Most policy administration systems are designed for the living. They operate under the assumption that the people in the system remain alive, contactable, and actively engaged with their coverage. But when a policyholder passes away and that information doesn’t flow into the insurer’s systems quickly (or at all), a chain of operational, financial, and risk exposure consequences can unfold.

This isn’t an obscure edge case. It’s a real, measurable source of hidden risk that impacts underwriting precision, claims integrity, portfolio exposure, fraud susceptibility, and customer experience. What’s more, many carriers still rely on reactive, outdated, or incomplete data sources to detect these events — if they detect them at all.

This article will explore:

• The role of advanced data intelligence
• Why the death of a policyholder matters in P&C insurance
• The specific exposures carriers face when this event goes undetected
• How early mortality awareness changes outcomes

Why the Death of a Policyholder Matters in P&C Insurance

At first glance, it might seem counterintuitive — why would a policyholder’s death matter in personal lines P&C coverage? After all, P&C products insure things like homes, autos, and property liability, not human life.

But the reality is this: P&C systems and workflows are deeply dependent on accurate, current information about the people they cover. Policy terms, underwriting assumptions, occupancy classifications, exposure calculations, renewal decisions, and even risk tolerances can hinge on who owns the property and its contents, how the property is being used, and whether contractual obligations are still aligned with the risk profile.

When a policyholder dies, several things can change rapidly:

• Insurable interest in both the property and its contents may shift (e.g., to heirs, trusts, or estates)
• Occupancy may change (e.g., an inherited home becomes rented, vacant, or unoccupied)
• Contact information may become invalid or outdated
• Claims activity may include losses unrelated to current risk profiles

If those transitions are not reflected in the insurer’s systems, carriers may unknowingly underwrite, price, or pay claims based on outdated or incorrect assumptions.

For example, a home insured as a primary residence under one set of risk assumptions may become a long-term rental with an unknown tenant and occupancy profile after the insured’s death — yet the policy remains priced, structured, and administered as if nothing changed. That’s a recipe for unexpected losses.

The Hidden Risks of Life Events That Go Unnoticed

Let’s unpack some of the most common and costly scenarios carriers face when a death goes undetected within P&C systems.

1. Claims Paid on Invalid or Outdated Policies

One of the most direct financial exposures occurs when policies continue under outdated underwriting assumptions. If the insured’s death isn’t known, the policy may remain active, coverage continues, and claims are processed normally — even though the risk profile has fundamentally shifted.

This can lead to:

• Claims paid on coverage that should have been suspended
• Policies remaining in force without valid insureds
• Inaccurate reserve estimates
• Distorted loss ratios

For carriers operating in catastrophe-prone states — such as Texas, Florida, or California — those exposures are amplified. A hurricane, wildfire, or severe weather event impacting a large number of properties can trigger a surge of claims, some tied to policies that should no longer have been in force.

Without timely awareness of death, underwriting and claims teams are left reacting — often too late — instead of managing risk proactively.

2. Misclassified Property Use After Death

Behavioral and usage changes after a policyholder’s death are another source of hidden exposure.

Consider this common pattern:

1. A homeowner passes away
2. The property is inherited
3. Heirs rent it out or leave it vacant

These changes in use and occupancy profoundly affect underwriting risk. A home occupied by its owner generally presents lower risk than one that’s rented or vacant. Vacancy, in particular, is especially correlated to higher claims frequency due to things like theft, vandalism, unnoticed water damage, etc.

If a carrier doesn’t know these changes have occurred, they can:

• Underwrite and price the risk inaccurately
• Assign incorrect risk classifications
• Miss opportunities to adjust coverage or offer tailored product options

In these cases, the lack of timely life event awareness creates exposure that compounds over time.

3. Fraudulent or Misrepresented Claims on Inherited Personal Property

When heirs or third parties interact with a policy after the insured’s death, there’s a risk of fraudulent or misrepresented claims, particularly for personal property.

Without accurate data about death and ownership transitions:

• Claims may be filed on items that are not verifiable
• Inventories and loss values may be inflated
• The carrier may pay on claims that would not have otherwise been submitted

These types of claims erode profitability and create friction within claims operations. More importantly, they drain resources and can undermine confidence in internal fraud detection processes.

Accurate, timely death awareness gives claims teams a contextual trigger to review and validate claims before payment, helping prevent improper payouts.

