The Risks of Hazard

All the Possible Ways

In 2014 Deloitte published a research paper entitled The potential for flood insurance privatization in the U.S. Could carriers keep their heads above water? A few days ago, we did an overview with a deep look at the key problem and solution. Today is a review of their survey of all the available ways that private flood can be introduced into the US market.

Below, in the graphic from Deloitte, are the ten possible ways for private flood insurance to happen, all plotted on a chart depicting increasing Ease of Implementation and Risk Sharing (page 11 of the report).

There they are: ten ways to introduce private flood. There might be more, but I can’t think of any. In the report, each is defined. Let’s take a look at a selection of them:

With wildfire season officially here, the Risks of Hazard is republishing the below post from last year. The question we asked in October remains valid – why do insures not do more with wildfire analytics when it’s one of the most robustly modeled cat perils?

Wildfire has been big news in 2015. The USA and Canada are both having epic years, as long-term droughts combine with hotter and drier-than-normal temperatures in much of the West burning more acres and buildings than ever. Yet, when I talk to carriers about risk analytics, wildfire seems like an ignored peril. Why?

Historically, wildfire has been underwritten (or excluded) based on proximity to trees. Historically, that was adequate, too. But over the past 20 years, as towns and suburbs have expanded into wildland, the exposure to losses has increased exponentially. This week, AM Best (mind the subscription-wall) is reporting on Guy Carpenter’s estimated losses for the Western US in 2015 and the figures are eye-catching: $1.75 billion.

One of the key attributes of a flood model is the Base Flood Elevation, or BFE. It represents the elevation of the water surface during a perfectly calm flood of precisely defined annual probability – in other words, it’s a fiction. Happily, it is a very useful fiction.

The context in which most people are familiar with BFE is through the FEMA FIRMs. For many (but not all) Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), FEMA publishes a BFE – i.e. the elevation of the water during a flood that would mimic the relevant A or V zone. To obtain a Letter of Map Change from FEMA, and to be excused from the regulations governing a property within an SFHA, a homeowner needs to demonstrate that their ground floor elevation is above the BFE. In other words, a 1% flood would not get their front door wet.

Last week, during the lull of Thanksgiving, AM Best published one of their most interesting articles of the year (mind the subscription wall). Regular readers of the Risks of Hazard will know that a study called Systemic Risk of Modelling in Insurance: Did your model tell you all models are wrong? is a winning topic. Thank you to the authors at Amlin and Oxford for initiating this three-year study (which is just getting going).

Wildfire has been big news in 2015. The USA and Canada are both having epic years, as long-term droughts combine with hotter and drier-than-normal temperatures in much of the West burning more acres and buildings than ever. Yet, when I talk to carriers about risk analytics, wildfire seems like an ignored peril. Why?

Historically, wildfire has been underwritten (or excluded) based on proximity to trees. Historically, that was adequate, too. But over the past 20 years, as towns and suburbs have expanded into wildland, the exposure to losses has increased exponentially. This week, AM Best (mind the subscription-wall) is reporting on Guy Carpenter’s estimated losses for the Western US in 2015 and the figures are eye-catching: $1.75 billion.