Search
Close this search box.

How to address flood risk and flood insurance misconceptions

pexels-victoria-borodinova-1619708

How to address flood risk and flood insurance misconceptions

Flood insurance is more affordable than people expect and definitely not the painful insurance buying experience of the past.

The recent Neptune Consumer Survey of Flood Risk Awareness, a national survey conducted in partnership with the University of South Florida, uncovered three areas of consumer confusion.

As a result, the United States has dangerously low homeowner uptake of flood insurance. In addition to resulting in high financial losses for unprotected homeowners and an over-reliance on public sector workers and programs to recover, this also contributes to slower economic recovery in affected areas.

Understanding how homeowners are confused about flood insurance can go a long way toward closing this dangerous coverage gap.

The three misconceptions

No. 1: Insureds often underestimate their flood risk.

The survey of 1,019 individuals in 36 flood-prone states indicates a significant underestimation of flood risk by consumers across the country. Consider that:

  • 63% of those surveyed believed they were at low to no risk of flooding, while a 2019 Verisk analysis indicates that more than 50% of U.S. homes are at moderate to extreme risk of flooding.
  • In Florida, which is the U.S. state with the highest overall flood risk, 65% of respondents believed they were at low to no risk.

No. 2: Insureds believe flood insurance is more expensive than it is.

Respondents were generally unaware of the cost of flood insurance. Forty-five percent of homeowners who responded to the survey opted not to buy flood insurance due to perceptions or concerns about the cost. They often said they “heard from friends or media that flood insurance is very expensive.”

No. 3: Insureds are often unaware of the flood coverage options in the private insurance market.

Consumers tend to be confused about their flood insurance options. Many don’t understand that there are providers other than the government’s National Flood Insurance Program, when in fact, there are more than 120 private flood insurers in the U.S. and at least one in every state.

The potential solution

Solving this coverage problem also has three steps.

No. 1: Educate consumers.

Consumers need to know about the risk of flooding and how they can get a clear indication of their risk.  Although the insurance industry as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) collectively spend millions of dollars each year in educational materials about flood risk, consumers remain largely unaware of the danger.

One tool that can help is the recently launched website floodfactor.com. It provides free online assessments of flood risk for both current and future climate scenarios. Insurance agents who are experienced with flood insurance also are an invaluable resource to consumers trying to determine whether they need flood insurance and which coverages may be best for them.

No. 2: Education professionals.

Realtors, lenders and anyone else involved with residential properties should be well-versed in talking with homeowners about flood risk and insurance.

The private flood segment is rapidly growing, up from barely 1% of the residential flood insurance market to nearly 10% today. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, an additional benefit of private flood options is that they are essentially “touchless,” with no onsite inspections. Many flood insurers also utilize web-based e-signature and payment options.

No. 3: Flood insurance pricing needs to be transparent, and coverage needs to be affordable.

Time will tell whether the steps outlined above result in greater awareness and protection. If not, other solutions such as broader mandates similar to homeowners and auto insurance may be necessary.

With new web tools and experienced agents, it is far simpler now for a homeowner to get an accurate estimate of their flood risk. In addition, protecting a property from a huge financial loss is a smart move. Flood insurance is more affordable than people expect, and definitely not the painful insurance buying experience of the past. With the many options available in the private markets, insureds might even conclude that it’s enjoyable!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts

Insurance-technology

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More
Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote