Category Archives: Regulation

Disaster Resilience, Homeowners Insurance, Market Conditions, Regulation, Reinsurance, Risk Management, Wildfires

How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis
In California

Leave a comment

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.

A close-up of a logo Description automatically generated

Business Risk, Catastrophes, Coastal Property, Cyber Risk, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Resilience, Earthquakes, Emerging Risks, Floods, Highway Safety, Hurricanes, Insurance Fraud, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Regulation, Risk Management, Terrorism Risk, Tornadoes, Wildfires, Winter Storms

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

Leave a comment

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.

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.

Learn More:

Shutdown Threat Looms Over U.S. Flood Insurance

FEMA Incentive Program Helps Communities Reduce Flood Insurance Rates for Their Citizens

More Private Insurers Writing Flood Coverage; Consumer Demand Continues to Lag

Shift in Hurricane Season’s Predicted Severity Highlights Need for Prospective Cat Risk Pricing

California Needs to Make Changes to Address Its Climate Risk Crisis

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

IRC Outlines Florida’s Auto Insurance Affordability Problems

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

Matching Price to Peril Helps Keep Insurance Available & Affordable

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

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

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

Disaster Resilience, Regulation

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

Leave a comment

Data is at the core of risk management, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is seeking to identify gaps in the data state regulators collect from insurers – particularly with respect to understanding insurance availability and affordability.

“The increasing frequency and severity of weather events, rising reinsurance costs, and inflationary pressures are making property insurance availability and affordability more challenging for a growing number of regions across the U.S.,” the NAIC said in a statement during its Summer National Meeting in August. “These dynamics can vary within a relatively small geographic area, so while a state’s property insurance market may be generally healthy overall, there can be localized protection gaps that challenge certain communities.”

The NAIC said states may lack the kind of data needed to gauge the availability and affordability of insurance for consumers. Under Alan McClain, Arkansas insurance commissioner and chair of the NAIC Property and Casualty Committee, insurance regulators of at least 30 states have started work to identify where data is lacking. The plan is to develop a data template to establish “a long-term, robust data collection strategy to help regulators more nimbly respond to inquiries related to their property markets versus a one-time data call.”

This approach contrasts with one proposed last year by the U.S. Treasury’s Federal Insurance Office (FIO). In its request for information (RFI), FIO proposed collecting data related to “insurers’ underwriting metrics and related insurance policy information.”  It said the data “is needed in order for FIO to identify and more accurately assess the financial impact of weather-related events on insurers’ exposures and underwriting over time. FIO’s analysis would assess insurance availability and its effects on policyholders, particularly in regions of the country with the potential for major disruptions of private insurance coverage due to climate-related disasters.”

Triple-I responded to the FIO RFI by saying, in part, that:

  • The proposed call was duplicative and would ultimately hurt the people FIO wants to help;
  • The ZIP Code-level data FIO said it was seeking could lead to misleading conclusions; and
  • FIO could secure the information it needs from existing, publicly available data without placing an additional reporting burden on insurers.

Triple-I provided an extensive but not exhaustive list of resources for FIO to consider.

“There is no dearth of information to help FIO and policymakers address the conditions contributing to climate risk and drive the behavioral changes needed in the near, intermediate, and long term,” Triple-I wrote, reminding FIO that catastrophe-modeling firms prepare their industry exposure databases from public sources, not insurer data calls. “What is needed is to build on existing efforts and draw on the voluminous data and analysis already extant to target problem areas that are well understood.”

NAIC’s response to the RFI emphasized the importance of collaboration to address concerns about insurance availability and affordability and expressed displeasure at what it characterized as FIO’s “unilateral process.”

“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.”

In a June 2023 report, FIO references the RFI and describes the proposed data call, stating that the comment period closed in December 2022 and that FIO is “assessing next steps.” The June report recognizes and commends the industry’s and the NAIC’s efforts to date but goes on to say that these efforts “are fragmented across states and limited in several critical ways.”

