Insurance Industry Responds to House Approval of NFIP Renewal

Insurance industry trade groups lauded the U.S. House of Representatives’ vote on Nov. 14, reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The 21st Century Flood Reform Act (H.R. 2874) would reauthorize the program for five years and enact operational changes. Advocates from RIMS, the risk management society, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, and SmarterSafer.org also asked that the Senate waste no time in passing its version of the measure before its expiration on Dec. 8.

On Sept. 8, President Trump signed legislation passed by both houses to extend NFIP authorization until Dec. 8, which previously had been set to expire Sept. 30.

Dow Jones reports that the act’s reforms include:

  • Authorizing $1 billion to elevate, buy out or mitigate high-risk properties
  • Capping flood insurance premiums at $10,000 per year for homeowners
  • Removing hurdles to the private flood insurance market, which often offers better coverage at lower cost than the NFIP
  • Providing for community flood maps and a homeowner’s ability to appeal their flood designation
  • Better aligning NFIP rates to match a property’s true risk, particularly for in-land and lower-value properties
  • Improving the claims process for flood victims
  • Addressing repeatedly flooded properties, which account for 2% of NFIP policies but 25% of claim payments

While it applauded the U.S. House of Representatives for deciding to reauthorize the NFIP, RIMS, the risk management society, also urged the Senate to quickly follow-up before the program’s Dec. 8 expiration. Allowing the NFIP to expire would have “significant repercussions, impacting both corporate and residential property owners,” said RIMS Vice President Robert Cartwright Jr.

“Nearly five million American consumers rely on the NFIP to protect their homes, properties, and businesses,” said Nat Wienecke, senior vice president of federal government relations at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI). “A long-term reauthorization is needed to provide consumers and markets with reliability and stability when it comes to flood insurance coverage.”

SmarterSafer.org, a coalition of taxpayer advocates, environmental groups, insurance interests, housing organizations and mitigation advocates, said in a statement that this year’s “historic hurricane season has pushed the nation’s debt-ridden flood insurance program past the point of bankruptcy once again, so we applaud the House for passing a legislative package that reforms the NFIP to ensure the program is financially sustainable for the future.” The organization also lauded the House for investing in recommended measures including “mapping and mitigation, addressing affordability and providing consumer choice in the flood insurance marketplace.”

The NFIP was created more than 50 years ago to provide affordable flood insurance as private insurers pulled out of the market. The program’s large debt led Congress to cancel $16 billion of its debt last month. NFIP now has about $6 billion to pay claims and $10 billion left that it can borrow from the Treasury Department, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which manages the program.

High Performance Risk Management

LOS ANGELES—Risk managers, whose job once focused on a basic “bucket of risks,” and making decisions about which risks are transferable and which ones the company should retain, have been “migrating along an evolutionary path which is allowing us to be more strategic,” said Chris Mandel, senior vice president of strategic solutions at Sedgwick, at the RIMS ERM Conference 2017.

During the session “The Trouble with ERM,” he noted that risk managers now need to alter their focus. “The question for risk managers now is, how do we get our organizations to focus on long-term success and recognize the link between strategy and risk?” he said.

Erin Sedor, president at Black Fox Strategy, said that personal experience taught her the importance of connecting with the CEO and aligning with the company’s strategy when setting up a program. “You need to know what they are talking about and understand strategy,” she said.

Unable to find a satisfactory definition of strategy for ERM, Sedor came up with her own: A set of decisions made at a given point in time, based on business intelligence, that when successfully executed, support the purpose, growth & survival of the organization.

She added that, unfortunately, enterprise risk is not a term that resonates with the C-suite, but strategy is.

She identified three major problems with ERM that can dampen its prospects:

  1. A limited view of the organization’s mission, growth and survival.
  2. Silos. Breaking through them is a nonstop process, no matter how a company tries to improve the situation—especially in the areas of risk management, continuity planning and strategy, which typically happen in very different parts of the company. “It is important to link risk management and continuity planning in the strategic planning process, because that will get some attention and get the program where it needs to be,” she said.
  3. Size. Because ERM programs are notoriously huge, she said, “the thought is that ERM will cost too much money, take too many resources and take too long to implement. And that by the time it’s finished, everything will have changed anyway.”

Starting the process by “saying you’re going to focus on mission-critical,” however, can help get the conversation moving. “Because as you focus on that, the lines between risk management, continuity planning and strategic planning begin to blur,” she said.

Sedor described mission-critical as any activity, asset, resource, service or system that materially impacts (positively or negatively) the organization’s ability to successfully achieve its strategic goals and objectives.

She said to find out what mission-critical means to the organization, what is the company’s appetite and tolerance for mission-critical, and the impacts of mission-critical exposures on the organization. “Risk managers will often ask this question first, but you have to come to grips with the fact that not every risk is a mission-critical risk,” she said. “And not everything in a risk management program is mission-critical.” Using that context helps in gaining perspective, she added.

When viewing risk management, continuity planning and strategic planning from a traditional perspective, strategic planning is about capturing opportunity and mitigating threats; risk management is the identification, assessment and mitigation of risk; and business continuity planning is about planning for and mitigating catastrophic threats.

