Tag Archives: insurance premiums

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Should You Revisit Insured Property Value Estimates?

Posted on by

One of the first steps in obtaining commercial property insurance is to determine the value of the property being insured. The reported property value will drive premium amounts and, importantly, represents the property loss exposure.

Some commonly used property valuation methods include: obtaining an appraisal from a third-party firm; utilizing fixed-asset records adjusted for cost inflation; or using a simple benchmarking factor, such as dollars per square foot. In some cases, utilizing a simplified valuation approach can provide a reasonable value estimate with minimal effort. On the other hand, performing an appraisal (which insurers typically consider the “gold standard”) can provide much-needed accuracy and thoroughness, but will require a greater commitment of time and resources. 

At times, elevating the accuracy of a property value estimate can provide significant advantages during the insurance placement process. The key for risk managers, brokers and insurers is to recognize situations in which an accurate and comprehensive property valuation is critical. Consider these eight factors in the context of the insured property to see if a deep dive into the value estimate is necessary:  

  1. Size of exposure and riskiness of operation
    When property exposures are immense or operations are inherently risky, a thorough estimation process should be conducted every three to five years. Refineries and chemical processing plants with billion-dollar exposures and high-risk operations are a prime example—the stakes are too high to rely on cursory valuation methods over the long term.
  2. Changes in costs  
    Over time, some property costs will change more than others. These fluctuations are primarily driven by changes in technology, capability, and material and labor costs. As of this writing, there have been significant increases in commodity prices such as steel and lumber, which are driving up the costs of new property and equipment. When property is subject to a rapidly changing cost environment, this complexity needs to be carefully considered within the estimation method.  
  3. Complexity and scope of property 
    Global operations and complex properties often require a thorough analysis to be performed periodically. There is simply too much detail and nuance to use an abbreviated estimating approach for an extended period without introducing the possibility of significant error. Many global firms establish a multi-year process in which a comprehensive analysis is performed on a portion of properties each year.  
  4. Type of capital expenditures 
    A company’s capital expenditures typically represent either new asset additions or improvements to existing assets. Accounting for new assets is a straightforward process of addition. However, capital expenditures that represent improvements in condition may not translate directly into increasing replacement value for insurance purposes. This is a frequent occurrence within heavy industrial and processing operations and can result in an overestimation of value if not properly analyzed.  
  5. Major changes to business or operations 
    Major changes within a business, such as reconfiguring a manufacturing facility, adding production capacity, acquiring new businesses, consolidating operations, or relocating an operation, are likely to result in changes to the property and assets. Making a diligent effort to assess these circumstances in detail will help establish an accurate property value that can be used going forward.  
  6. Insurance market conditions 
    As of this writing, the property insurance market has experienced substantial price increases for three consecutive years. When insurance prices are high, developing an accurate estimate of property value will provide assurance that the coverage is neither more nor less than necessary. Developing reliable and accurate value estimates can also be a key differentiator for insureds when engaging with insurers in a difficult market.  
  7. Recent losses reveal inaccurate value estimates 
    Insurers will seriously question the validity of reported property values if a recent property loss reveals large inaccuracies in reported value estimates. In this case, performing a comprehensive valuation of the insured property is the best course of action.  
  8. Adjusting value estimates over time 
    Many companies adjust value estimates from the prior year to account for cost inflation. The accuracy of this approach will diminish over time. For typical commercial properties, conducting a comprehensive valuation every five to eight years can help recalibrate value estimates.  

Correctly valuing insurable property is one of the most critical inputs for managing property risk. While a shorthand valuation estimate may suffice in some circumstances, it is not a perfect solution to every situation. Sometimes there is no substitute for a thorough and diligent value estimate. Striking the right balance between valuation accuracy and effort requires knowing when an estimate is good enough and when it is not.  

The 10 Most and Least Expensive Health Insurance Markets in the U.S.

Posted on by

Health Insurance

Under Obamacare’s new insurance marketplaces, people in Minnesota, northwestern Pennsylvania, and Tucson, Ariz., are getting the best bargains for health care coverage. Premiums in these areas are half the price of policies in the most expensive regions, based on the lowest cost of a “silver” plan – the mid-range plan most consumers are choosing.

“The cheapest cost regions tend to have robust competition between hospitals and doctors, allowing insurers to wrangle lower rates,” according to a report from Kaiser Health News and NPR. “Many doctors work on salary in these regions rather than being paid by procedure, weakening the financial incentive to perform more procedures.”

The 10 regions with the lowest premiums are:

$154: Minneapolis-St. Paul – Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne and Washington counties.

$164: Pittsburgh and Northwestern Pennsylvania – Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Crawford, Erie, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, McKean, Mercer, Warren, Washington and Westmoreland counties.

