Entries tagged with “Tech”.

Our mission at the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) is to help people understand how insurance operates. Sometimes that means understanding how insurers handle new technologies, particularly auto insurance. Chief Actuary James Lynch answers a question we got last week:

Q: I am researching driver assist technology and the advantages and pitfalls that could be associated with it. Do driver assist technologies raise or lower insurance premiums? A few of the technologies I’m looking at are lane-keeping devices, blind spot warning systems and hands-free cruise control.

A: As far as technological innovations go, insurance companies adjust their rates after a technology has proved its worth on the road. Only then do they know that a technology is effective and how much discount is warranted, if any. That means hands-free driving systems, which have only been introduced in the past couple months, are not earning anyone discounts right now.

You mention lane departure warnings. That is a technology that has yet to prove valuable on its own. The feature alerts a driver that is beginning to drift from one lane to another. When the driver drifts, an alarm beeps. One problem, it appears, is that drivers have trouble understanding what the beep means.

In addition, the feature can be turned on and off by the owner, and owners frequently find it so annoying that they turn it off. I happen to have a car with this technology, and I drove with it for about 10 minutes before turning it off. You would be surprised how many times your wheels touch a lane line; I know I was, particularly when the road curved. So insurers probably aren’t giving a lot of credits for the system.

That doesn’t mean that the idea of a lane departure warning is useless. The problem may be that the notification system doesn’t help the driver do a better job. There’s every chance that manufacturers will be able to refine the system so that it does better later. If that happens, rates will eventually adjust.

Another possibility: Sometimes a feature by itself doesn’t work as touted but will become an important part of a larger system. An example here is antilock brakes, which were introduced a couple of decades ago. The brakes had a special feature that was supposed to help a car stop more quickly when its brakes were slammed on. By itself, they weren’t much of a help – which surprised a lot of people – but they have become an important part of electronic stability control, a computerized system that figures out when a car is starting to skid and corrects the situation.

Electronic stability control is perhaps the biggest safety advance of our generation. The feature, standard since 2012 on all new vehicles, has cut the risk of a fatal single-vehicle crash in half. Insurers closely monitor this stuff, particularly the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and its sister organization, the Highway Loss Data Institute.

Here at I.I.I. we offer more information on auto crashes in our Issues Update on the topic.

There’s a lot of buzz around the Internet of Things (IoT), not least with latest forecasts from Gartner suggesting that 20.8 billion connected things will be in use worldwide by 2020.

Already the estimated number of connected things in 2016—6.4 billion, according to Gartner—is a 30 percent increase on 2015. In fact 5.5 million new things will get connected every day in 2016, Gartner predicts.

A press release notes:

Aside from connected cars, consumer uses will continue to account for the greatest number of connected things, while enterprise will account for the largest spending.”

Gartner estimates that 4 billion connected things will be in use in the consumer sector in 2016, and will reach 13.5 billion in 2020. (Hat tip Canadian Underwriter for its report here)

Numerous analysts have pointed to IoT’s power to transform the insurance industry.

In this Deloitte QuickLook blog post, Sam Friedman writes that IoT will likely accelerate the vast amounts of data available to insurers as Web-connected sensors become the norm.

For example, telematics for usage-based auto insurance can provide carriers with 24/7 updates about where, when and how fast an insured travels, as well as assessing their turning and braking habits, traffic navigation skills and response time.

This same IoT technology has applications in a number of other coverages in personal, life and health and commercial insurance, Friedman writes.

Another example is “smart” homes which will allow homeowners to monitor their property, its security and elements like heating remotely. Insurers could provide loss control advice to minimize threats and perhaps take action to secure insured properties, he suggests.

And in this Accenture blog post, Daniele Presutti writes about how IoT will change how insurance is sold and who sells it. He predicts an increasing presence in the insurance business by tech-savvy competitors, such as Google and Amazon.

But it’s not all bad news, he writes:

As people, homes, organizations and even cities become increasingly interconnected, an array of new opportunities will emerge. Smart and agile insurance companies will be able to take advantage of the IoT to launch new products, with new customers and capture new markets. These companies will be the Insurers of Things. For them the possibilities will be huge.”

Read more about how insurers are innovating along with the evolution of IoT in our latest paper Cyber Risks: Threat and Opportunities.


Technology is not enough in the fight against cybercrime, effective cybersecurity measures require policy and process changes as well.

That’s the takeaway from an analysis of cyber-risk spending included in the 2015 U.S. State of Cybercrime Survey recently released by PwC.

While cybersecurity budgets are on the rise, companies are mostly reliant on technology solutions to fend off digital adversaries and manage risks.