4. Unnecessary Blanket Cancellations or Non-Renewals

In regions with known risk concentrations — particularly areas with large senior populations and higher mortality rates — carriers sometimes resort to broad cancellations or non-renewals as a risk reduction tactic.

Unfortunately, blanket actions like these can:

• Increase regulatory scrutiny
• Erode consumer trust
• Disrupt legitimate coverage
• Impact market conduct evaluations
• Create volatility in reported reserves

The root cause isn’t always lack of underwriting discipline — sometimes it’s simply lack of situational awareness.

With accurate, early death data, carriers can manage these decisions with precision, targeting only the accounts that warrant review, rather than sweeping entire populations.

Why Traditional Data Sources Fall Short

Why do so many carriers struggle with these issues in the first place? The short answer: most P&C systems rely on reactive, incomplete, or infrequently updated sources of life event data.

Common mechanisms for death awareness include:

• Internal customer service updates
• Returned mail or undeliverable contact information
• Policyholder outreach
• Periodic public record checks

These methods suffer from one or more limitations:

• They are reactive, not proactive
• They may lag the actual event by weeks or months
• They miss events that never generate a service interaction

In other words, carriers often only discover the life event after the downstream consequences have already unfolded — when a claim is submitted, a premium billing fails, or a customer service interaction reveals outdated information.

Another underlying challenge is data quality. Even when insurers attempt to match policyholder records against external data sources, incomplete or inconsistent information can prevent accurate identification.

Participant and policyholder records frequently contain gaps or inconsistencies such as:

• Missing Social Security numbers or dates of birth
• Name variations, including nicknames, maiden names, or spelling errors
• Outdated addresses
• Data entry mistakes

When key identifiers are missing or incorrect, even well-designed death audit processes can miss critical matches.

Addressing this challenge requires more than traditional data matching — it requires more complete data and earlier, more reliable event detection. That’s where The Berwyn Group steps in: helping P&C insurers close this visibility gap with more accurate and timely mortality intelligence.

Turning the Problem into a Strategic Advantage

The solution isn’t simply more frequent manual checks or broader data pulls. It’s about combining a richer universe of data with intelligence that can detect events earlier and more reliably. That’s where advanced death intelligence and population data management comes into play.

At The Berwyn Group, the CertiDeath^® solution is designed to provide:

• Earlier mortality detection — often within five to seven days of the event
• Access to a proprietary database of confirmed deaths sourced from tens of thousands of structured and unstructured sources
• Actionable alerts that integrate directly with underwriting, claims, compliance, and policy administration systems
• Precision that supports operational decisions, risk management, and exposure control

While CertiDeath^® delivers critical mortality intelligence, many organizations also look to complementary data quality practices, such as Data Cleanse and Location Services, to help maintain accurate and up-to-date policyholder records. This transforms what was once a blind spot into an area of risk intelligence.

The Scale of Missing Data in Practice

Recent analysis from CertiDeath^® client data highlights the scale of missing or incomplete key policyholder data. In 2025, 73.6% of CertiDeath^® accounts loading files were missing at least one key data element — Social Security number, name, date of birth, or location — across more than 1,553 organizations. Closer examination reveals several common patterns:

• 21% of accounts were missing Social Security numbers, affecting an average of 9.1% of records per account, representing roughly 5.3 million records
• 38% of accounts were missing dates of birth, impacting an average of 6.4% of records, or approximately 1.6 million records
• 66% of accounts were missing ZIP codes, affecting an average of 11.3% of records, totaling more than 17.6 million records

When these foundational data elements are incomplete, the ability to detect life events — including deaths — becomes significantly more difficult. The result: delayed awareness, missed matches, and greater exposure to the downstream risks described earlier. That’s a risky position for any insurer.

How Early Detection Impacts Key Functions

Recent analysis from CertiDeath^® client data highlights the scale of missing or incomplete key poLet’s look at how earlier mortality intelligence tangibly improves key insurance functions:

Underwriting

• Improves risk classification and pricing accuracy
• Reduces exposure from policies that are no longer aligned with actual risk
• Supports portfolio risk segmentation with cleaner data

Claims

• Flags situations where claims may be inappropriate or require review
• Reduces improper payouts on invalid policies
• Supports fraud detection workflows with contextual triggers

Operations

• Enhances contact data accuracy
• Improves renewal and retention strategies
• Reduces operational inefficiencies caused by outdated records

Compliance

• Reduces audit risk tied to improper policy treatment
• Helps satisfy regulatory expectations for data quality and accuracy

Real-World Impact: What Leading Carriers Are Seeing

Carriers that have integrated early mortality intelligence into their workflows through advanced data sources report:

• Fewer claims paid on invalid policies
• More precise underwriting risk assumptions
• Fewer unnecessary cancellations and non-renewals
• Higher quality data for modeling and forecasting
• Improved operational velocity and lower administrative cost

These outcomes matter in a market that demands profitability, efficiency, and confidence in decision-making.