FIO makes 20 recommendations, and the report provides context for each, highlighting efforts already under way and explaining how implementation of the FIO recommendations could improve management and supervision of climate-related risks. It also proposes areas of focus for future work by state insurance regulators and the NAIC.

Learn More:

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

Federal Insurance Office (FIO) request for information (RFI)

Triple-I response to FIO RFI

Insurance Fraud, Legal Environment, Regulation

Louisiana Litigation Funding Reform Vetoed; AOB Ban, Insurer Incentive Boost Make It Into Law

Leave a comment

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

Louisiana lawmakers passed several bills to reinforce the state’s weakened property insurance market during the recently completed 2023 legislative session. These included one that would have required parties to a lawsuit to disclose third-party litigation funding agreements within 60 days of a filing. However, that legislation was vetoed by Gov. John Bel Edwards, and lawmakers do not plan to override it.

Also included was a broad ban on assignment of benefits (AOB), the practice by which policyholders sign over to a third party – a contractor, attorney, or public adjuster – their right to bill an insurance company directly for repairs or other services. While this is a common practice across the country, in some states – notably, Florida and Louisiana – it has been a source of extensive claim fraud.  

The Louisiana property insurance market has been significantly weakened since the state was hit by record hurricane activity during the 2020/2021 seasons. Indeed, 11 insurers that write homeowners coverage in Louisiana were declared insolvent between July 2021 and February 2023. Additionally, 12 insurers withdrew from the state and 50 companies stopped writing new business in hurricane-prone parishes, creating a capacity crisis.

A persistent problem

Legal system abuse has been a persistent issue in Louisiana for some time. The state’s “onerous bad faith laws contribute significantly to inflated claims payments and awards,” according to a joint paper published by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA), and the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR).

These problems were highlighted in February 2023, when Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon issued a cease-and-desist order against a Houston-based law firm, accusing it of fraud involving potentially hundreds of hurricane-related claims in his state. According to Donelon, the firm filed more than 1,500 Hurricane Laura claim lawsuits in Louisiana over the span of three months in 2022, prior to the deadline to file suits over the Category 4 major hurricane that struck the state in 2020.

“The size and scope of McClenny, Moseley & Associates’ (MM&A) illegal insurance scheme is like nothing I’ve seen before,” Donelon said in a press release. “It’s rare for the department to issue regulatory actions against entities we don’t regulate, but in this case, the order is necessary to protect policyholders from the firm’s fraudulent insurance activity.”

According to reporting by the Times Picayune/New Orleans Advocate, an investigation by the Louisiana Department of Insurance found the Houston-based law firm engaged in insurance fraud and unfair trade practices through Alabama-based Apex Roofing and Restoration and has faced accusations of criminal behavior and mounting sanctions.  MM&A has since shut down its operations in Louisiana.

Litigation funding reform vetoed

Third-party litigation funding occurs when investors finance lawsuits against large companies in return for a share in the settlement. Funding of lawsuits by international hedge funds and other financial third parties – with no stake in the outcome other than a share of the settlement – has become a $17 billion global industry, according to Swiss Re. Law firm Brown Rudnick sees the industry as even larger, at $39 billion global industry in 2019, according to Bloomberg.

Some states have considered mandating greater transparency around the practice, and Montana in May  approved legislation requiring certain disclosures in litigation financing. Louisiana’s Senate Bill 196 would have required parties to a lawsuit to disclose such arrangements within 60 days of filing a suit.

Insurer incentive grants boosted

The Louisiana Legislature also agreed to allocate an extra $10 million for the previously approved insurer incentive program, bringing to $55 million the amount available to insurers that agree to enter the state’s home insurance market to offer new coverage.

Also included in the bills is $30 million for a long-term grant program to help homeowners fortify their homes against hurricanes – a 50 percent increase over the amount Donelon discussed when planning for the legislative session.

Auto Insurance, Homeowners Insurance, Hurricanes, Insurance Fraud, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Regulation

Louisiana’s Insurance Woes Worsen as Florida Works to Fix Its Problems

Leave a comment

As Florida strives to address the issues that led to its current property/casualty insurance crisis, another hurricane-prone coastal state, Louisiana, is navigating its own insurance troubles.

