The trusted source of unique, data-driven insights on insurance to inform and empower consumers. Insurance Information Institute

Auto Insurers Contend With Rising Costs

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

Auto premiums continue to increase as rising labor and material prices, alongside natural disasters, are forcing insurers to contend with significant losses.

As  Triple-I previously found in its January report, Insurance Economics and Underwriting Projections: A Forward View, “commercial auto underwriting losses continue, with a projected 2023 net combined ratio of 110.2, the highest since 2017,” according to Jason B. Kurtz, FCAS, MAAA, a Principal and Consulting Actuary at Milliman. Combined ratio is a standard measure of underwriting profitability, in which a result below 100 represents a profit and one above 100 represents a loss. 

Insurers are now having to increase rates in response to losses that are expected to keep rising.

“Nobody wants to have that higher-price bill,” said Sean Kevelighan, Triple-I’s CEO. However, he added companies “need to price insurance according to the risk level that’s out there.”

While inflation is partially to blame for these increases, natural disasters are also contributing to rising costs—and not only in traditionally disaster-prone areas like Florida and California.

As the overall P&C industry has struggled with severe convective storms, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, these losses have also been felt in commercial auto. In fact, 2023 witnessed around two dozen U.S. storms,  each with losses of around a billion dollars or more. This included major lightning, hail, and damaging winds around many areas of the of the U.S.

“While a lot of these storms don’t make national headlines, they do tend to be very costly at the local level,” says Tim Zawacki, principal research analyst for insurance at S&P Global Market Intelligence. “And the breadth of where these storms are occurring is something that I think the industry is quite concerned about.”

While disasters and economic inflation continue to roil commercial auto, so too does social inflation. As the Triple-I previously reported, “social inflation,” which is the presence of inflation in excess of economic inflation, has also significantly contributed to increases in commercial auto premiums.

Triple-I found that “from 2013 to 2022, increasing inflation drove losses up by between $35 billion and $44 billion, or between 19 percent and 24 percent. The pandemic brought significant change to commercial auto liability, decreasing claim frequency while increasing claim severity more dramatically.”

This increased claim severity is at least partially due to changing driving patterns since the pandemic, including distracted driving, which involves behaviors like cellphone use while behind the wheel. A Triple-I Issues Brief, Distracted Driving: State of the Risk, enumerated these concerns, which have undoubtedly played a role in rising commercial auto premiums.

Indeed, a confluence of issues are playing into rising auto premiums. While natural disasters are out of the control of insurance providers and their policyholders, other factors must be addressed to steady the cost of this line of insurance. This includes telematics and usage-based insurance, which has gained more acceptance since the pandemic.

Still, it is incumbent on insurers, policyholders, and policymakers to create a more sustainable market for auto insurance, working together to tackle the challenges of both climate risk and dangerous driving behavior.

Evolving Risks Demand Integrated Approaches

Even as the Smokehouse Creek Fire – the largest wildfire ever to burn across Texas – was declared “nearly contained” this week, the Texas A&M Service warned that conditions are such that the remaining blazes could spread and even more might break out.

“Today, the fire environment will support the potential for multiple, high impact, large wildfires that are highly resistant to control” in the Texas Panhandle, the service said.

This year’s historic Texas fires – like the state’s 2021 anomalous winter storms, California’s recent flooding after years of drought, and a surge in insured losses due to severe convective storms across the United States – underscore the variability of climate-related perils and the need for insurers to be able to adapt their underwriting and pricing to reflect this dynamic environment. It also highlights the importance of using advanced data capabilities to help risk managers better understand the sources and behaviors of these events in order to predict and prevent losses.

For example, Whisker Labs – a company whose advanced sensor network helps monitor home fire perils, as well as tracking faults in the U.S. power grid – recorded about 50 such faults in Texas ahead of the Smokehouse Creek fires.

Bob Marshall, Whisker Labs founder and chief executive, told the Wall Street Journal that evidence suggests Xcel Energy’s equipment was not durable enough to withstand the kind of extreme weather the nation and world increasingly face. Xcel – a major utility with operations in Texas and other states — has acknowledged that its power lines and equipment “appear to have been involved in an ignition of the Smokehouse Creek fire.”

“We know from many recent wildfires that the consequences of poor grid resilience can be catastrophic,” said Marshall, noting that his company’s sensor network recorded similar malfunctions in Maui before last year’s deadly blaze that ripped across the town of Lahaina.

Role of government

Government has a critical role to play in addressing the risk crisis. Modernizing building and land-use codes; revising statutes that facilitate fraud and legal system abuse that drive up claim costs; investing in infrastructure to reduce costly damage related to storms – these and other avenues exist for state and federal government to aid disaster mitigation and resilience.

Too often, however, the public discussion frames the current situation as an “insurance crisis” – confusing cause with effect. Legislators, spurred by calls from their constituents for lower premiums, often propose measures that would tend to worsen the problem because they fail to reflect the importance of accurately valuing risk when pricing coverage.