Among the 500 U.S. executives, security experts and others from public and private sectors responding to the survey, almost half (47 percent) said adding new technologies is a spending priority, higher than all other options.

Notably, only 15 percent cited redesigning processes as a priority and 33 percent prioritized adding new skills and capabilities.

When asked whether they have the expertise to address cyber risks associated with implementation of new technologies, only 26 percent said they have capable personnel on staff. Most rely on a combination of internal and external expertise to address cyber risks of new solutions.


As PwC advises:

Companies that implement new technologies without updating processes and providing employee training will very likely not realize the full value of their spending. To be truly effective, a cybersecurity program must carefully balance technology capabilities with redesigned processes and staff training skills.”

Employee training and awareness continues to be a critical, but often neglected component of cybersecurity, PwC said. Only half (50 percent) of survey respondents said they conduct periodic security awareness and training programs, and the same number offer security training for new employees.

Some 76 percent of respondents to the survey said they are more concerned about cybersecurity threats this year than in the previous 12 months, up from 59 percent the year before.

As PwC noted, in today’s cybercrime environment, the issue is not whether a business will be compromised, but rather how successful an attack will be.

Check out Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) facts and statistics on cybercrime here.

Gen Y customers–or Millennials–have expressed a sharp increase in satisfaction with their car insurance compared to other generations, according to the just-released J.D. Power 2015 U.S. Auto Insurance Study.

The study examines customer satisfaction in five factors: interaction; price; policy offerings; billing and payment; and claims.

Overall customer satisfaction with their auto insurer reached an all-time high of 818 on a 1,000-point scale, an improvement of 8 index points from 2014.

Satisfaction among Gen Y customers increased by 21 points—the biggest increase compared with the other generations. Satisfaction among Gen X customers was up 6 points, and among Boomers by 4 points, while Pre-Boomers were less satisfied (-3 points).

Improved interactions had the greatest impact on overall customer satisfaction and were also the largest contributor to the year-over-year improvement, the JD Power survey found.

Interaction satisfaction among Gen Y customers came in at 827, an increase of 20 points from 2014.

Customer interaction preferences are changing. Gen Y’s preference to interact exclusively via digital self-service (Web or mobile) increased to 27 percent in 2015, up from 21 percent in 2011.

A similar preference to interact via Web or mobile is true of other generations: Gen X (23 percent vs. 19 percent in 2011); Boomers (12 percent vs. 10 percent); and Pre-Boomers (6 percent vs. 4 percent).

However, auto insurers need to have their websites ready to resolve customer service issues.

The survey found that among the interaction channels, satisfaction with the website experience receives the lowest average score, most notably among Gen Y customers (816, compared with 826 for Gen X, 841 for Boomers and 861 for Pre-Boomers).

JD Power noted that while customers across all generations are able to use online self-service for basic tasks such as making a payment and gathering information about their account, they also need to be able to resolve more complex issues online.

Still, some activities are better performed through personal interactions, J.D. Power noted.

For example, when it comes to discussing price changes, one-quarter (25 percent) of Gen Y customers would rather talk to someone in person or over the phone, and 23 percent indicate they prefer in person or over the phone rather than the website channel when they have questions about their policy coverage.

The Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) has some must-read facts and statistics on auto insurance here.

A California Labor Commission ruling that an Uber driver is a company employee, not an independent contractor may dampen fears that the on-demand economy spells the end for workers compensation, liability and health insurance. At least for now.

As reported by numerous news outlets, here and here, the decision out of California – though it applies to a single driver – could significantly increase costs for the ride-sharing business if it is copied by other states and in other cases.

It could also have potential implications for other segments of the economy important to property/casualty insurers.

As the New York Times reports:

The classification of freelancers is in dispute across a number of industries, including at other transportation companies. And the debate is set to escalate as the number of online companies and apps like Uber and others rises.”

The ruling, which commentators say could hurt Uber’s $40 billion-plus valuation, orders Uber to pay Barbara Berwick, $4,152 in expenses for the time she worked as an Uber driver last year.

Here are a couple of key excerpts from the California Labor Commission decision:

Plaintiffs’ work was integral to Defendants’ business. Defendants are in business to provide transportation services to passengers. Plaintiff did the actual transporting of those passengers. Without drivers such as Plaintiff, Defendants’ business would not exist.”


Defendants hold themselves as nothing more than a neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation. The reality, however, is that Defendants are involved in every aspect of the operation.”

In response to the ruling (which it has appealed) Uber stated:

The California Labor Commission’s ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver. Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver ‘performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.’ Five other states have also come to the same conclusion.”