The Louisiana property insurance market has been deteriorating since the state was hit by a record level of hurricane activity during the 2020/2021 seasons, Triple-I says in a new Issues Brief on the state’s insurance crisis. Twelve insurers that write homeowners coverage in Louisiana were declared insolvent between July 2021 and February 2023.

“While similarities exist between the situations in these two hurricane-prone states, the underlying causes of their insurance woes are different in important ways,” said Mark Friedlander, Triple-I’s director of corporate communications. “Florida’s problems are largely rooted in decades of litigation abuse and fraud, whereas Louisiana’s troubles have had more to do with insurers being undercapitalized and not having enough reinsurance to withstand the claims incurred during the record-setting hurricane seasons of 2020 and 2021.”

Insurers have paid out more than $23 billion in insured losses from over 800,000 claims filed from the two years of heavy hurricane activity. The largest property loss events were Hurricane Laura (2020) and Hurricane Ida (2021). The growing volume of losses also drove a dozen insurers to voluntarily withdraw from the market and more than 50 to stop writing new business in hurricane-prone parishes.

This is not to say legal system abuse is absent as a factor in the Louisiana’s crisis – quite the opposite, as highlighted by Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon’s cease-and-desist order, issued in February, against a Houston-based law firm. According to Donelon, the firm filed more than 1,500 hurricane claim lawsuits in Louisiana over the span of three months last year.

“The size and scope of McClenny, Moseley & Associates’ illegal insurance scheme is like nothing I’ve seen before,” Donelon said. “It’s rare for the department to issue regulatory actions against entities we don’t regulate, but in this case, the order is necessary to protect policyholders from the firm’s fraudulent insurance activity.”

McClenny Moseley has since been suspended from practice in Louisiana’s Western District federal court over its work on Hurricane Laura insurance cases.

A regular on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s “Judicial Hellholes” list, Louisiana’s “onerous bad faith laws contribute significantly to inflated claims payments and awards,” according to a joint paper published by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA), and the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR).

“Insurers who fail to pay claims or make a written offer to settle within 30 days of proof of loss may face penalties of up to 50 percent of the amount due, even for purely technical violations,” the paper notes. “To avoid incurring these massive penalties, which are meted out pursuant to highly subjective standards of conduct, insurers sometimes feel compelled to pay more than the actual value of claims as the lesser of two evils.”

As a result of these converging contributors, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. – the state-run insurer of last resort – has grown from 35,000 to 128,000 policyholders over the past two years, according to the Louisiana Department of Insurance.

Learn More:

Louisiana Insurance Regulator Issues Cease & Desist Order to Texas Law Firm

Hurricanes Drive Louisiana Insured Losses, Insurer Insolvencies

Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Market Conditions, Regulation

U.S. Study of 3rd-party litigation funding
cites market growth,
scarce transparency

Leave a comment

At the end of 2022, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, Third-Party Litigation Financing: Market Characteristics, Data and Trends. Defining third-party litigation financing or funding (TPLF) as “an arrangement in which a funder who is not a party to the lawsuit agrees to help fund it,” the investigative arm of Congress looked at the global multibillion-dollar industry, which is raising concerns among insurers and some lawmakers.  

The GAO findings summarize emerging trends, challenges for market participants, and the regulatory landscape, primarily focusing on the years between 2017 and 2021. 

Why a regulatory lens on TPLF is important 

The agency conducted this research to study gaps in public information about the industry’s practices and examine transparency and disclosure concerns. Three Republican Congress members – Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), Rep. Andy Barr (KY), and Rep. Darrell Issa (CA) — led the call for this undertaking.  

However, as GAO exists to serve the entire Congress, it is expected to be independent and nonpartisan in its work. While insurers, TPLF insiders, and other stakeholders, including Triple-I, have researched the industry (to the extent that research on such a secretive industry is possible), the legislative-based agency is well positioned to apply a regulatory perspective.  