The federal “reinsurance” proposal put forth in January by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff of California is a case in point. If enacted, it would dismantle the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and create a “catastrophic property loss reinsurance program” that, among other things, would set coverage thresholds and dictate rating factors based on input from a board in which the insurance industry is only nominally represented.

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (also of California) has proposed a Wildfire Insurance Coverage Study Act to research issues around insurance availability and affordability in wildfire-prone communities. During  House Financial Services Committee deliberations, Waters compared current challenges in these communities to conditions related to flood risk that led to the establishment of NFIP in 1968. She said there is a precedent for the federal government to step in when there is a “private market failure.”

However, flood risk in 1968 and wildfire risk in 2024 could not be more different. Before FEMA established the NFIP, private insurers were generally unwilling to underwrite flood risk because the peril was considered too unpredictable. The rise of sophisticated computer modeling has since given private insurers much greater confidence covering flood (see chart).

In California, some insurers have begun rethinking their appetite for writing homeowners insurance – not because wildfire losses make properties in the state uninsurable but because policy and regulatory decisions made over 30 years ago have made it hard to write the coverage profitably. Specifically, Proposition 103 and its regulatory implementation have blocked the use of modeling to inform underwriting and pricing and restricted insurers’ ability to incorporate reinsurance costs into their premium pricing.

California’s Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara last year announced a Sustainable Insurance Strategy for the state that includes allowing insurers to use forward-looking risk models that prioritize wildfire safety and mitigation and include reinsurance costs into their pricing. It is reasonable to expect that Lara’s modernization plan will lead to insurers increasing their business in the state.

It’s understandable that California legislators are eager to act on climate risk, given their long history with drought, fire, landslides and more recent experience with flooding due to “atmospheric rivers.” But it’s important that any such measures be well thought out and not exacerbate existing problems.

Partners in resilience

Insurers have been addressing climate-related risks for decades, using advanced data and analytical tools to inform underwriting and pricing to ensure sufficient funds exist to pay claims. They also have a natural stake in predicting and preventing losses, rather than just continuing to assess and pay for mounting claims.

As such, they are ideal partners for businesses, communities, governments, and nonprofits – anyone with a stake in climate risk and resilience. Triple-I is engaged in numerous projects aimed at uniting diverse parties in this effort. If you represent an organization that is working to address the risk crisis and your efforts would benefit from involvement with the insurance industry, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact us with a brief description of your work and how the insurance industry might help.

Learn More:

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Wildfire

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Flood

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: California’s Risk Crisis

Triple-I “Trends and Insights” Issues Brief: Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance

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

Tamping Down Wildfire Threats

Will the D&O market conditions remain favorable? Allianz report says 2024 will bring its share of challenges.

Several global challenges pose a significant threat to maintaining soft market conditions for Directors and Officers (D&O) liability coverage, according to the most recent report on the sector by Allianz.

A list of salient risks and trends to monitor during 2024 spans various areas, including:

  • Macroeconomics,
  • Geopolitical,
  • Generative AI (GenAI),
  • Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), and
  • Class action filings and third-party litigation funding.

According to the latest edition of Directors and Officers Insurance Insights, any of these factors could change the outlook for a competitive market this year.

The D&O market may have mostly avoided the bumps and scrapes faced by other lines of coverage in 2023. With double-digit decreases in insurance pricing worldwide, new market entrants, favorable loss ratios, and a reduction in the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), the environment contrasts sharply with the early pandemic years of 2020 and 2021. Over 90 percent of D&O underwriters (in a separate study) expected pricing to decrease or stay the same for mature public companies in 2024.

However, Allianz (in conjunction with Munich Re) predicted business insolvencies may rise by 10 percent in 2024. In today’s dynamic environment, organizations — from startups to multi-national behemoths — may rely on D&O policies to manage liabilities arising from executive leadership decisions. Having coverage in place signifies attention to the bottom line and removes a barrier to recruiting the best leadership talent.

The 2023 economy delivered many hurdles, particularly in rising costs and interest rates, rendering the effective management of capital expenditure[DJ1]   and debt a cryptic challenge for organizations and their executives. Add to that mix insolvency activity that is starting to look similar to what followed the 2009 global financial crisis. The “likelihood of a recession in the US and UK continues to rise in 2024,” the report says.

Citing Fitch’s analysis, the report warns of threats to future profitability from “weaker pricing and the potential claims volatility from a myriad of sources.” Still, Allianz suggests that reserves from most recent years may safeguard “near-term underwriting results.”

The early 2023 banking crisis is expected to leave a mark on the D&O segment as each of the bank failures and near failures – widely attributed to substandard banking practices – resulted in a securities fraud claim. The forecasted multi-billion dollar losses in market cap and final disclosure pose an enormous threat to insurance towers, the layers of coverage spreading risk across multiple insurers and coverage levels to diversify overall risk exposure. Consequently, the report advises closely monitoring banks with large commercial property portfolios and how the Treasury plans to rebuild its cash balance from the lowest level in seven years.

