest IRC report, our most recent brief on Legal System abuse, and follow our blog. 

Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience

Modern Building Codes Would Prevent Billions In Catastrophe Losses

Leave a comment

A new study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could be instrumental to its effort to persuade states and localities to adopt up-to-date building codes. 

The study, titled Building Codes Save: A Nationwide Study of Loss Prevention, quantifies the physical and economic losses associated with flooding, hurricanes, and earthquakes that have been avoided due to buildings being constructed according to modern, hazard-resistant building codes and standards.  

In California and Florida – two of the most catastrophe-prone U.S. states – the study found that “adopting and enforcing modern hazard-resistant building codes over the past 20 years indicate a long-term average future savings of $1 billion per year for those two states combined.” 

“The combined savings from these two states demonstrate the high value of adopting I-Codes for hazard mitigation as a return on investment,” FEMA wrote, referring to model construction codes published by the International Code Council. 

“This gives us the foundation to back up the recommendations that we’re making,” FEMA building engineer Jonathan Westcott said at a recent conference on flood prevention. 

The study is part of FEMA’s broader effort to reduce the growing cost of natural disasters by convincing states and municipalities to adopt post-2000 building codes. Two-thirds of the nation’s localities haven’t adopted recent model codes, Westcott said. 

Communities often don’t understand the long-term benefits of adopting stronger codes. 

“Instead of just hearing about how expensive it is to add a foot of freeboard,” Wescott said, “they’re going to understand the financial benefits of doing that so they can make a balanced decision on what’s best for their community.” 

Disaster Preparedness, Insurers and the Economy

Federal Reserve’s Randal K. Quarles and the I.I.I.’s Sean Kevelighan talk resilience – financial and otherwise

Leave a comment

 

By Lucian McMahon

“It’s a mistake to try and think of resilience from the point of view of trying to predict what can happen and then to respond to a predicted event, because you won’t know what’s going to happen,” said vice chairman for supervision and member of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System Randal K. Quarles at the Insurance Information Institute’s (I.I.I.) 2019 Joint Industry Forum. “The important thing is to ensure that you have measures in effect […] that promote resiliency no matter what might happen.”

Left to right: Sean Kevelighan and Randal Quarles

Resilience is more than prevention

In his conversation with the I.I.I. CEO Sean Kevelighan, Quarles stressed that financial stability depends on resilience, the ability to absorb system shocks no matter their source. “Wherever the shock might come from, it’s important that the institution or system is resilient to shock,” he said.

Cyberrisk is a perfect example. Quarles noted that a lot of the discussion around cyberrisks is about prevention. But he argued that prevention is only one part of cyberrisk resilience. “A key element to resilience is to assume that something will happen, and then determine how you have constructed a system that can stand back up, withstand, and respond to that shock.”

The U.S. economy appears to remain resilient during recent events

Quarles noted that the data on the real economy remains strong. Job creation continues. There’s been an uptick in the labor force participation. The economy is growing without unconstrained inflation.

But what about the recent stock market fluctuations and the ominous financial news coming out of Europe and Asia? “I think recently financial markets have been reacting to a few things,” Quarles said. “Mostly it’s doubt in the strength of continuing global growth. Some of the data that’s come out of China and Europe would suggest a little bit of less growth in the near term.”

Nonetheless, Quarles pointed out that markets might be more attuned to downside risks. He is confident that the core fundamentals of the economy remain strong. “The fundamental fact is that the financial sector is much more highly capitalized, has more liquidity, than it had before the crisis. Our assessment of risk to stability in the current environment is moderate.”

Quarles acknowledged that certain global events (particularly recent threats to trade openness) could impact the financial sector. The Fed, however, is alert to it. Quarles remains optimistic. “The hope is that a lot of these current events, current issues, will be way stations on the way to a more stable, more politically-supported open economy. It’s in everyone’s long term interest.”

In other words, the hope is that the economy is more resilient to shocks than it had been in the past.