Example of Third-Party Litigation Financing for Plaintiffs

The report methodology involved several components, many of which other researchers have applied, such as analysis of publicly available industry data, reviews of existing scholarship, legislation, and court rules. GAO probed further by convening a roundtable of 12 experts “selected to represent a mix of reviews and professional fields, among other factors,” and interviewing litigation funders and industry stakeholders. Nonetheless, like researchers before them, GAO faced a lack of public data on the industry.  

Third-party litigation funding practices differ between the consumer and the commercial markets. Comparatively smaller loan amounts are at play for consumer cases. The types of clients, use of funds, and financial arrangements can also vary, even within each market.  

While most published discussions of TPLF center on TPLF going to plaintiffs, as this appears from public data to be the norm, GAO findings indicate: 1) funders may finance defendants in certain scenarios and 2) lawyers may use TPLF to support their work for defense and plaintiff clients.

How the lack of transparency in TPLF can create risks 

Overall, TPLF is categorized as a non-recourse loan because if the funded party loses the lawsuit or does not receive a monetary settlement, the loan does not have to be repaid. If the financed party wins the case or receives a monetary settlement, the profit comes from a relatively high interest payment or some agreed value above the original loan. Thus, the financial strategy boils down to someone gambling on the outcome of a claim or lawsuit with the expressed intention of making a hefty profit.  

In some deals, these returns can soar as high as 220%–depending on the financial arrangements–with most reporting placing the average rates at 25-30 percent (versus average S&P 500 return since 1957 of 10.15 percent). The New Times documented that the TPLF industry is reaping as much as 33 percent from some of the most vulnerable in society, wrongly imprisoned people.

Usually, this speculative investor has no relationship to the civil litigation and, therefore, would not otherwise be involved with the case. However, the court and the opposing party of the lawsuit are typically unaware of the investment or even the existence of such an arrangement. On the other hand, as the GAO report affirms, knowledge about the defendant’s insurance may be one of the primary reasons third-party financers decide to invest in the lawsuit. This imbalance in communication and the overall lack of transparency spark worries for TPLF critics. GAO gathered information that highlighted some potential concerns. 

Funded claimants may hold out for larger settlements simply because the funders’ fee (usually the loan repayment, plus high interest) erodes the claimant’s share of the settlement. Attorneys receiving TPLF may be more willing to draw out litigation further than they would have – perhaps in dedication to a weak cause or a desire to try out novel legal tactics – if they had to carry their own expenses.  

Regardless, typically neither the court, the defendant, nor the defendant’s insurer would be aware of the factors behind such costly delays, so they would be unable to respond proactively. However, insurance consumers would ultimately pay the price via higher rates or no access to affordable insurance if an insurer leaves the local market. 

As the report acknowledges, a lack of transparency can lead to other issues, too. If the court does not know about a TPLF arrangement, potential conflicts of interest cannot be flagged and monitored. Some critics calling for transparency have cited potential national security risks, such as the possibility of funders backed by foreign governments using the funding relationship to strategically impact litigation outcomes or co-opting the discovery process for access to intellectual property information that would otherwise be best kept away from their eyes for national security reasons. 

Calls for TPLF Legislation 

GAO findings from its comparative review of international markets reveal that the industry operates globally, essentially without much regulation. The report points out that while TPLF is not specifically regulated under U.S. federal law, some aspects of the industry and funder operations may fall under the purview of the SEC, particularly if funders have registered securities on a national securities exchange. Some states have passed laws regulating interest charged to consumers, and, in rarer instances, requiring a level of TPLF disclosure in prescribed circumstances.  

Active, visible calls from elected officials for regulatory actions toward transparency come mostly from Republicans, but, nonetheless, from various levels of government. Sen. Grassley and Rep. Issa have tried to introduce legislation, The Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2021, requiring mandatory disclosure of funding agreements in federal class action lawsuits and in federal multidistrict litigation proceedings. In December of 2022, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr spearheaded a coalition of 14 state attorney generals that issued a written call to action to the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland.  