The report discusses how technology advancements offer a mixed bag for the D&O segment, creating advantages for organizational efficiency and productivity but also new risks surrounding cybersecurity, regulatory requirements, transparency and governance, litigation, and investor expectations. Cybersecurity, in general, has been on the radar for several years now. However Generative AI (GenAI), a relatively new technology in the risk management spotlight, could enable more threats for cyber risk management.

Separately, Gen AI has already sparked intellectual property and privacy claims. Future claims could emerge in securities, breach of fiduciary, shareholder, and derivative lawsuits. The report states that managing risks posed by Gen AI requires the cultivation of expertise-driven best practices and protocols.

Another 21st-century issue, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), appears to have permanently taken root as a factor in the D&O risk landscape. Despite the ongoing debate over its value, definition, and measurement, the ESG framework encompasses a growing list of conundrums faced by directors and officers. Organizations don’t operate in a vacuum but in communities where human rights, climate risk, and other ESG concerns can infiltrate business-as-usual operations. Tactics that avoid or incur costly regulatory sanctions can also spark lawsuits from private stakeholders.

“In a world that is becoming increasingly polarized politically and socially, the very need for directors to evaluate and address the impact of various ESG factors on corporate value creates that claims will be made…on either or both sides of any given issue,” the report states.

The specter of increased litigation costs persists as federal securities class actions climbed to 201 by early December in 2023 (up from 197 in 2022) and total settlement dollars outpaced historical levels. Figures for only the first half of 2023 exceeded the total for 2022, climbing to a ten-year record high.

The D&O segment has always been dynamic, and claims can arise from various sources, including shareholders, employees, regulatory agencies, competitors, and customers. Therefore, the product continues to play a vital role in mitigating the risks associated with corporate governance and protecting the interests of directors, officers, and the companies they serve. Overall, the market’s future will remain competitive as established insurers move to address underwriting challenges, but it’s not likely that the 2024 environment will be hospitable to new insurers lacking a substantial portfolio.

NAIC, FIO to Collaborate on Data Collection Around Climate Risk

When the U.S. Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office (FIO) announced in December 2022 that it was considering a new data-reporting mandate for certain property/casualty insurers, it raised red flags for insurers and policyholders.

In response to a request for comments on the proposed data call, Triple-I told FIO the requested data would be duplicative, could lead to misleading conclusions, and – by increasing insurers’ operational costs – would ultimately lead to higher premium rates for policyholders.

“Fulfilling this new mandate would require insurers to pull existing staff from the work they already are doing or hire staff to do the new work, increasing their operational costs,” Triple-I wrote. “As FIO well knows, state-by-state regulation prevents insurers from ‘tweaking’ their cash flows in response to change the way more lightly regulated industries can. Higher costs inevitably drive increases in policyholder premium rates.”

In its own response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) emphasized the importance of collaboration with the industry to avoid such unintended consequences.

“While we recognize the Treasury’s desire to better understand the impact of climate risk and weather-related exposures on the availability and affordability of the homeowners’ insurance market,” NAIC wrote, “we are disappointed and concerned that Treasury chose not to engage insurance regulators in a credible exercise to identify data elements gathered by either the industry or the regulatory community.”

FIO has listened and responded appropriately. The agency has abandoned its plan to gather data on home insurance rates and availability in high-risk states. Instead, NAIC announced that it has implemented a nationwide Property & Casualty Market Intelligence Data Call (PCMI) in collaboration with FIO.

“The PCMI data call represents the collaborative, nonpartisan work that state insurance regulators have undertaken through the NAIC to address the critical challenge of the affordability and availability of homeowners’ insurance and the financial health of insurance companies,” said NAIC president Andrew Mais, who also serves as Connecticut’s insurance commissioner.

The change in approach is important both on its own merits – in ensuring that FIO obtains the information it needs without excessively and unnecessarily burdening the insurance industry – and in the recognition it reflects that federal actions affecting the insurance industry should involve the industry. For example, legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff earlier this year to create a federal “catastrophe reinsurance program” raises several concerns that warrant scrutiny and discussion – not the least of which is that it would set coverage thresholds and dictate rating factors based on input from a board in which the insurance industry is only nominally represented.

“Triple-I commends the decision by FIO and NAIC to collaborate on a joint comprehensive property/casualty insurance data call to gather insights into the dramatic changes we’re seeing in the insurance marketplace,” said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan. “Insurance companies are committed to finding solutions for how we can predict and prevent property damage from natural disasters, as well as keeping costs of coverage at competitive levels. Data calls are time-consuming and expensive. A unified collection of data will help make this a more efficient process.”

Learn More:

Federal “Reinsurance” Proposal Raises Red Flags

FEMA Reauthorization Session Highlights Importance of Risk Transfer and Reduction

NAIC Seeks Granular Data From Insurers to Help Fill Local Protection Gaps

Data Call Would Hinder Climate-Risk Efforts More Than It Would Help

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

Complex Risks in a Complicated World: Are Federal Backstops the Answer?

