Search
Close this search box.

Insured losses from winter freeze could hit $18 billion

pipe-burst

Insured losses from winter freeze could hit $18 billion

Thousands of claims from vehicles, homes and businesses are rolling in from Texas and other states as crippling winter weather continues.

A City of Austin worker surveys a recently mended water pipe after it froze in Austin, Texas, on Feb. 18, 2021. 

(Bloomberg) — Crippled by a winter storm, Texas and other states are becoming a hotbed of insurance claims, with analysts expecting a hefty bill for losses.

Insured losses could hit $18 billion for the winter weather, six times the yearly average, according to Karen Clark, whose firm models catastrophes. In Texas, one of the worst-affected regions, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. has already seen as many claims because of frozen pipes in that state as it had across the U.S. all of last year, according to a spokesman for the state’s biggest home insurer. USAA said it’s received more than 20,000 claims tied to the weather, and the Insurance Council of Texas said it expects hundreds of thousands of claims from vehicles, homes, businesses and renters.

Texas is reeling from days of widespread blackouts and water shortages, with millions left in the dark. Homeowners are struggling with nasty side effects, including frozen pipes and water damage. Winter storms like this one can also spur fire claims as residents seek ways to keep their homes warm, according to Brian Haden, whose Haden Claims Services works as an adjuster representing policyholders.

“But the vast majority of claims will indeed be broken-pipe claims,” Haden said.

Clark’s current estimate, which includes states beyond Texas, would place this storm ahead of Hurricane Laura, which hit the U.S. last year, and far beyond the average annual loss for winter storms of $3 billion.

“It’s probably the perfect storm in some sense, with the temperature anomaly, plus the snow, freezing rain, some wind causing power outages over a wide area and with so much over Texas, combined with the issues they have with the power grid there,” Clark, founder of Karen Clark & Co., said in a phone interview. “The third aspect is the duration of the event — the extreme temperature anomalies lasted longer than previous cold waves.”

USAA expects the total claims to rise and said that most were due to power failures and freezing pipes. The bulk of the total losses will likely be tied to commercial properties since claims tend to be more expensive when a pipe bursts in a church or museum compared with a home, Clark said.

“More than half of this will be for commercial properties because commercial properties are the largest loss producers for winter-storm events,” Clark said. Compared with homes, commercial properties have flatter roofs that are more prone to collapsing under the weight of snow, she said.

The event could also spur interruption claims if businesses had to shut down because of damaged property, according to Lori Freedman, central Texas claim advisory leader for Marsh & McLennan Cos. She said claims are starting to roll in and are expected to increase in the coming days.

The failure of Texas’ power grid could bring claims tied to energy properties such as wind turbines or gas pipelines, depending on specifics of individual policies, insurance broker Mike Hogue said. An inoperable piece of equipment because of freezing temperatures, however, might work fine after a thaw and therefore not be covered.

“Generally speaking, those property policies would be tied back to physical damage to insured property from a peril that’s not excluded,” said Hogue, managing director of the energy practice at Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. “A weather event is not an excluded peril, but you had to have damage.”

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