“By funding lawsuits that target specific sectors or businesses, foreign adversaries could weaponize our courts to effectively undermine our nation’s interests,” Carr said. 

Triple-I continues to research social inflation, and we study TPLF as a potential driver of insurance costs. To learn more about third-party litigation funding and its implication for access to affordable insurance, read Triple-I’s white paper, What is third-party litigation funding and how does it affect insurance pricing and affordability? 

Insurance Fraud, Insurers and the Economy, Legal Environment, Regulation

Louisiana Insurance Regulator Issues
Cease & Desist Order
to Texas Law Firm

Leave a comment

Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon last week issued a cease-and-desist order against a Houston-based law firm, accusing it of fraud involving potentially hundreds of hurricane-related claims in his state.

“The size and scope of McClenny, Moseley & Associates’ illegal insurance scheme is like nothing I’ve seen before,” Donelon said in a press release. “It’s rare for the department to issue regulatory actions against entities we don’t regulate, but in this case, the order is necessary to protect policyholders from the firm’s fraudulent insurance activity.”

According to Donelon, the law firm filed more than 1,500 hurricane claim lawsuits in Louisiana over the span of three months last year.

The Louisiana property insurance market has been deteriorating since the state was hit by record hurricane activity in 2020 and 2021, to the extent that 11 insurers that write homeowners coverage in Louisiana were declared insolvent between July 2021 and September 2022. Insurers have paid out more than $23 billion in insured losses from over 800,000 claims filed from the two years of heavy hurricane activity. The largest property-loss events were Hurricane Laura (2020) and Hurricane Ida (2021).

In addition to driving insurer insolvencies, the growing losses have caused a dozen insurers to withdraw from the market and more than 50 to stop writing new business in hurricane-prone parishes.

Louisiana’s troubles parallel those of another coastal state, Florida, but there are significant differences. Florida’s problems are largely rooted in decades of legal system abuse and fraud, whereas Louisiana’s have had more to do with insurers being undercapitalized and not having enough reinsurance coverage to withstand the claims incurred during the record-setting hurricane seasons of 2020 and 2021. In general, Louisiana insurers have not experienced the level of excessive litigation that Florida insurers have faced.

“It now appears some trial attorneys are trying to take a page out of the Florida playbook by engaging in litigation abuse against Louisiana property insurers,” said Triple-I Director of Corporate Communications Mark Friedlander. “We commend Commissioner Donelon for quickly addressing these fraudulent practices.”

According to reporting by the Times Picayune/New Orleans Advocate, an investigation by the Louisiana Department of Insurance found the Houston-based firm engaged in insurance fraud and unfair trade practices through Alabama-based Apex Roofing and Restoration and has faced accusations of potentially criminal behavior in courts across the state. In one such case, the paper reported, a woman testified that she had never intended to retain the law firm when she hired the roofing company to fix her hurricane-damaged roof.

“The firm told her insurance company that it represented her and even filed a lawsuit on her behalf, though she said she was unaware of it,” the paper said. 

Legal system abuse is a pervasive problem that contributes to higher costs for insurers and policyholders nationwide, as well as to rising costs generally, given the importance of insurance in development and commerce. Triple-I is committed to informing the discussion around this critical issue.

Learn More:

Hurricanes Drive Louisiana Insured Losses, Insurer Insolvencies

Florida Insurance Crisis Reforms Gain Momentum With Latest Proposal

Florida Auto Legislation, on Heels Of 2022 Reforms, Suggests State Is Serious About Insurance Crisis Fix

Florida And Legal System Abuse Highlighted at JIF 2022

IRC Study: Public Perceives Impact of Litigation on Auto Insurance Claims

A Piecemeal Approach Toward Transparency in Litigation Finance

Insurance Industry, Insurers and the Economy, Regulation

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

Leave a comment

A new data-reporting mandate the U.S. Treasury Department’s Federal Insurance Office (FIO) is considering imposing on certain property/casualty insurers raises a variety of concerns both for insurers and their policyholders.

In response to a request for comments on the proposed data call, Triple-I has told FIO that 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.”