Conclusion: Closing the Blind Spot in P&C Insurance

In P&C insurance, even small gaps in information can cascade into larger operational, financial, and risk exposures. Missed life events — such as the death of a policyholder — impact underwriting accuracy, claims integrity, portfolio exposure, and overall operational efficiency.

Most policy administration systems weren’t designed to detect these events, and traditional data sources are often reactive, incomplete, or slow. Advanced mortality intelligence, like The Berwyn Group’s CertiDeath^®, provides timely, actionable insights that allow carriers to respond proactively, maintain portfolio integrity, and reduce hidden exposure.

Closing this blind spot isn’t just a technical upgrade — it’s a practical step toward more informed decision-making across underwriting, claims, compliance, and operational functions. In a market defined by precision and accountability, staying ahead of these events ensures that carriers can manage risk effectively and maintain confidence in every decision they make.

Learn more about The Berwyn Group and the solutions they provide to AAIS Members at berwyngroup.com.

The post Closing P&C Insurance Blind Spots with Mortality Data first appeared on AAIS.

A major theme throughout the conference was the growing complexity and scrutiny of regulatory data requests. As data calls become more detailed and frequent, insurers are being pushed to strengthen internal processes for tracking, validating, and submitting accurate information across jurisdictions. Best practices emphasized by panelists included submitting data promptly and accurately, proactively clarifying parameters with the issuing authority, and being transparent about any errors. When issues arise in state-issued data calls, requesting a resubmission can help minimize follow-up scrutiny or potential consequences. Panelists also recommended maintaining a calendar of annual and quarterly data calls to get a head start on data collection and planning, and using visual boards, such as whiteboards or bulletin boards, to organize upcoming requirements and communicate workload to leadership. Strong communication, transparency, and documentation practices were consistently highlighted as essential to building and maintaining regulatory trust.

Another key takeaway was the industry’s increasing attention to climate resilience and the regulatory response to catastrophe risk. Resilience is no longer solely a policyholder concern—it is a regulatory and operational imperative that directly influences how insurers price, underwrite, and manage portfolios. In 2024 alone, the U.S. experienced 27 individual climate-related disasters, resulting in more than $200 billion in economic losses—a 36% increase over the last five years.

States are approaching the issue in varied but coordinated ways to reduce exposure and promote long-term market stability. Louisiana highlighted its Fortified Roof Program, which provides funds to help homeowners strengthen roofs against hurricane-force winds, reducing storm-related losses. Nevada discussed increasing wildfire risks near Lake Tahoe, where limited mitigation actions by homeowners have contributed to insurer nonrenewals. The Nevada Commissioner plans to address these gaps to help control potential wildfire losses and stabilize the market.

Technology’s expanding role in compliance and underwriting also sparked significant discussion, particularly the use of aerial imagery. With guidance now issued by 12 states in response to rising consumer complaints, insurers are being urged to ensure transparency and fairness in how aerial images inform decisions. The bulletins emphasize that imagery should be recent, consumers must be able to access and dispute it, and cosmetic issues should not influence underwriting outcomes. Since implementation, states have reported a decrease in related consumer complaints, reflecting a broader trend toward balancing innovation with responsible data practices and consumer protections.

Finally, conversations around adjuster consistency and the oversight of Managing General Agents (MGAs) and Delegated Underwriting Authority Enterprises (DUAEs) underscored the need for standardized performance metrics and strong accountability frameworks. As delegated authority arrangements grow, regulators are placing greater focus on visibility and control to ensure compliance remains strong across all functions.

The insights shared at the 2025 AICP Annual Conference reinforced what many in the industry already recognize—compliance is no longer a reactive requirement but a strategic driver of operational integrity and resilience. At AAIS, we continue to monitor these regulatory developments closely, helping Members as they anticipate change and strengthen their compliance frameworks through data-driven insights and collaborative engagement.

