

Senators, Witnesses Agree Risk Reduction, Infrastructure
Investment Are Critical in P/C Markets
Mitigating the impact of fires, floods and high winds are cost-effective
solutions compared to spending on recovery and rebuilding from a
catastrophe, speakers at a recent U.S. Senate hearing said.
P
anelists at a recent U.S. Senate hearing on
consumer challenges with property/casualty
insurance found numerous areas in which to
disagree but reached one area of common ground:
the need to proactively reduce risk caused by climate
change.
“Our first, second and third thing we should be
doing is reducing the risk,” said Doug Heller, director
of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America.
Heller was among the witnesses to testify at the
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing
on challenges in the property insurance market and
its impact on consumers.
Senators and speakers of both political sides said
incentivizing homeowners to build or harden their
homes and investing in public infrastructure to
mitigate the impact of fires, floods and high winds
are cost-effective solutions compared to spending on
recovery and rebuilding after a catastrophe.
The United States needs to take the “front end of
the solution” as seriously as it does the “back end,”
Heller said.
Alabama Sen. Katie Britt touted the home
hardening incentive program in her state, which
has strengthened thousands of homes and is being
emulated in other states, including Louisiana.
And Jerry Theodorou, policy director, finance,
insurance and trade at the R Street Institute, said he
fortified his home and simply asked his homeowners
carrier to provide a credit for reducing the risk on his
property.
Even before the hearing ended, the American
Property Casualty Insurance Association’s Nat Wienecke
issued a statement endorsing mitigation strategies.
“Property/casualty insurers have been long-time
leaders in addressing the impacts of climate change
by advocating for stronger mitigation, resilience
efforts, and building codes,” he said in a statement.
“Reducing our risk must continue to be a shared
priority among us all, and we must work together
to adapt and increase our resilience in the face of
climate-fueled disasters.”
R Street, however, takes a dim view of the federal
government’s role in insurance markets, saying the
evidence is in the National Flood Insurance Program
and crop insurance. However well-intentioned,
federal intervention fails, he said.
Theodorou recommended a long-term
reauthorization of the NFIP to bring certainty to the
market, and Heller suggested a federal backstop to
“push” the flood insurance market into homeowners
coverage.
Speakers also differed on whether the federal
government should have a role in how climate change
impacts property coverage.
Heller, under questioning from Sen. Elizabeth
Warren, said the Federal Insurance Office’s demand
for climate data from insurers would help the public
understand the interrelationship of climate and
insurance, but Theodorou called FIO’s demands
“superfluous.”
The data call would be a duplicative burden,
because insurers already are at the lead in assessing
climate risk, said Jimi Grande, senior vice president
of federal and political affairs for the National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
The two sides also disagreed about what to do in
California, where Sen. Sherrod Brown, committee
chairman, said insurer exits from the state present “a
disturbing and abrupt trend.”
Heller argued it’s “unacceptable” for insurers to
take premiums from consumers for years, only to exit
or limit participation in the market during periods of
high climate impacts—especially as carriers continue
to back fossil fuel projects that increase climate-
changing emissions.
California should get rid of the “straitjacketing”
Proposition 103, the voter-approved ballot measure
that doesn’t allow carriers to factor reinsurance costs
or forward-looking climate modeling results in rates,
Theodorou said.
—Timothy Darragh
BEST’S REVIEW
•
OCTOBER
79
Industry Updates