Commercial property pricing fell 8.1% in the second quarter of 2026, marking a fifth consecutive quarterly decline, while casualty rates continued to rise, according to The Baldwin Group.
The split gives brokers more room to negotiate property pricing, limits and deductibles. Well-documented, loss-free accounts may also be able to recover coverage terms surrendered during the hard market, although clients must decide whether to retain the savings or use them to strengthen other parts of their programs, including casualty towers facing higher costs and tighter capacity.
Casualty pricing continued to rise in Baldwin's portfolio, although the pace moderated. Commercial auto and general liability pricing each increased 4.5%, while umbrella pricing rose 5%. The respective increases in the first quarter were 5.7%, 6.1% and 8.2%.
"Property and casualty are creating two very different renewal conversations," said Leslie Nylund, national managing director of Broking and Insurance Company Partnerships at The Baldwin Group. "Improving property conditions can give businesses more flexibility, but slower casualty pricing increases do not mean the underlying liability environment has become less challenging.
Organizations that evaluate each line on its own dynamics and then make decisions across their entire insurance program, will be best positioned to create long-term value."
Baldwin said large liability judgments, third-party litigation funding, vehicle repair costs and rising total-loss frequency continued to affect casualty results. Construction, real estate, healthcare, hospitality and other litigation-exposed sectors faced greater scrutiny, as did habitational risks, contractors and companies with significant fleet exposures.
That list is also a rough guide to how a broker should be having the "bank it or redeploy it" conversation with different clients this renewal season. A client in one of the litigation-exposed sectors named above, or one running a significant commercial fleet, is a stronger candidate for redeploying property savings into casualty: raising umbrella limits, tightening auto liability terms, or building in more retained risk capacity before a large judgment or a fleet-related total loss forces the issue at a worse moment. A client outside those sectors, with a clean loss history and limited litigation exposure, has a more straightforward case for simply banking the property savings, since their casualty renewal is less likely to be where the next unpleasant surprise comes from. The mistake to avoid is applying the same recommendation to every client regardless of sector, since the property softening is broad-based while the casualty pressure clearly is not.
Separate data from Marsh showed the same widening divide, although with larger movements. US property rates declined 13% in the second quarter, while casualty rates increased 7%. Excluding workers' compensation, casualty rates rose 11%, and absolute umbrella and excess liability rates increased by the same amount.
The Baldwin and Marsh figures are not directly comparable. Baldwin's analysis combines rate movements with exposure changes and clients' decisions on limits and deductibles, while Marsh measures rate changes at renewal and notes that its results reflect the composition of its client portfolio.
Marsh reported that increased property capacity had broadened placement options and led some insurers to offer policy enhancements. Catastrophe-exposed programs with more than $1 million in premium recorded average reductions of 20%, compared with 10% for smaller, non-catastrophe programs. Loss-affected accounts and companies with weaker risk-management information continued to receive less favorable outcomes.
Casualty capacity remained more selective. Double-digit auto liability increases were common, while some umbrella insurers limited their participation to $10 million per risk. Higher claims frequency and severity also pushed attachment points upward for large fleets and businesses operating in litigation-heavy states. Some clients responded by increasing retentions, reconsidering purchased limits or evaluating captives and other alternative risk-transfer structures.
The contrasting conditions give brokers more options but make broad assumptions about the commercial market less useful. Property competition may support lower costs and better coverage, while casualty outcomes remain more dependent on loss performance, exposure data, risk controls and program structure - which is exactly why the client-by-client redeployment decision matters more this renewal season than a blanket recommendation either way.