If you have questions about regulatory developments, data calls, or emerging compliance trends, AAIS is here to help. Our team is committed to supporting Members with timely insights, guidance, and resources to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. To continue the conversation or learn how AAIS can support your compliance initiatives, reach out to us at membership@AAISonline.com.

The post Evolving Insurance Compliance: Data, Regulation, and Climate Risk first appeared on AAIS.

The Flaws in Traditional Rating Methods

Lynch explained that traditional flood insurance rating has historically relied on FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) flood zones, which categorize areas into low and high-risk zones. “In the market today, it’s largely been zone-based. FEMA flood zones represent about three-quarters of the market,” he noted. However, this approach has significant limitations. “About 25% to 30% of FEMA claims come from areas outside these high-risk zones,” he pointed out. This indicates that many properties at risk of flooding may be overlooked due to their classification. “The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2020, 40% to 50% of flood damage occurred outside special flood hazard areas,” Lynch further elaborated. He explained that while NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) created flood zones, they have moved away from using them in their rating methodology. “It seems reasonable that probably everyone else should consider not using them as well,” he stated, urging the industry to rethink traditional methods.

The Role of Catastrophe Models

In a market saturated with outdated methods, Lynch emphasized the importance of catastrophe (cat) models for predicting flood risks. “Cat models build out simulated possible futures,” he said, explaining how they analyze various scenarios to assess potential damage. They consider factors like storm strength, geographical location, and even tide levels to generate a more comprehensive view of risk.

However, he cautioned that no single model is sufficient to capture the complexities of flood risk. “Every model has its strengths and weaknesses,” Lynch remarked. The need for multiple viewpoints is crucial for a well-rounded assessment. “Those that take it further, often professional consultants and large reinsurers, will use multiple models. They may average the results, which is potentially dangerous,” he noted.

Understanding and Distinguishing Flood Damage

A significant challenge in flood insurance is the difficulty in separating flood damage from other storm-related damages, such as wind or tornado damage. “The cat models do the heavy lifting on that,” Lynch explained, noting that simulations help clarify what happened during an event. Yet, in the real world, distinguishing these damages can be problematic because of the ambiguity. “If the building’s not there anymore, did it get blown away, or did it get washed away?” he questioned. Despite these challenges, Lynch acknowledged that rainfall-driven floods are generally easier to assess. “Rainfall is typically a lot easier to separate out,” he stated. Understanding these distinctions is vital for accurate claims projections.

Leveraging AI for Improved Predictions

To address the limitations of traditional models, the webinar introduced an innovative AI technology developed by reThought Flood. “We used our AI technology to focus on this problem, not to replace catastrophe models, but to make them better,” Isaacson explained. The reThought team applied a bottom-up approach, analyzing detailed information on over 100 million buildings in the U.S. This method offers a more granular view of risk compared to traditional top-down models that assess geographical footprints. Lynch elaborated, stating that their approach helps identify strengths and weaknesses of various models. “We use our technology to develop our own specific view of each building and then we can roll that up to a policy, a portfolio, a state, or a country view,” he said. This innovation enhances the accuracy of damage predictions and ensures that rates are sustainable and profitable.

Closing the Coverage Gap

Despite advancements in technology and modeling, Lynch warned that having the best technology is not enough; product coverage is really important. He described the challenges faced by policyholders, particularly with federal programs like NFIP, which often lack adequate coverage for secondary dwellings, basement contents, and additional living expenses. “If someone buys a flood insurance policy, has a loss, and finds that much of it is not covered, that would be horrible,” Isaacson noted. He and Lynch underscored the critical role of education in closing the flood protection gap, particularly the need for property owners to understand the risks and potential for loss. “Unfortunately, flood is one of the weakest parts of education for insurance agents. We really need to provide them not only with education but also with the tools for them to help educate others,” Lynch stated.

Community Engagement and Awareness

Isaacson and Lynch highlighted that community involvement is crucial for increasing flood insurance uptake. “Communities need to educate their populations about the risks they face,” Isaacson stressed. “Two-thirds of flood losses are currently uninsured, and around 90% of the country lacks flood coverage.” They encouraged collaboration with communities to disseminate information and promote attainable mitigation measures. “Something like backflow preventers can help mitigate risks without requiring significant structural changes,” Lynch suggested, advocating for educational initiatives that inform property owners about effective, low-cost mitigation strategies.