Triple-I Responds to SEC’s Proposed Climate-Risk Disclosure Requirements

Triple-I CEO: Insurance Leading on Climate Risk

Calif. Risk/Regulatory Environment Highlights Role of Risk-Based Pricing

Even as California moves to address regulatory obstacles to fair, actuarially sound insurance underwriting and pricing, the state’s risk profile continues to evolve in ways that underscore the importance of risk-based insurance pricing and investment in mitigation and resilience.

Triple-I’s latest “State of the Risk” Issues Brief discusses this changing risk environment and the impact of Proposition 103 – a three-decades-old measure that has made it hard for insurers to profitably write coverage in the state. In a dynamically evolving risk environment that includes earthquakes, drought, wildfire, landslides, and — in recent years, due to “atmospheric rivers” — damaging floods, Proposition 103 has prevented insurers from using the most current data and advanced modeling technologies. Instead, it has required them to price coverage based on historical data alone.

It also has restricted accurate underwriting and pricing by not allowing insurers to incorporate the cost of reinsurance into their pricing. Insurers use reinsurance to maximize their capacity to write coverage, and reinsurance rates have been rising for many of the same reasons as primary insurance rates. If insurers can’t reflect reinsurance costs in their pricing – particularly in catastrophe-prone areas – they must pay for these costs from policyholder surplus, reduce their market share in the state, or do both.

Proposition 103 also has impeded premium rate changes by allowing consumer advocacy groups to intervene in the rate-approval process. This makes it hard to respond quickly to changing market conditions, resulting in approval delays and rates that don’t accurately reflect current (let alone future) risk. It also drives up legal and administrative costs.

This has led, in some cases, to insurers deciding to limit or reduce their business in the state. With fewer private insurance options available, more Californians are resorting to the state’s FAIR Plan, which offers less coverage for a higher premium.

This isn’t a tenable situation.

In September 2023, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara announced a Sustainable Insurance Strategy for the state that includes allowing insurers to use forward-looking risk models that prioritize wildfire safety and mitigation and include reinsurance costs into their premium pricing. In exchange, insurers must cover homeowners in wildfire-prone parts of the state at 85 percent of their statewide coverage.

Issues around property insurance affordability are not confined to California. They’ve been a long time in the making, and they won’t be resolved overnight.

“Any sustainable solutions will have to rest on actuarially sound underwriting and pricing principles,” the Triple-I brief says. “Unfortunately, too often, the public discourse frames the risk crisis as an `insurance crisis’ – conflating cause with effect. Legislators, spurred by calls from their constituents for lower insurance premiums, often propose measures that would tend to worsen the problem because these proposals generally fail to reflect the importance of accurately valuing risk when pricing coverage.”

California’s Proposition 103 and the federal flood insurance program prior to its Risk Rating 2.0 reforms are just two examples, according to Triple-I.

Learn More:

Triple-I Issues Brief: Wildfire

Triple-I Issues Brief: Flood

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

How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis in California

Is California Serious About Wildfire Risk?

Dear California: As You Prep for Wildfire, Don’t Neglect Quake Risk

Advancing diversity requires insurers and prospects to adopt a proactive mindset

Tiara Wallace recently accepted her role as the Director of Risk for Invesco US and can’t seem to hide her contagious excitement for her profession. After announcing in a recent interview with Triple-I that she is a new “dog mom,” she proudly revealed that she is a parent to a 20-year-old “who is in college and recently switched his major to risk management.”

She had explained to her son how some activities in his current (but unrelated) campus job, such as “reviewing contracts and determining if the appeal process is working,” could be a good foundation for a future role in the field.

Wallace’s advocacy for careers in risk management doesn’t stop with her family. Having spent some time as an adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma, she delights in frequently sharing with young people the benefits and opportunities they might find in her profession. She tells them that “insurance and risk management is such a great and lucrative career,” welcoming people from various backgrounds.

“Some folks have college, some people just have experience in the industry. But you’re able to make it into whatever you need for your life. And there’s so many routes you can go down.”

She launched her journey by working in claims adjustment for ten years. Then she decided it was time for a change. “Do I pivot now and make the change into something else?” she asked herself. 

A friend remarked on her talent for educating people and understanding what drives claims. “Have you ever thought about safety or risk management?” her friend asked.

Wallace says a risk management major wasn’t available to her as an undergraduate. “So I did what any typical millennial does and I got on the Internet and started to look up jobs.”

She was surprised to discover she was already familiar with the foundations. She thought, “This is what we all do day-to-day, right – managing our decisions and determining where our risk appetite is?

She gives ample credit to her mentor, who has since become a family friend, for giving her a transformational opportunity. “He was the VP of Risk for a privately held bank in Oklahoma,” she says. He hired her as the risk manager for a family group of 20 ultra-high-net-worth individuals.

The job suited her well. “It was never mundane…and that really spoke to me and really started the journey into risk management for me.”

Years later, Wallace eventually relocated to Dallas and is now in her role working with commercial real estate and private equity at Invesco. The knowledge and skills she acquired working with the private firm are helping her excel in a publicly traded company, where she continues to grow.