President Biden’s Executive Order on Climate-Related Financial Risk, issued in May of 2021, emphasized the important role insurers can play in addressing these risks. The order authorizes FIO “to assess climate-related issues or gaps in the supervision and regulation of insurers” and to assess “the potential for major disruptions of private insurance coverage in regions of the country particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts.”

Triple-I argues that these objectives can be met by using the information insurers already are required to report, as well as other publicly available data. It also suggests that “assessing the potential” for disruptions might not be as productive an endeavor as working to prevent such disruptions by collaborating with the insurance industry to reduce their likelihood.

“There is no dearth of information to help FIO and policymakers address the conditions contributing to climate risk and drive the behavioral changes needed in the near, intermediate, and long term,” Triple-I wrote, reminding FIO that catastrophe-modeling firms prepare their industry exposure data bases from public sources, not insurer data calls. Similarly, abundant public data exists regarding the needs of vulnerable populations and the risks to which they are subject. “What is needed is to build on existing efforts and draw on the voluminous data and analysis already extant to target problem areas that are well understood.”

Insurance availability and affordability are inextricably linked to reducing damage and losses. The best way to keep insurance available and affordable is to reduce the amounts insurers have to pay in claims.

“Less damage leads to reduced claims, helping to preserve policyholder surplus and enabling insurers to limit premium rate increases over time,” Triple-I wrote.

The importance of collaboration with the industry was a major theme of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) response to FIO’s request for comments.

“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.”

NAIC contrasted Treasury’s approach to prior data-gathering efforts, such as after Superstorm Sandy, when Treasury initially asked the states for a wide-ranging data set but ultimately agreed to a more focused call. In the current case, NAIC wrote, “The unilateral process Treasury employed thus far is a missed opportunity to work collaboratively with regulators on an issue we have both identified as a priority.”

Insurers are responsibly promoting a more sustainable and resilient environment and economy. The most pressing need now is to help communities adapt and make sure they are adequately insured against events that can’t be prevented.  The NAIC, as well as residual-market administrators in Florida, Louisiana, and California – states where the impacts of climate risk already are playing out – can provide relevant data and insights and help FIO translate them into actionable policy proposals.

Triple-I agrees with the NAIC that FIO should use publicly available data and work with state insurance regulators, who fully understand the risks, market and operational dynamics, and policy structures. Such an approach would spare FIO and insurers unnecessary work and the public unnecessary confusion.

Auto Insurance, Regulation

New Minimum Auto Liability Limits May
Cause Consumers
to Drop Insurance

Leave a comment

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

Insurance groups argue that new laws in California and New Jersey that raise the minimum auto liability coverage required for drivers may cause price-sensitive consumers to drop their coverage.

The law in California, signed by Gov. Newsom in October, raises the minimum liability coverage to $30,000 per single injury or death, from $15,000; $60,000 per accident, from $30,000; and $15,000 for property damage, from $5,000. These changes are effective January 1, 2025

The New Jersey law, signed in August 2022 by Gov. Murphy, raises the limits in two steps: first to $25,000 per injury, $50,000 per accident and $25,000 for property damage effective on January 1, 2023 and then to $35,000 per injury and $70,000 per accident on January 1, 2026. Coverage for property damage will remain unchanged for the second increase.

To better understand the impact this will have on insurers and consumers, we sat down with Gary R. La Spisa, II, vice president, Insurance Council of New Jersey, and Janet Ruiz, Triple-I’s director of strategic communications, who specializes in the California insurance landscape.

Why are these laws being passed now?

La Spisa: While the ICNJ understood the need for, and ultimately supported, a move from our current minimums of 15/30/5 to the next currently filed level of 25/50/25 to keep up with average losses, we advocated against imposing a second state-mandated premium increase on drivers with minimum limits.

Ultimately, 1.36 million drivers in New Jersey will face at least one premium hike as a result of the law, at an estimated $130 annual increase. Unfortunately, we cannot estimate the impact of the second hike, as limits of 35/70/25 are not filed in any state. 