$166: Middle Minnesota – Benton, Stearns and Wright counties.

$167: Tucson, Ariz. – Pima County.

$171: Northwestern Minnesota – Clearwater, Kittson, Mahnomen, Marshall, Norman, Pennington, Polk and Red Lake counties.

$173: Salt Lake City – Davis and Salt Lake counties.

$176: Hawaii

$180: Knoxville, Tenn. – Anderson, Blount, Campbell, Claiborne, Cocke, Grainger, Hamblen, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Monroe, Morgan, Roane, Scott, Sevier & Union.

$180: Western and North Central Minnesota – Aitkin, Becker, Beltrami, Big Stone, Cass, Chippewa, Clay, Crow Wing, Douglas, Grant, Hubbard, Isanti, Kanabec, Kandiyohi, Lac qui Parle, Lyon, McLeod, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Otter Tail, Pine, Pope, Renville, Roseau, Sibley, Stevens, Swift, Todd, Traverse, Wadena Wilkin and Yellow Medicine counties. In Chisago County, the lowest premium is $162.

$181: Chattanooga, Tenn. – Bledsoe, Bradley, Franklin, Grundy, Hamilton, Marion, McMinn, Meigs, Polk, Rhea and Sequatchie counties.

 

The 10 most expensive regions are:

$483: Colorado Mountain Resort Region – Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin counties, home of Aspen and Vail ski resorts. Summit County premiums are $462.

$461: Southwest Georgia – Baker, Calhoun, Clay, Crisp, Dougherty, Lee, Mitchell, Randolph, Schley, Sumter, Terrell and Worth counties.

$456: Rural Nevada – Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lincoln, Elko, Mineral, Pershing, White Pine and Churchill counties.

$445: Far western Wisconsin – Pierce, Polk and St. Croix counties, across the border from St. Paul, Minn.

$423: Southern Georgia – A swath of counties adjacent to the even more expensive region. Ben Hill, Berrien, Brooks, Clinch, Colquitt, Cook, Decatur, Early, Echols, Grady, Irwin, Lanier, Lowndes, Miller, Seminole, Thomas, Tift and Turner counties.

$405: Most of Wyoming – All counties except Natrona and Laramie.

$399: Southeast Mississippi – George, Harrison, Jackson & Stone counties. In Hancock County, the lowest price plan is $447.

$395: Vermont*

$383: Fairfield, Conn. – The southwestern-most county, which includes many affluent commuter towns for New York City.

$381: Alaska.

*Unlike other states, Vermont does not let insurers charge more to older people and less to younger ones. Its ranking therefore will differ depending on the ages of the consumers.

FEMA Releases Premium Guidelines for “High-Risk” Flood Zones

Posted on by

Anton Oparin / Shutterstock.com

Insurers have historically used FEMA’s Specific Rating Guidelines to calculate premiums for properties at high risk of flooding, particularly those built with the lowest floor elevation below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Prior to the National Flood Insurance Program’s extension in 2012 owners of these properties received subsidized rates well below the true flood risk. Many of these properties will now be rated using the Specific Rating Guidelines which FEMA released to the public last Wednesday.

The use of these new guidelines will undoubtedly result in significantly higher premium rates for many property owners in high risk zones. In its report FEMA stated that people whose properties are four feet below base flood elevation will see premiums totaling $95,000 over a 10-year period. These rates have many property owners and elected officials speaking out strongly against the reforms. Members of the Louisiana congressional delegation, including Senator Mary Landrieu (D), Rep. Bill Cassidy (R), and Rep. Cedric Richmond (D), have urged Congress to pass legislation that will delay or lower the rate increases. “I remain very concerned about the impacts these rate increases will have on homeowners and small businesses throughout our nation,” said Sen. Landrieu. Michael Hecht, president and CEO of Greater New Orleans, Inc., went every further stating that “flood insurance will be unaffordable for home and business owners across coastal and riverine America.”

In its guidelines FEMA did provide suggestions for property owners affected by the rate increases which include elevating the property above base flood level; however, this is often easier said than done. Flood insurance policies in the northeast offered an extra $30,000 to allow owners to elevate properties that had been damaged during Hurricane Sandy, but many property owners found that this amount would not cover all of the costs associated with elevating an entire property several feet above its original base. Other FEMA suggestions include adding flood vents to the property’s foundation, taking on higher deductibles, and working with local officials about community wide mitigation strategies.

The NFIP has become a major point of contention in light of the program’s fiscal crisis which was only exacerbated by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) went as far as to vow that his committee would take up legislation to privatize the flood insurance market. The program is sure to draw more and more attention as rate increases go into effect October 1, 2013.