Search
Close this search box.

Property insurance rates to keep surging in 2023

Untitled design

Property insurance rates to keep surging in 2023

Commercial property insurance buyers can expect further rate hikes this year due to a confluence of factors, with catastrophe-exposed and loss-hit accounts bearing the brunt of tightening capacity and increases of 25% and higher.

A difficult Jan. 1 reinsurance renewal season, in which property insurers faced capacity limitations and significant rate hikes, has added uncertainty in a market already hit by Hurricane Ian and other catastrophe losses and inflation, market experts say.

Property catastrophe reinsurance rates for loss-hit U.S. accounts jumped between 45% and 100% at Jan. 1 renewals, according to a Gallagher Re report issued last week. What the knock-on effect will be for property insurance policyholders this year remains unclear, brokers said.

More challenging reinsurance treaty renewals and insurer and reinsurer concerns over property cat exposures and their cost of capital are driving current market conditions, said Rick Miller, Boston-based U.S. property practice leader at Aon PLC’s commercial risk solutions business.

“It’s a bifurcated market between natural catastrophe-exposed and non-catastrophe-exposed business,” Mr. Miller said. Accounts with significant wind exposures, especially in the Southeast, are “extremely challenging,” he said.

At year-end renewals, some large accounts with Florida exposures bought lower limits than they had bought previously because of cost concerns, Mr. Miller said. “We were still able to put together significant limit on some Florida deals, but it was much more challenging,” he said.

The fourth quarter of 2022 was the 20th consecutive quarter of increasing rates, based on Aon data, which is “unprecedented in recent history,” he said.

Capacity is the biggest challenge, said Jeff Buyze, Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based vice president, national property practice leader at USI Insurance Services LLC.

“When an incumbent carrier pulls back in the current line that they’re providing – let’s say they were providing $100 million the year before, and now they can only provide, say, $5 million or $10 million – that’s where we’re seeing the largest rate increases, and the most difficult renewals,” Mr. Buyze said.

The reduction in capacity is not just affecting catastrophe-exposed accounts, Mr. Buyze said. Accounts with a challenging loss history, poor risk quality – such as older frame construction – and with outstanding loss control recommendations, are seeing “the most pressure, and the most difficulty when it comes to capacity and rates,” he said.

“Traditionally, in this type of market, you would see new entrants … but the capital itself isn’t finding its way to the reinsurance or the insurance market,” and this cycle is likely to continue at least in the first six to 10 months of 2023, he said. Interest in captives and parametric coverages is increasing, he added.

Catastrophe-exposed property and non-catastrophe-exposed property with poor loss history or poor risk quality will continue to see rate increases of 25% up to 150% in the first half of 2023, unchanged from the end of 2022, USI said in a report issued last week.

Catastrophe-exposed property with minimal loss history and good risk quality will see rate increases of between 15% and 50%, while property in non-catastrophic regions with minimal loss history will see rates up 5% to 10%, USI said.

Insurers varied in their quoting at year-end renewals, driven by the characteristics of the risk and specific geography, said Michael Rouse, New York-based U.S. property practice leader at Marsh LLC.

“Without a doubt, the windstorm, hurricane-exposed states like Florida and Louisiana continue to be a struggle, both from a capacity standpoint and pricing, as well as terms and conditions,” Mr. Rouse said.

For some larger property schedules, there were still higher rates and tighter terms and conditions but a more competitive marketplace, he said. “Outside Florida, prices rose but not necessarily close to the same degree. In some instances, you could move from carrier A to carrier B to help mitigate rates,” he said.

In some cases, policyholders are struggling to buy limits that they have historically, Mr. Rouse said.

High-quality accounts with good loss control that are properly valued, loss-free and not exposed to catastrophes are seeing either flat rates or perhaps slight decreases or slight increases, said Peter Fallon, national property practice leader at brokerage Risk Strategies Co. Inc. in Boston.

Accounts where property valuations don’t accurately reflect the risk, that have had losses or are in catastrophe-exposed locations are getting hit hard, he said.

Following Jan. 1 reinsurance renewals, underwriters have many questions over how reinsurance changes will affect their own business, he said.

“If the reinsurers are asking for more money and making changes in terms of coverage and limits, how’s that now going to make its way down to the individual insurance companies and then their clients?” Mr. Fallon said.

There’s still a lot of uncertainty in the market, and recent feedback from insurers suggests that prices will increase even if capacity stays the same, said Christie Weinstein, New York-based director, risk management, at Honeywell International Inc. and a Risk & Insurance Management Society Inc. board director. Honeywell’s property insurance program renews in May.

“As pricing goes up risk managers are relying more on brokers to find different strategic approaches to managing risk versus true risk transfer,” Ms. Weinstein said.

“Maybe you can restrict coverage or play with the way the coverage or limits are addressed or sublimit specific coverages, instead of taking a broad-brushed, larger retention,” Ms. Weinstein said.

Conversations with clients are changing and there is greater focus on analytics, said Kathy Bettencourt, New York-based Northeast property broking leader at Willis Towers Watson PLC.

After multiple years of rate increases, many policyholders are reevaluating how much coverage they need, and whether they should continue transferring risk or start looking at risk financing, Ms. Bettencourt said.

In terms of overall limits “we’re seeing our clients start to buy less, because they’re taking the time to evaluate what they really need,” she said.

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