Ruiz: We’ve seen medical and repair costs increase dramatically and an increase in accidents and fatalities now that pre-pandemic numbers of drivers are back on the road. While inflation, supply-chain issues and litigation costs are on the rise, we are concerned that this will cause drivers who can’t afford increased limits to drop coverage

What are the consequences of consumers dropping coverage?

La Spisa: Presently, the uninsured motorist rate in New Jersey is estimated to be the lowest in the nation, at 3.1 percent. We are concerned that some drivers will drop coverage, which will push this number up and force carriers to increase rates for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

Ruiz: Consumers who drop coverage risk losing their driver’s license, fines, and inability to register their car with the DMV. California now has the highest number of uninsured drivers in the U.S., estimated at 3.6 to 4.1 million people.

What other effects do you anticipate?

La Spisa: New Jersey law offers a bare bones insurance product, which we refer to as the Basic Policy. We expect that as affordability becomes a greater concern some drivers will opt for this limited product, instead of a full Standard Policy.

Ruiz: California law also offers a bare bones, low-cost auto insurance product, which may get more takers as we face affordability issues for low-income drivers.  The state is expecting fewer underinsured accidents due to the higher limits. We expect to see more drivers in the low-cost auto program and litigation for higher verdict awards for those who have the higher limits.

Do you believe this will have a ripple effect on other states?

La Spisa: Perhaps. The challenge is striking a balance between adequate coverage and affordable premium so to avoid pricing drivers out of insurance all together.

Ruiz: Many states have already increased the minimum liability limits and may not make changes.

How are insurers responding to these price hikes, or planning to?

La Spisa: Most companies already have a 25/50 bodily injury and a $25,000 property damage product filed in New Jersey, so the impact of the first increase on carriers is primarily on the administrative and IT front as they reprogram their systems and renew policyholders with current minimums at the new standard.

For the second increase, carriers will have significant work to do, including determining pricing for this new limit which does not exist anywhere in the country and filing this new product with the Department before rolling it out.

Ruiz: Insurers will adapt to the new law. Many are reluctant, due to the affordability issues for low-income drivers.

What can consumers do to deal with these increased costs?

La Spisa: Consumers should carefully review their policies and always consider shopping around to find the policy which best fits their needs and budget.

Ruiz: We recommend that people shop and compare. Ways to save include choosing higher deductibles, bundling home and auto insurance, or dropping comprehensive or collision insurance on older cars with low value.

Auto Insurance, Business Risk, ESG, Homeowners Insurance, Regulation

Matching Price to Peril Helps Keep Insurance Available & Affordable

Leave a comment

Setting insurance prices based on the risk being assumed seems a straightforward concept. If insurers had to come up with a single price for coverage without considering specific risk factors – including likelihood of having to submit a claim – insurance would be inordinately expensive for everyone, with the lowest-risk policyholders subsidizing the riskiest.

Risk-based pricing allows insurers to offer the lowest possible premiums to policyholders with the most favorable risk factors, enabling them to underwrite a wider range of coverages, thus improving both availability and affordability of protection.

Complications arise 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. Concerns also have been expressed about using gender as a rating factor.

Triple-I has published a new Issues Brief that concisely explains how risk-based pricing works, the predictive value of rating factors, and their importance in keeping insurance affordable while enabling insurers to maintain the funds needed to keep their promises to policyholders. Integral to fair pricing and reserving are the teams of actuaries and data scientists who insurers hire to quantify and differentiate among a range of risk variables while avoiding unfair discrimination.

“There is no place in today’s insurance market for unfair discrimination,” the brief says. “In addition to being illegal, discrimination based on any factor that doesn’t directly affect the insured risk would be bad business in today’s diverse society.”

Learn More:

Bringing Clarity to Concerns About Race in Insurance Pricing

Delaware Legislature Adjourns Without Action on Banning Gender as Auto Insurance Factor

Triple-I: Rating-Factor Variety Drives Accuracy of Auto Insurance Ratings

Auto Insurance Rating Factors Explained