“I’m learning a ton, and there’s a lot coming at me, but I enjoy the challenge.”

When asked what changes she’s witnessed in her field over the years regarding diversity, Wallace is candid, pragmatic, and hopeful.

“Going from a call center and claims where you see all types of people to these areas where it’s on the commercial side, and I’m going to different conferences. Sometimes, you can see the same type of person that fills the role.”

Wallace describes her firsthand account of an issue that is widely documented by various organizations – from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to key players in the risk management field, such as  Marsh.

For example, BLS data on Black and African American representation in the insurance industry shows that representation is increasing, with 14.6% employees in the field, up from 9.9% in 2014. Black professionals held 19.2% of insurance claims and processing clerk roles. However, as of 2020, only 1.8% (just three out of 168) of executive employees in the industry are Black, according to data sourced by Reuters

 “In the last three or four years, I think what I’ve began to see, just from the different generations entering in, is there is a more of a push for that diversity,” Wallace says. She notes that the diversity sought is not only in race, ethnicity, gender, and other identities but also in neurodiversity and professional backgrounds.

“I think that we still have a long way to go. But we’re starting to see more where the realization is, hey, we need a diverse candidate pool because here in the next what, 5 to 10 years, we’re gonna have an exodus in this market.”

Wallace admits that, as a long-standing industry, insurance can take some time to catch up while technology, demographics, and other structural factors are rapidly changing the game for the entire economy.

“We have not traditionally, and we’re still currently, not always quick to jump on thinking proactively or moving forward.” Nonetheless, Wallace says she is taking an active role in creating the future she wants to see.

“And so I think the thing that I started to realize is… I’m gonna be part of this change. So let me get involved in organizations.” Her educational experience likely played a role in this outlook.

She recalls how her college business fraternity leader asked her to “Go find three people that look like you. And three people that do not look or come from where you come from and recruit them.”

Wallace took up the challenge, of course. “That was one of the most phenomenal years because I got to learn so much. So I brought that mindset into this industry,” she says.

When Wallace was studying for her master’s degree years ago, a professor encouraged the class to be “agents of social change, like go in and be a disruptor.”

Now, when she advises people on connecting with diverse prospects, she asks whether they are searching beyond their personal networks and traditional spaces. “Are you going to HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities)? Are you going to different candidate pools? Are you going to rural cities and towns where maybe people have not historically gone into? Are you also talking to veterans?”

Wallace also recognizes that the work environment will be as critical to diversity success as recruiting tactics. For example, she asks, “Are our spaces friendly and inviting to those that maybe have disabilities?”

She encourages aspiring professionals to think beyond the cliche of an insurance job to see where they may fit.  “Are you good at marketing? Because these insurance companies need marketing departments. Are you handy on the Internet? Oh, well, great. There’s a place in cyber or also IT (Information Technology) infrastructure.” The goal, she says, is “just having these conversations to get different people into this space…in the industry.”

“Some of you are gonna be strategic, too, you know, to implant yourselves in areas that traditionally have not allowed you to enter.”

Wallace says she would tell her younger self that being bolder and assertive in asking for what she needs will be crucial.

“As a woman, you better be able to sell yourself and brag on yourself and not and not take a step back and just assume that’s what everyone is doing. Make the ask because you can get paid for what it is. But you have to be bold enough — whether that’s a sale, whether that’s a salary, whether that’s you need staffing in your department, or you need help. Make the ask because you are the one that is in there working it day to day.”

New Illinois Bills
Would Harm — Not Help — Auto Policyholders

Two bills proposed in Illinois this year illustrate yet again the need for lawmakers to better understand how insurance works. Illinois HB 4767 and HB 4611 – like their 2023 predecessor, HB 2203 – would harm the very policyholders the measures aim to help by driving up the cost for insurers to write personal auto coverage in the state.

“These bills, while intended to address rising insurance costs, would have the opposite impact and likely harm consumers by reducing competition and increasing costs for Illinois drivers,” said a press release issued by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the Illinois Insurance Association, and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. “Insurance rates are first and foremost a function of claims and their costs. Rather than working to help make roadways safer and reduce costs, these bills seek to change the state’s insurance rating law and prohibit the use of factors that are highly predictive of the risk of a future loss.”

The proposed laws would bar insurers from considering nondriving factors that are demonstrably predictive of claims when setting premium rates.

“Prohibiting highly accurate rating factors…disconnects price from the risk of future loss, which necessarily means high-risk drivers will pay less and lower-risk drivers will pay more than they otherwise would pay,” the release says. “Additionally, changing the rating law and factors used will not change the economics or crash statistics that are the primary drivers of the cost of insurance in the state.”

Triple-I agrees with the key concerns raised by the other trade organizations. As we have written previously, such legislation suggests a lack of understanding about risk-based pricing that is not isolated to Illinois legislators – indeed, similar proposals are submitted from time to time at state and federal levels.

