Triple-I Blog | How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis</BR>In California

California is not the only U.S. state struggling with insurance availability and affordability, but — as described in a new Triple-I Issues Brief — its problems are exacerbated by a three-decades-old legislative measure that severely constrains insurers’ ability to profitably insure property in the state.

Instead of letting insurers use the most current data and advanced modeling technologies to inform pricing, Proposition 103 requires them to price coverage based on historical data alone. It also bars insurers from incorporating the cost of reinsurance into their prices.

Insurers’ underwriting profitability is measured using a “combined ratio” that represents the difference between claims and expenses insurers pay and the premiums they collect. A ratio below 100 represents an underwriting profit, and one above 100 represents a loss.

As the chart shows, insurers have earned healthy underwriting profits on their homeowners business in all but two of the 10 years between 2013 and 2022. However, the claims and expenses paid in 2017 and 2018 – due largely to wildfire-related losses – were so extreme that the average combined ratio for the period was 108.1.

Underwriting profitability matters because that is where the money comes from to maintain “policyholder surplus” – the funds insurers set aside to ensure that they can pay future claims. Integral to maintaining policyholder surplus is risk-based pricing, which means aligning underwriting and pricing with the cost of the risk being covered. Insurers hire teams of actuaries and data scientists to make sure pricing is tightly aligned with risk, and state regulators and lawmakers closely scrutinize insurers to make sure pricing is fair to policyholders.

To accurately underwrite and price coverage, insurers must be able to set premium rates prospectively. As shown above, one or two years that include major catastrophes can wipe out several years of underwriting profits – thereby contributing to the depletion of policyholder surplus if rates are not raised.

California is a large and potentially profitable market in which insurers want to do business, but current loss trends and the constraints of Proposition 103 have caused several to reassess their appetite for writing coverage in the state. Wildfire losses, combined with events like early 2023’s anomalous rains and, more recently, Hurricane Hilary, increase the urgency for California to continue investing in risk reduction and resilience. The state also needs to update its regulatory regime to remove impediments to underwriting.

An effort in the state legislature to rectify some of the issues making California less attractive to insurers failed in September 2023. With fewer private insurance options available, more Californians are resorting to the state’s FAIR plan, which offers less coverage for a higher premium.

Want to know more about the risk crisis and how insurers are working to address it? Check out Triple-I’s upcoming Town Hall, “Attacking the Risk Crisis,” which will be held Nov. 30 in Washington, D.C.

Ten states – Louisiana, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia – as well as additional plaintiffs, are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over its new methodology for pricing flood insurance, Risk Rating 2.0. On Sept. 14, a federal hearing lasted six hours as the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt the new pricing regime while the lawsuit plays out.

Many residents of these states are understandably upset about seeing their flood insurance premium rates rise under the new approach. There may not be much comfort for them in knowing that the current system is much fairer than the previous one, in which higher-risk homeowners subsidized those with lower risks. Similarly, policyholders who have had their premium rates reduced under Risk Rating 2.0 are unlikely to take to the streets in celebration.

These homeowners aren’t alone in seeing insurance rates rise – or even having to struggle to obtain insurance. And these difficulties aren’t confined to holders of flood insurance policies. Florida and California are two states in which insurers have been forced to rethink their risk appetite – due in part to rising natural catastrophe losses and in part to regulatory and litigation environments that make it increasingly difficult for insurers to profitably write coverage.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – and the supply-chain and inflationary pressures they created – the property/casualty insurance market was hardening as insurers adjusted their pricing and their risk appetites to keep pace with conditions that were driving losses up and eroding underwriting profitability – topics Triple-I has written about extensively (see a partial list below).

“Rising insurance rates are not the problem,” says Dale Porfilio, chief insurance officer at Triple-I. “They are a symptom of rising losses related to a range of factors, from climate and population trends to post-pandemic driving behaviors and surging cybercrime to antiquated policies, outdated building codes, fraud, and legal system abuse.”

In short, we are not experiencing an “insurance crisis,” as many media outlets tend to describe the current state of the market; we are experiencing a risk crisis. And even as the states referenced above push back against much-needed flood insurance reform, legislators in several states have been pushing measures that would restrict insurers’ ability to price coverage accurately and fairly – rather than addressing the underlying perils and forces aggravating them.

Triple-I, its members, and a range of partners are working to educate stakeholders and decisionmakers and promote pre-emptive risk mitigation and investment in resilience. We are using our position as thought leaders and our unique non-lobbying role in the insurance industry to reach across sector boundaries and drive constructive action. You will be hearing more about these efforts over the next few months.

The success of these efforts will require a collective understanding among stakeholders and decisionmakers that for insurance to be available and affordable frequency and severity of risk must be measurably reduced. This will require highly focused, integrated projects and programs – many of them at the community level – in which all stakeholders (co-beneficiaries of these efforts) will share responsibility.