Looking at them from a different vantage, however, strategic planning is planning for growth; risk management allows you to eliminate weaknesses that will impede growth, which is why it’s important; and continuity planning will identify and mitigate the threats that impact sustainability. “That is how they work together,” she said, adding, “you are also looking at weaknesses that, when coupled with a threat, will take you out. Those are your high-priority weaknesses. Using a mission-critical context makes it all manageable.”

At this point, if a risk manager can gain enough leverage to talk to executives throughout the organization about what mission-critical means to the company, its impact, and then about tolerances and creating a more integrated program, “all of a sudden, you’ve talked about ERM and they didn’t even know it,” she said. “They thought you were talking about strategy.”

Words (and Clauses) Matter

A recent report published by RIMS highlights the importance for risk professionals—or the person within the organization tasked with the responsibility—to fully understand the language included in their insurance policies.

The report A Common Language: Aligning Third-Party Contracts with Insurance Policies, suggests that there are “clauses in contacts that may not be understood as well as others, and some people may be tempted to skim past those to move work along.”  But, in this haste, deciding to “skim” past those clauses may activate exclusions, limitations and even, unknowingly, nullify the transfer of risk to a third-party.

Authored for RIMS by Brenda Tappan of United Educators, the report defines key insurance terms that should be understood by contract reviewers, as well as common contract clauses that impact the validity of both the contract and insurance policies.

“At any given time, an organization could have hundreds of contracts with external stakeholders,” Tappan said. “With in-depth knowledge of coverages held by the organization, risk professionals can play an integral role in ensuring terminology is understood and that discrepancies between third-party contracts and insurance policies are identified.”

The report advises risk managers to be aware of the following insurance contract elements:

  • Indemnification Clauses – This clause delineates whether the parties of a contract wish to retain, transfer or share responsibility from a potential third-party. Be aware that not all “bodily injury” or “property damage” will be covered, even if you have stipulated everything correctly in the indemnification clause.
  • Additional Insured Status – This status provides proof of financial capability to cover what is assumed in the indemnity clause. Keep the additional insured provision separate from indemnification clause because if the latter is found unenforceable, the additional insured clause might be unenforceable as well.
  • Waivers of Subrogation – This says that the insurer has the right to stand in the place of the insured and go against the responsible party to make themselves whole. Risk professionals might consider requesting a Waiver of Transfer of Rights endorsement. Also, get as much in writing as possible – don’t leave anything up to chance or interpretation.
  • Primary and Non-Contributory – Essentially, the insured will not seek contribution from any other insurance available. When named an additional insured, you are afforded coverage as provided by the other insurance policy.
  • Excess and Umbrella Coverage – Organizations buy this coverage to increase the limits. It can be used for commercial general liability, commercial auto, employers liability, and other primary liability policies. As an indemnitor, you will want to ensure that for any coverage that taps into the policies that provide the upper limits, there is a specified cap to the coverage contractually offered to the indemnitee.
  • Limitation of Liability – It’s an attempt by third-party contractors to cap the amount of liability they will be responsible for to a set amount prior to an incident. Be on the lookout for these limitation of liability clauses. Generally, they are found toward the end of the contract, but can have a significant impact on indemnification.

RIMS Membership Has a Say in COSO’s New ERM Framework

When Risk & Insurance Management Society (RIMS) members use the new ERM framework published Sept. 6 by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of theTreadway Commission (COSO), they may recognize their own ideas prominently displayed. Carol Fox, RIMS vice president of strategic initiatives announced the call for public comment on Risk Management Monitor in June 2016. She said feedback from the industry, and particularly RIMS members, is reflected in COSO’s ERM Framework: Integrating with Strategy and Performance.

“RIMS members took advantage of the unique opportunity to influence one of the industry’s major guidance documents. For several weeks, members collaborated and drafted a response, which was publicly available through the end of last year,” said Fox, who participated on the project’s advisory council. “We were very appreciative that COSO reached out to RIMS and other professional associations, whose input strengthened the content, ideas and approaches featured in Integrating with Strategy and Performance.

A summary of the public comment feedback includes:

  • More than 200 responses–double that of the internal control update
  • Over 70% of responses from individuals
  • Over 50% of participation outside of North America
  • Almost 50% had affiliations beyond COSO memberships
  • Almost 50% of respondents had 10 or more years of risk management experience
  • Positive ratings outnumbered negative ratings by 4.5 to 1

The new publication serves as an update to 2004’s Enterprise Risk Management – Integrated Framework, which is internationally regarded as the standard for applied risk management frameworks. Developed by PwC under the direction of the COSO Board, its simple, five-component structure considers various viewpoints and operating structures while highlighting the importance of enterprise risk management in strategic planning. It also emphasizes embedding ERM throughout an organization, as risk influences strategy and performance throughout the organization.

“The complexity of risk has changed, new risks have emerged, and both boards and executives have enhanced their awareness and oversight of enterprise risk management while asking for improved risk reporting,” said COSO Chair Robert B. Hirth Jr. “Our overall goal is to continue to encourage a risk-conscious culture.”

Enterprise Risk Management: Integrating with Strategy and Performance is available in printed form, e-book, on-line subscription and pdf licensing for large organizations, accounting and consulting firms. Additionally, COSO is planning for the framework to be translated into several languages, including Chinese, Japanese, Spanish and French.

Visit www.coso.org for purchase information and for a link to the framework’s executive summary.