To view the full webinar, click on the video above.

Questions? Please reach out to any of the featured speakers through the contact information below.

John Kadous

Vice President of Products, AAIS

johnk@aaisonline.com

Cory Isaacson

Chief Executive Officer, reThought Flood

cory.isaacson@rethoughtinsurance.com

Derek Lynch

Chief Underwriting Officer, reThought Flood

derek.lynch@rethoughtinsurance.com

The post Webinar: Making Flood Insurance Insurable and Profitable first appeared on AAIS.

Challenges Facing the Construction Industry and the Impact on Insurance

The construction industry relies heavily on the insurance sector to safeguard its key assets, projects, equipment, and personnel. Rajaraman noted that currently, the industry is seeing robust demand. “This is largely fueled by fiscal policies enacted during the pandemic era and initiatives like the CHIPS Act, which have boosted both residential and commercial infrastructure projects,” he said. “Consequently, construction costs have soared steeply.”

On top of this, the increase in natural calamities has impacted both the frequency and magnitude of insurance claims. New risks are adding to these challenges. “While the industry traditionally faced losses primarily from events like floods, windstorms, and theft, it now confronts novel exposures, such as those related to renewable energy, hailstorms, and other catastrophic events,” Rajaraman stated. “These factors have created a challenging market for construction project insurance.” While many of these challenges are beyond the control of insurance companies, he believes staying cooperative demands they innovate their processes by leveraging technology and reducing costs.

How Insurers Can Optimize Costs Associated with Construction Insurance

There are specific strategies Rajaraman recommends for reducing overall costs related to managing insurance products and programs. “We are seeing an increase in the prominence of MGAs in the builder’s risk space, where they can use their market expertise and favorable cost structures for better risk assessment and pricing,” he explained. “A U.S.-based mutual carrier approached us with a request to set up an AAIS-based builder’s risk program for three distinct MGAs, each targeting different customer segments. We recommended a streamlined approach where programs, such as the AAIS builder’s risk standard, serve as the foundation without necessitating individual implementations for each MGA.” Instead, each MGA’s view of the AAIS builder’s risk program was tailored to align with their program-specific requirements. According to Rajaraman, this model significantly reduced the costs associated with establishing the programs and all three programs were successfully launched within a span of two weeks. Additionally, by circumventing the traditional underwriting process, the carrier also gained visibility into strong and weaker classes of risks, providing valuable insights into opportunities for improvement.

Ensuring Data Security and Isolation for Multiple MGAs or Carriers Sharing the Same Instance

Rajaraman has found that MGAs and carriers want to ensure there is no compromise on their data; they need to keep their data secure and isolated from other insurers on the cloud. “We prioritize the safety and security of each insurer’s data by implementing separate databases per insurer,” he shared. “This means that each insurer’s information is stored in their own isolated repository, completely segregated from other insurance companies’ data. There is also no mixing or overlap of data between insurers, thus maintaining confidentiality and integrity of each insurer’s sensitive information.” This helps insurers enhance their data security and stay compliant with regulatory requirements and industry standards. Rajaraman recommends this approach for carriers and MGAs looking to benefit from the scale of cloud speed and security as well.

To view the full interview with Anand Rajaraman, click on the video above.

The post Methods for MGAs to Cut Construction Insurance Costs first appeared on AAIS.

Creation of Hurricane Models

According to Fanoe, hurricane models are generally a merge of meteorological expertise, engineering expertise, and insurance expertise. “Most models will start with the [meteorological] portion of the model, which is projecting out potential hurricanes, determining the frequency with which they’ll occur, and the path they’ll take if they do occur,” said Fanoe. “Then, we project the path [a hurricane] will take, including where it will make landfall, what will happen once it makes landfall, and how much the wind speed will slow down.” Then, there is the wind field assessment, which determines what areas are being affected and by how much wind. “This allows you to map out all of the homes and buildings that are impacted by wind and how much wind there is,” said Fanoe. “Wind fields feed directly into the [engineering] component of the model.” The combination of the meteorological and engineering components produces an estimate of how much damage is done to every home within the wind field of the model, which leads to insurance expertise. “This component looks at what homes are written by an insurer, what the limits are on those homes, and what the deductibles are on those homes,” Fanoe explained. “What the overall limits are is how reinsurance comes into play. That is used to project the loss that a particular insurance company is going to take related to that storm.” While this is a very simplified take on how hurricane models work, it is important to understand that since they utilize meteorological, engineering, and insurance expertise, it takes multiple different experts to create them. There also can be a lot of different versions of these models. That being said, almost every model will have a long-term and short-term version of that model. “The only difference between the long and short-term versions of the model is in the frequency assessment of the hazard model,” Fanoe shared. “A long-term model will use usually 100-year or more averages of the actual landfall rates of hurricanes in the U.S. to project that frequency. A short-term model will be based on shorter-term averages.”