What is risk-based pricing?

Simply put, risk-based pricing means offering different prices for the same level of coverage, based on risk factors specific to the insured person or property. If policies were not priced this way – if insurers had to come up with a one-size-fits-all price for auto coverage that didn’t consider vehicle type and use, where and how much the car will be driven, and so forth – lower-risk drivers would subsidize riskier ones. Risk-based pricing allows insurers to offer the lowest possible premiums to policyholders with the most favorable risk factors. Charging higher premiums to insure higher-risk policyholders enables insurers to underwrite a wider range of coverages, thus improving both availability and affordability of insurance.

This simple concept becomes complicated when actuarially sound rating factors intersect with other attributes in ways that can be perceived as unfairly discriminatory. For example, concerns have been raised about the use of credit-based insurance scores, geography, home ownership, and motor vehicle records in setting home and car insurance premium rates. Critics say this can lead to “proxy discrimination,” with people of color in urban neighborhoods sometimes charged more than their suburban neighbors for the same coverage.

The confusion is understandable, given the complex models used to assess and price risk and the socioeconomic dynamics involved. To navigate this complexity, insurers hire teams of actuaries and data scientists to quantify and differentiate among a range of risk variables while avoiding unfair discrimination.

While it may be hard for policyholders to believe factors like age, gender, and credit score have anything to do with their likelihood of filing claims, the charts below demonstrate clear correlations.

Policyholders have reasonable concerns about rising premium rates. It’s important for them and their legislators to understand that the current high-rate environment has nothing to do with the application of actuarially sound rating factors and everything to do with increasing insurer losses associated with higher frequency and severity of claims. Frequency and claims trends are driven by a wide range of causes – such as riskier driving behavior and legal system abuse – that warrant the attention of policymakers. Legislators would do well to explore ways to reduce risks, contain fraud other forms of legal system abuse, and improve resilience, rather than pursuing “solutions” to restrict pricing that will only make these problem worse.

Learn More

New Triple-I Issues Brief Takes a Deep Dive into Legal System Abuse

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

How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis in California

Louisiana Still Least Affordable State for Personal Auto, Homeowners Insurance

IRC Outlines Florida’s Auto Insurance Affordability Problems

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

Colorado’s Life Insurance Data Rules Offer Glimpse of Future for P&C Writers

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

Indiana Joins March Toward Disclosure of Third-Party Litigation Funding Deals

Litigation Funding Law Found Lacking in Transparency Department

New Triple-I Issue Brief Takes a Deep Dive into Legal System Abuse

The increasing frequency and severity of claims costs beyond insurer expectations continue to threaten insurance coverage and affordability. Triple-I’s latest Issue Brief, Legal System Abuse – State of the Risk describes how trends in claims litigation can drive social inflation, leading to higher insurance premiums for policyholders and losses for insurers.

Key Takeaways

  • Insured losses continue to exceed expectations and surpass inflation, notably impacting coverage affordability and availability in Florida and Louisiana.
  • In promoting the term “legal system abuse”, Triple-I seeks to capture how litigation and related systemic trends amplify social inflation.
  • Progress has been made toward increased awareness about the risks of third-party litigation funding (TPLF), but more work is needed.

What we mean when we talk about legal system abuse

Legal system abuse occurs when policyholders, plaintiff attorneys, or other third parties use fraudulent or unnecessary tactics in pursuing an insurance claim payout, increasing the time and cost of settling insurance claims. These actions can include illegal maneuvers, such as claims inflation and frivolous or outright fraudulent claims. Unscrupulous contractors, for example, seek to profit from Assignment of Benefits (AOBs) by overstating repair costs and then filing lawsuits against the insurer – sometimes even without the homeowner’s knowledge. Filing a lawsuit to reap an outsized payout when it’s evident the claims process will likely provide a fair, reasonable, and timely claim settlement can also be considered legal system abuse.

The latest brief provides a round-up of several studies Triple-I and other organizations conducted on elements of these litigation trends. The report, “Impact of Increasing Inflation on Personal and Commercial Auto Liability Insurance,” describes the $96 billion to $105 billion increase in combined claim payouts for U.S. personal and commercial auto insurer liability. The Insurance Research Council highlighted the dire lack of affordability for personal auto and homeowners insurance coverage in Louisiana, along with the state’s exceptionally high claim litigation rates.

Readers will also find an update on the discussion of legal industry trends associated with increased claims litigation. The lack of transparency around TPLF arrangements and the fear of outside influence on cases are attracting the attention of legislators at the state and federal levels. The brief also describes how some law firms may use TPLF resources to encourage large windfall-seeking lawsuits instead of speedy and fair claims litigation. Research findings suggest that consumers have become aware of how ubiquitous attorney ads can influence the frequency of lawsuits, increasing claims costs.

Florida: a case study in the consequences of excessive litigation

While several states, such as California, Colorado, and Louisiana, are experiencing a drastic rise in the cost of homeowners’ insurance, this brief discusses Florida. Property insurance premiums there rank the highest in the nation. Several insurers facing insurmountable losses have stopped writing new policies or left the state in the last few years. In some areas, residents are leaving, too, because of skyrocketing premiums.

