NFIP needs bigger premium pot if it’s going to survive - expert

NFIP needs bigger premium pot if it’s going to survive - expert

NFIP needs bigger premium pot if it’s going to survive - expert

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) desperately needs a bigger premium pot. Without more sustained cash flow, the program might struggle to survive.

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have only piled more pressure on the program. It has been left to deal with the losses of the many from the premiums of the few, which is a recipe for failure, according to Guy Rawlins, senior vice president, property practice leader, Brown & Riding Insurance Services. 

“We need to get more people buying flood insurance. If the only people who buy it are the ones that always have losses, then clearly the NFIP is going to struggle to survive,” Rawlins told Insurance Business. “If we made it easier and more attractive for people to purchase, the program would have a bigger premium pot from which to pay the losses of a few.

Learn more about flood insurance at the Future of Flood event being held in Miami, Florida on November 16. Click here for more details and to register.

“Take-up rate is largely driven by money-lenders. If lenders only require flood insurance from people inside the 100-year flood zone, then people outside that area (even those very near the border) are unlikely to buy flood insurance because they don’t have to. But the reality is that FEMA flood maps are outdated and flood return periods are coming much faster.”

The rate of development in US towns and cities is constantly increasing. Back in 2001, Tropical Storm Allison devastated southeast Texas and caused dramatic flooding in Houston. Fast-forward 16 years to Hurricane Harvey and the city of Houston has almost doubled in size, resulting in much greater damage and economic impact.

Major development brings more people, a lot more concrete, and the shifting of earth to and from traditional flood plains. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has attempted to address this issue by re-mapping the flood zones – but many in the industry think that more needs to be done.

Celebrate excellence in insurance. Join us at the Insurance Business Awards in Chicago on October 26.

One of the more challenging aspects of flood insurance is covering assets with negative elevation in a 100-year flood zone as well as business interruption and time elements which are not covered by the NFIP. This is where the excess and surplus (E&S) markets come into their own, and specialty brokers can offer solutions.

“Elevation is a key thing,” said Rawlins. “A lot of development has been built right on the flood plain – on concrete pads with no elevation. Building codes are important and we need to do anything we can to increase flood protection and mitigation.

“In the US, our barrier islands are beautiful places to live and go to a resort – but there’s a price to pay for wanting to be there. The islands are susceptible to adverse weather and flooding, so insurance and risk mitigation should be a priority. It’s not a Government responsibility, but that’s where the pressure has gone.”

The devastation caused by Harvey and Irma is going to be an eye-opener for the US, according to Rawlins. He said there will be “heightened interest and awareness” in flood, and that people who thought they were remotely exposed in the 500-year flood zone might start to reconsider their risk.

“Flood is clearly a very serious exposure. We get more evidence of this year-after-year but I still find the majority of insureds are tentative to buy flood insurance unless money-lenders push for it,” commented Valerie Martin, senior vice president and property solutions specialist at Brown & Riding Insurance Services.

“Oftentimes, people rely on the Government to come and save the day when they have a flood event. But the fact is, the NFIP is broke and at some point that solution might stop. There needs to be more education around the issue,” she added.


Related stories:
Hiscox reveals claims estimate for Irma and Harvey
Floods, fires, and sales slowdowns are top threats to SMEs: Study


1 Comments
  • Griffith 10/3/2017 2:32:43 PM
    Or maybe the people in high risk flood areas should pay higher rates for living in areas prone to flooding or they should move to a home in a low hazard flood zone requiring less insurance. The majority of the properties experiencing multiple flood claims in the Program are high valued properties usually owned by people who can afford to buy a house near or on the water that are financially beyond the reach of people making average incomes. Yet the article suggests that they want those of us who do not buy homes close to the water, who live in low risk flooding areas to now be forced to buy flood insurance to subsidize the NFIP to make it more affordable for the rich to buy homes near the water. I understand that all high hazard flood zones are not always in coastal areas but the reality is in this country if you're home is on or near water, the value of the home is usually worth more in the marketplace. The bottom line is if you can't afford the insurance associate it with the house near the water or in a flood zone then you shouldn't buy the home. Don't make the rest of us pay mandated premiums for homes in low risk flood areas in order to subsidize a program that makes insurance cheaper for people living in areas that historically experience flooding and /or people who are living in high valued homes near the water. You don't expect people living in a desert to buy crop insurance and to make it cheaper for them to buy it by mandating insurance on those living in fertile areas. Instead, they should move to another location where crops can grow. Not the best analogy but then again not the best solution to require those in low risk flood areas to help those in high risk areas pay for their insurance.
    Post a reply