Potential insurance issues arising out of the on-demand or sharing economy are a recurring topic of conversation these days.

In a recent presentation I.I.I. president Dr. Robert Hartwig noted that traditional insurance will often not cover a worker engaged in offering labor or resources through these on-demand platforms.

For example, private passenger auto insurance generally won’t cover you while driving for Uber and a homeowners insurance policy won’t cover a homeowner for anything other than occasional rents of their property.

Also, Dr. Hartwig said: “Unless self-procured, on-demand workers (independent contractors) will generally have no workers comp recourse if injured on the job.”

The financial impact of cyber exposures is close to exceeding those of traditional property, yet companies are reluctant to purchase cyber insurance coverage.

These are the striking findings of a new Ponemon Institute  survey sponsored by Aon.

Companies surveyed estimate that the value of the largest loss (probable maximum loss) that could result from theft or destruction of information assets is approximately $617 million, compared to an average loss of $648 million that could result from damage or total destruction of property, plant and equipment (PP&E).

Yet on average, only 12 percent of information assets are covered by insurance. By comparison, about 51 percent of PP&E assets are covered by insurance.

The survey found that self-insurance is higher for information assets at 58 percent, compared to 28 percent for PP&E.

In some ways, these results are not surprising.

Cyber insurance is a relatively new product, and while interest continues to increase, it will take time for the purchase rate to catch up with traditional insurances.

That said, the values at stake are enormous and as the report states, the likelihood of loss is higher for information assets than PP&E.

Another important takeaway from the survey is that business disruption has a much greater impact on information assets ($207 million) than on PP&E ($98 million).

This suggests the fundamental nature of probable maximum loss (PML) varies considerably for intangible assets vs. tangible assets, Ponemon says.

Business disruption represents 34 percent of the PML for information assets, compared to only 15 percent of the PML for PP&E.

A footnote states that while the survey results suggest PML in the neighborhood of $200 million, a growing number of companies are using risk analysis and modeling to suggest potential losses in excess of $500 million to over $1 billion and seek cyber insurance limit premium quotes and policy terms for such amounts.

More information on the growth in cyber insurance is available from the I.I.I. here.

Some 2,243 individuals involved in cyber and enterprise risk management at companies in 37 countries responded to the Ponemon survey.

Everyone wants to talk about autonomous vehicles, and for proof I.I.I. chief actuary Jim Lynch offers the AIPSO Residual Market Forum, at which he spoke in mid-April.

AIPSO manages most of the automobile residual market, where highest risk drivers get insurance. Each state has a separate plan for handling risky drivers and AIPSO services most of them in one way or another, acting as the linchpin in the $1.4 billion market, about 0.7% of all U.S. auto insurance written in 2013, according to Auto Insurance Report.

Though small, the residual market is important, but it’s not an area that would naturally lend itself to discussing the self-driving car. If cars could drive themselves, of course, there wouldn’t be much of a residual market.

Even so, I was one of three speakers at the forum’s panel exploring industry trends, and at AIPSO’s request, all three of us touched on autonomous cars.

Though he spoke last, Peter Drogan, chief actuary at AMICA Mutual Insurance, probably did the best job of laying out the future technology and some of its challenges. Particularly spooky was a 60 Minutes clip in which a hacker took over a car Lesley Stahl drove over a parking lot test course. She wasn’t driving fast, but she couldn’t stop after the hacker took over the brakes of her car.

Karen Furtado, a partner at Strategy Meets Action, a consultancy that helps insurers plan for the future, laid out the case for disruption. Autonomous vehicles will not only make vehicles safer, they will change driving habits. Fewer cars will be on the road, and more people will share them, summoning self-driving vehicles through ride-sharing apps, all of which could potentially shrink the $180 billion auto insurance market.

I’ve made my thoughts clear before, both in this blog and elsewhere: the technology will change driving forever, but it takes about three decades for auto technology to become common on roadways, giving insurers a lot of time to adjust. And some coverages, like comprehensive, will not be affected, as they protect cars when they aren’t in accidents.

A PowerPoint of my presentation is posted here.

I.I.I. chief actuary Jim Lynch looks into the future of self-driving cars:

I wrote about autonomous vehicles and insurance for the March/April edition of Contingencies magazine.

I argue that while the safety improvements will reduce the number of automobile accidents, any predictions of the end of automobile insurance look overblown today.

The first cars to drive themselves will only do so for a few minutes at a time – far from the curbside-to-curbside Dream Vehicle that gets most of the media attention. Any new auto technology takes two or three decades to cascade from a pricey option on luxury vehicles to standard equipment found on every used Chevy.