Excessive claims litigation isn’t a new issue for insurers, but it can work with other elements to shift loss ratios and disrupt forecasts, rendering cost management more challenging. In Florida, factors such as the rise in home values and frequency of extreme weather events play a significant role, along with the challenges homeowners face in the aftermath: soaring construction costs, supply chain bottlenecks, and new building codes. However, Florida also leads the nation in litigating property claims. While 15 percent of all homeowners claims in the nation originate in the state, Floridians file 71 percent of homeowners insurance lawsuits.

In Florida and elsewhere, increasing time to settle a claim puts a financial strain on insurers, which is passed on to policyholders in the form of higher premiums. Legal system abuse activities are difficult (if not impossible) to forecast and mitigate, hampering insurers’ ability to remain in the market. Therefore, legal system abuse could be one of the biggest underlying drivers of social inflation. Without preventive measures, such as policy intervention and increased policyholder awareness, coverage affordability and availability is at risk.

Triple-I remains committed to advancing the conversation and exploring actionable strategies with all stakeholders. Learn more about legal system abuse and its components, such as third-party litigation funding by following our blog and checking out our social inflation knowledge hub.

Exploring the DEI Toolbox: Employee Engagement

Safiya Reid took a professional journey that demonstrates career diversity. Her first job out of college was with Pfizer as a pharmaceutical sales representative. Later, she worked on the Rickey Smiley Morning Show as a production intern and at a chain dine-in restaurant while in graduate school. Eventually, after landing in insurance, “I kind of just never left,” she said.  

Reid sat down with Triple-I to discuss how her Assistant Vice President of Employee Engagement role at Pure insurance fits into the larger picture of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and how this work can enable a more robust organization and industry. 

When asked why DEI should be an essential strategic objective for the insurance industry, she addresses the myth that DEI benefits a small portion of employees. 

“When you think about women, when you think about people of color, that is the majority of the organization.” 

“I look at employee engagement as kind of the health and wellness of the employee population.”   

Reid uses data and various tools, such as engagement polls, proactive strategies, and best practices, to understand how the people in her organization experience their work and the challenges they face. As she sees it, her mission is to ensure that “everyone can have the resources that they need to be successful in the organization and outside of it.” 

Ultimately, Reid aims to monitor “the pulse”, how employees (including the aforementioned majority) experience their work.  

Understanding this pulse and how strategic DEI success can shape it is mission-critical. “If not, it’s just a matter of time before it starts to affect the business–if it isn’t already,” she said. 

In the face of a growing trend of political pushback that has even led to disinvestment at some high-profile organizations and agencies, she and her colleagues remain undaunted in their DEI mission. “I think it’s important that we not go back to square one and start relitigating why DEI matters.” 

She believes it’s vital to have measurements in place to track progress. “We know the commitment that we made. We’re going to keep marching forward to the next milestone until you know it’s time to set a new milestone.” 

Reid spoke in detail about how she thinks the intense stream of events over the past five years – the COVID pandemic, protest movement for George Floyd , #Metoo, the rise of remote work, etc. – may have impacted diverse representation in the industry and across the workforce. Many people grappled with unprecedented personal challenges, such as caregiving for young children or adult family members while working remotely and simultaneously coping with mass grief as communities lost scores of loved ones. Boundaries that people relied on to preserve their emotional well-being were breached and erased in some ways. 

“We were so used to leaving everything outside, whether at the bus stop, when the train starts, or the car,” she explained. “You know, we were all at a point where the,  ‘messiness’ of our lives, we could no longer leave that at the door. 

In her observation, attempts to cope ignited more discussion and a drive to understand “the pieces of ourselves that we would leave outside.” She says, “There’s a term for this behavior called covering.” 

Specifically, people may “cover” by hiding or downplaying aspects of their identity in the workplace. These aspects are typically those associated with an impact on their chances of career survival or advancement. For example, a single mother may avoid sharing stories or photos of her children because she fears being passed over for opportunities if colleagues fear she won’t be able to balance parenting with increased professional obligations.  

Reid says her team learned about this concept from the Neuroscience Leadership Institute in 2020. However, the term was coined in 1963 by sociologist Erving Goffman. 

For employees to feel at home and be their authentic selves, there needs to be an environment that fosters inclusion. Which compels the question, What might be necessary for ensuring that employees feel welcome and supported? 

Possibly, the answer lies in forging open and honest communication. “We’ve built a place where when something is wrong, there are channels in a place where you can talk to somebody about that and get that resolved in a timely fashion,” said Reid.  

More data about the DEI landscape in an organization or industry-wide can increase the capacity to make progress. Reid agrees that data is valuable, but she said what we do with it can be more important than having it. 

“I would want to first know how we are planning on using that. There may be additional data points that we need to tell a larger story,” she said. Specifically, the outcome needs to involve “figuring out who the audience is of this data and what change or what action we want them to do because of it. And then making sure all of that is connected and aligned.” 