How Insurance Companies Use Hurricane Models

Since hurricane models are very complicated, Darby revealed that the Maine Bureau of Insurance requests information on each CAT model in the filings as well as the version number that they’re using for their CAT load. Then, they look down to the Florida Commission of Hurricanes to see if they’ve approved that model. If Florida has approved it for use in Florida, then Maine allows it for use in their rate filings. “We follow this process because I do not have the expertise to review the CAT model as it is,” Darby explained. “That being said, we do have 3,500 miles of coastline here in Maine, and even though our hurricanes are usually category one or two, we’re still concerned about having a large coastline in the future.” With this in mind, it is important that insurance companies are building in enough load in their rates so that they maintain solvency.

Education & Regulation of Hurricane Models

While some states, like Maine, do not have a coastline that is much impacted by severe hurricanes, Gupta believes it has become increasingly important for regulators to build knowledge and understanding of CAT models. “[Regulators] are key stakeholders when it comes to managing the insurance marketplace within their states,” she said. “They need to ensure that their markets are healthy and solvent with increased catastrophic and climate risk and that there is availability and affordability of insurance.” Historically, the knowledge and understanding of CAT models have been limited in the regulatory community for many reasons. “One is simply the lack of access to model documentation due to the proprietary nature of these commercial CAT models,” Gupta shared. “So, the documentation or the knowledge doesn’t exist in a public state that is readily available for regulators.” The other, she explained, is the fact that these are complex models. “There are not enough standard resources that exist within individual state DOIs and within the NAIC around these CAT models,” Gupta stated. She is currently trying to change this with her work at the NAIC. Gupta’s role focuses on bridging the educational gap and building knowledge within the regulatory community. “We have actually developed a foundational course around these CAT models that is peril agnostic,” she revealed. “The course focuses on different components of the CAT model framework, the input-output, and the application of CAT models.” The NAIC plans to expand this training program to specific perils, which will go more in-depth depending upon individual states’ needs.

If you would like to view the presentation again in its entirety, please click the video above.

Questions? Please don’t hesitate to reach out to any of the featured speakers through the contact information below.

Linda Jancik
Product Manager – Personal Lines (AAIS)
lindaj@aaisonline.com

Greg Fanoe, FCAS, MAAA
Director & Consulting Actuary (Davies)
gfanoe@merlinosinc.com

Sandra Darby
Property & Casualty Division Actuary (Maine Bureau of Insurance)
sandra.c.darby@maine.gov

Shaveta Gupta, CPCU, ARM, ARe, CCM, CCRMP
Catastrophe Risk & Modeling Advisor (NAIC)
sgupta3@naic.org

The post Webinar: Hurricane Models – Creation, Usage, and Regulation first appeared on AAIS.

Overview of the Regulation

In October 2022, the California DOI passed the regulation requiring an insurer to offer specific mitigation factors. Westcott explained that the determination for whether this applied to consumers’ currently filed rate was whether they used the wildfire risk model, or the rating plan segmented a policyholder’s rate based upon the policyholder’s wildfire risk. “The regulation addresses two types of mandatory mitigation factors as well as the community level and property level mandatory mitigation factors,” Westcott described. “The property level factors cover mitigation measures addressing both the immediate surroundings at the structure, often referred to as ‘defensible space,’ as well as the buildings hardening measures performed on the structure itself.” The regulation further identifies some optional factors relating to wildfire loss that an insurer may incorporate into the rating plans as long as the resulting rate is not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. Westcott shared that throughout the regulation, there are administrative requirements an insurer must follow. “Many of the requirements are around transparency and providing information regarding the mitigation credits to your policyholders,” she said. In addition, each company is still required to make a filing even if your advisory organization has filed with the department.

