The Risks of Hazard

Over the past few weeks, I published a series of blog posts comparing  InsitePro™ to RiskMeter Online™. Readers might have been wondering why anything but RiskMeter is needed for flood risk assessments in the United States, where FEMA ratings dictate flood insurance rates. The reason is that times are changing, and more and more carriers are moving into private (i.e., not backed by the NFIP) flood coverage, where FEMA ratings — and thus RiskMeter — are no longer adequate.

I've been discussing the merits of risk scoring quite a bit recently, first explaining the 4 major benefits and then taking a closer look at how it works. But since pictures are worth a thousand words, I've put together a visual presentation that shows the value of risk scoring, specifically in InsitePro. 

In my third blog post comparing InsitePro™ to RiskMeter Online™ (read the first two posts here and here), I’ll be discussing breadth of coverage. A key advantage of InsitePro is the fact that it offers location-based risk information for any address, anywhere in the world.

Insurance is the epitome of an international business, with insurers and brokers frequently based across borders. Their customers, too, are frequently international companies based all over the globe. Therefore relying on risk software that can only be used to understand risk in one specific country has clear drawbacks in this industry.

This is the second post in my continuing series comparing InsitePro™ to RiskMeter Online™, Core Logic’s market leading solution. In the first post, I discussed the value of an interactive view of location-based risk compared to standard reports. In this post, I will explore a feature unique to InsitePro, but indispensable for underwriters or brokers trying to grasp the true exposure of a building or buildings to flood — terrain measuring.

This blog is the first of five that will explore how InsitePro™, Intermap’s location-based risk software, compares to RiskMeter Online™, the market leading solution from Core Logic. The two solutions serve a very similar purpose, but they do so very differently. Investigating those differences should prove to be interesting.

There are a variety of ways to get location-based risk assessment information, including maps, tables, standard reports, or an interactive combination of the above. There is no “best” way to deliver this type of information, because different users will have different needs. Finding the right solution should be the priority for everyone who uses risk information.