The challenges to move the needle on DEI can be complex, involving a multi-pronged approach and long-term investment. The ultimate goal is not only increased representation but retention. As such, there are low-hanging fruit opportunities that insurance organizations can consider to make employees feel more included in a team that values them.  

“I would say first and foremost, make sure you take care of the ones you got first,” Reid said. “If you are cultivating a toxic environment, bringing in more people, particularly folks that have less advantages and throwing them into it… that’s not helpful. Everybody’s not going to be happy.” 

Reid offers a solution for organizations that need help approaching the issue. They can use “engagement surveys to find out what the pulse is.” She recommends promoting a way for employees to voice their concerns in a manner that can be heard equitably. 

And what advice would she give her younger self when starting in the industry? “Get here a lot sooner!” 

Insurers Engage
as Climate Perils
Drive Up Costs

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

2023 was another year with high-risk climate and weather-related challenges, with 2024 positioned to pose its own challenges.

Indeed, 2023 was the warmest year for the globe since 1850 — when these records were first made. The temperature in 2023 was over two degrees Celsius above the 20th Century average, with the 10 warmest years in recorded history occurring from 2014-2023. Record-setting temperatures hit areas across Canada, the southern United States, Central America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, as well as parts of the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and South Pacific Ocean.

These shifts in global weather – combined with changing population and other dynamics – have played a powerful role in the risk of disasters.

Costs are high

In the United States, Allianz estimates, extreme weather events now cost the country $150 billion a year, making these perils “key threats” for organizations. However, larger companies are leading a response to these risks by transforming their business models to low carbon, while also creating new and improved plans to respond to climate events. Allianz notes that supply-chain resilience is a crucial area of focus for the coming year.

“Although this year’s Allianz Risk Barometer results on climate change show that reputational, reporting, and legal risks are regarded as lesser threats by businesses,” said Denise De Bilio, ESG Director, Risk Consulting, Allianz Commercial, “many of these challenges are interlinked.”

According to Allianz, exposure remains highest for utility, energy, and industrial sectors. Last year’s wildfires in Canada limited oil and gas output to 3.7 percent of national production. Water scarcity is now also considered to be a threat.

Promising developments

As Triple-I reported in late 2023, despite all the concern regarding climate risk, certain weather-related disasters actually declined in the past year. This includes U.S. wildfire, which saw its lowest frequency and severity in the past two decades, despite catastrophic losses in Washington State, Hawaii, Louisiana, and elsewhere, according to a Triple-I Issues Brief. California – a state often considered synonymous with wildfire – last year experienced its third mild fire season in a row.

Homeowners insurance rates in California, as elsewhere in the United States, have been rising.  Some of this trend is due to wildfires and construction in the wildland-urban interface, which put increased amounts of expensive property at risk. According to Cal Fire, five of the largest wildfires in the state’s history have occurred since 2017. 

Much of California’s problem, however, is related to a 1988 measure – Proposition 103 – that severely constrains insurers’ ability to profitably insure property in the state. Late in 2023, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara announced a package of executive actions aimed at addressing some of the challenges included in Proposition 103.

Flood remains a severe and increasing peril in the United States. While the federal government remains the main source of insurance coverage through FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the private insurance market is increasingly stepping up to assume more of the risk. As Triple-I has reported, between 2016 and 2022, the total flood market grew 24 percent – from $3.29 billion in direct premiums written to $4.09 billion – with 77 private companies writing 32.1 percent of the business.  As the charts below make clear, private insurers are accounting for a bigger piece of a growing pie.

This is an important development, as the growing private-sector involvement in flood can reasonably be expected to result, over time, in greater availability and affordability of flood insurance as the peril increases and NFIP – through increased reliance on risk-based pricing – spreads the cost of coverage more fairly among property owners. Historically, the system often subsidized coverage for higher-risk homes, to the detriment of lower-risk property owners. With NFIP premium rates rising to more accurately reflect the risk assumed, private insurers – armed with increasingly sophisticated data and analytical tools – are better equipped than ever to identify opportunities to write more business.

Much yet to be done

Growing awareness and action to address climate-related risk is promising, but the crisis is far from over. In several U.S. states, insurance affordability and even availability are being affected, and much of the conversation around this topic confuses cause with effect. Rising insurance rates and constrained underwriting capacity is a result of the risk environment – not a cause of it.

Investment in mitigation and resilience is necessary, and this will require collective responsibility from the individual and community levels up through all levels of government. It will require public-private partnerships and appropriate alignment of investment incentives for all co-beneficiaries.

Learn More:

Triple-I Issues Brief: Flood

Triple-I Issues Brief: Wildfire

FEMA Reauthorization Session Highlights Importance of Risk Transfer and Reduction

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

Milwaukee District Eyes Expanding Nature-Based Flood-Mitigation Plan

Attacking the Risk Crisis: Roadmap to Investment in Flood Resilience

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

Latest research and analysis