Wildfire Mitigation in AAIS Manual

Linda Jancik explained that this regulation affected the homeowners by peril (HOBP) and homeowners by composite (HOC) programs at AAIS the most. Filings* were also done for agricultural output, commercial output, and inland marine guide-motor truck cargo. Wildfire risk mitigation credits are available in both California HOBP and HOC programs in the AAIS rule manual as separate rules. “The reason [for this] is that there are different ways of premium determination for these two programs,” Jancik explained. “Because in HOBP, wildfire can be isolated, whereas in HOC, their combined loss costs do not allow it to split up into individual programs.”

There are three categories of wildfire risk mitigation credits available: community coordination, property hardening, and defensible space. “Whereas the community coordination credit applies to the community you live in, property hardening measures, as well as defensible space measures, can be influenced by the policyholder,” said Jancik. “So, we can’t suppress our way out of wildfire.” She believes that communities that are coordinated, collaborative, and consistent in their wildfire mitigation efforts are likely to have lower losses and better outcomes. Property hardening measures relate to all building characteristics that help reduce wildfire risk. The risk of wildfire damage to buildings is also dependent on preventative measures such as ensuring that the area surrounding the building is clear of excessive flammable material and debris.

Rating Impact

For the community coordination credit, AAIS is proposing a 4% wildfire credit for being recognized in a FirewiseUSA site in good standing. “This 4% is larger than most of our other credits,” Mike Payne relayed. “We wanted to recognize that they have a lot of activities going on; they’re really committed. So, it was a little bit more robust.” In a California fire risk reduction community, AAIS is proposing a 1% credit. It’s a relatively new program, according to Payne, which is why it is different from the FirewiseUSA sites. “But these two pieces are technically mutually exclusive,” he added. “So, you could be in one or both of those types of communities [and] your maximum wildfire credit for community coordination would be 5%.” AAIS is proposing a 1% credit for each of the property hardening credit type activities (Class-A fire-rated roof, enclosed eaves, etc.) “It might seem small, but we really wanted to try and emphasize the fact that when you do more of these, they add up and you’ll get more of a benefit,” Payne explained. The same applies for the defensible space credit. “Again, assuming all five activities are met, you would get the 5% compounding impact and you add those together to get a total of 10% for maximum wildfire credit for defensible spaces,” said Payne. “If you add up those three components together, we are proposing a maximum of a 25% credit to the wildfire portion of the loss costs.”

Rethinking Consumer Notices & the AAIS Consumer Notice Tool

When discussing wildfire mitigation, one of the key factors that comes up is how to incentivize homeowners to take action. “The regulation that’s been put forth by CDI goes a long way to start driving change and homeowner behavior,” said Matt Hinds-Aldrich. “But we still need to instill a sense of urgency. [AAIS] discovered the importance of the consumer notice.” Because this regulation puts a lot of focus on actuarial analyses and being compliant with the law, the consumer notice tends to become an afterthought. “[AAIS] started realizing that there’s a real missed opportunity here,” Hinds-Aldrich claimed. “So, we spent time developing a consumer notice model.” In doing so, AAIS identified three key issues that needed to be addressed: comprehension, accessibility, and motivation aspects.

When creating the consumer notice sample, AAIS believed that if it was kept short, succinct, and relevant, homeowners would take full advantage of it. Information can either be put in manually through drop-down menus or in an automated fashion at scale. “Whatever the reading is, or variables that are selected, [the form] will automate all of the remaining information,” Hinds-Aldrich explained. The other component worth noting is that this form is entirely customizable by any AAIS member. “Everything can be changed from the colors to the verbiage,” Hinds-Aldrich shared. “[We] recognize that carriers are going to have to make their own choices and may have different variations when they do their own filing.” AAIS has also created a separate version of the consumer notice tool that allows companies that use catastrophic wildfire risk models to disclose the model that was used and how it operates.

If you would like to view the presentation again in its entirety, please click the video above.

Questions? Please don’t hesitate to reach out to any of the featured speakers through the contact information below.

Linda Jancik
Product Manager – Personal Lines
lindaj@aaisonline.com

Mike Payne, FCAS, MAAA
Chief Pricing Actuary
michaelpa@aaisonline.com

Matt Hinds-Aldrich, PhD
Senior Risk Strategy Lead
matth@aaisonline.com

*Note that filings for these programs have not yet been approved.

The post Webinar: Making Wildfire Mitigation Meaningful: Addressing California’s Mandatory Wildfire Mitigation Credits Regulation first appeared on AAIS.