The slow rollout means claim frequency – the number of claims per hundred vehicles – is likely to decline over the next few decades at about the same rate as it has over the past five decades, giving insurers plenty of time to adapt, just as they have since the first policy was issued in Dayton, Ohio, in the 1890s.

Here is an excerpt:

The property/casualty industry will react as it has for decades, as regulation and innovation have made auto, products and the workplace safer. The impact will be carefully measured by actuaries, who will adjust rates as the innovations prove out. Insurers will find new coverages that customers will want.

The Dream Vehicle will change auto insurance, sure, but it won’t destroy it.”

The I.I.I. has an Issues Update on Self-Driving Cars and Insurance.

Much hay is being made of an apparent decline in the number of identity theft victims and losses, amid an ongoing number of significant data breaches.

The headlines follow release of the 2015 Identity Fraud Study by Javelin Strategy & Research. The study found that there were 12.7 million identity fraud victims in 2014, down 3 percent from the near record high of 13.1 million victims in 2013.

At the same time, some $16 billion was stolen from fraud victims in 2014, an 11 percent decline from $18 billion in 2013. Javelin attributes the decrease to the combined efforts of industry, consumers and monitoring and protection systems that are catching fraud more quickly.

As we know, 2014 saw a number of major data breaches, notably from retailers Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, Staples and Michael’s as well as financial institutions such as JP Morgan Chase.

But lest you think that the swift response to data breaches has nullified the identity theft threat, think again.

Javelin found that two-thirds of identity fraud victims in 2014 had previously received a data breach notification in the same year. Also, individuals whose credit or debit cards were breached in the past year were nearly three times more likely to be an identity fraud victim.

Meanwhile, identity theft just topped the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) national ranking of consumer complaints for the third consecutive year, accounting for 13 percent of all complaints.

Government documents/benefits fraud (39 percent) was the most common form of reported identity theft, followed by credit card fraud (17 percent), phone or utilities fraud (13 percent), and bank fraud (8 percent), the FTC said.

Whether or not identity theft is caused by a data breach (remember, stolen laptops, wallets, dumpster diving, phishing scams are some of the most common causes of identity theft), or whether an individual even knows how their information was compromised (many don’t), it’s important to stay vigilant to this threat.

A 3 percent decline in identity fraud victims in one year isn’t much. As Al Pascual, director of fraud & security at Javelin notes:

Despite the headlines, the occurrence of identity fraud hasn’t changed much over the past year, and it is still a significant problem.”

Wondering if your homeowners insurance policy includes coverage for identity theft? Check out these useful tips from the I.I.I.

Measures and methods widely used in the financial services industry to value and quantify risk could be used by organizations to better quantify cyber risks, according to a new framework and report unveiled at the World Economic Forum annual meeting.

The framework, called “cyber value-at-risk” requires companies to understand key cyber risks and the dependencies between them. It will also help them establish how much of their value they could protect if they were victims of a data breach and for how long they can ensure their cyber protection.

The purpose of the cyber value-at-risk approach is to help organizations make better decisions about investments in cyber security, develop comprehensive risk management strategies and help stimulate the development of global risk transfer markets.

Among the key questions addressed by the cyber value-at-risk model concept are: how vulnerable are organizations to cyberthreats? how valuable are the key assets at stake? and, who might be targeting them?

The proposed framework is part of a new report, Partnering for Cyber Resilience: Towards the Quantification of Cyber Threats, that was created in collaboration with Deloitte and the input of 50 leading organizations around the world.

As the report states:

The financial services industry has used sophisticated quantitative modeling for the past three decades and has a great deal of experience in achieving accurate and reliable risk quantification estimates. To quantify cyber resilience, stakeholders should learn from and adopt such approaches in order to increase awareness and reliability of cyber threat measurements.”

One potential option, it suggests, is to link corporate enterprise risk management models to perspectives and methods for valuing and quantifying “probability of loss” common to capital adequacy assessment exercises in the financial services industry, such as Solvency II, Basel III, albeit customized to recognize cyber resilience as a distinct phenomenon.

The report points out that the goal is not to provide a single model for quantifying risk. Indeed for cyber resilience assurance to be effective, it says participants need to make a concerted effort to develop and validate a shared, standardized cyber threat quantification framework that incorporates diverse but overlapping approaches to modeling cyber risk:

A shared approach to modeling would increase confidence regarding organizational decisions to invest (for risk reduction), distribute, offload and/or retain cyber threat risks. Implicit is the notion that standardizing and quantifying such measures is a prerequisite for the desirable development and smooth operation of cyber risk transfer markets. Such developments require ERM frameworks to merge with insurance and financial valuation perspectives on cyber resilience metrics.”