Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology Approves Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model, Reviews Standards

 

During a two-day meeting on August 17 and August 18, 2011, the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology (“FCHLPM”) approved a revised version of the Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model (“FPM”) Version 4.1, agreeing that it met all 2009 Standards to Determine Acceptability (“Standards”).

The FCHLPM initially reviewed the FPM on June 16, 2011, but did not approve it because the submission was riddled with typographical errors, including mislabeled tables, incorrect page numbers and miscalculations.  The FCHLPM approved the corrected version on August 17, 2011.

During the two-day meeting, The FCHLPM also conducted a time-consuming bi-annual review of the six Standards, which include lengthy, technical, and highly detailed requirements for evaluating hurricane models.  The line-by-line review sparked much discussion, with FCHLPM members agreeing to schedule a working group meeting in September to review and discuss possible fundamental changes to the Standards to better tailor them for the purpose of evaluating the acceptability of hurricane models.

Representatives from EQECAT and another modeler have suggested that the Standards be rewritten to more precisely characterize what information is necessary for a model to be deemed acceptable.

The FCHLPM also deferred action until September on determining the acceptability of RMS’ RiskLink Version 11, SP2 model, saying more time was needed to adequately review the submitted materials.

During the FCHLPM’s June FPM review, Commissioners voiced concern over the editing errors in the initial submission, saying it would not be professional to post such an error-filled document to the FCHLPM website.   On August 17, an FPM spokesman assured Commissioners that the revised submission had been reviewed by several people to make sure the errors were corrected.

“Basically the document has been thoroughly re-edited numerous times,” said the FPM representative, who explained that approximately 400 references were checked by a computer science team whose members went online and determined that the references were valid, the representative stated.

“We really did try to make a good-faith effort to improve the document,” he added.  Fonts were checked to make sure they all matched, and several people checked and re-checked the document independently of each other, he said.  Further, dates and times were verified, typos were corrected and tables were fixed.

The FPM representative insisted they had put forth “enormous” efforts to make sure the document was acceptable and urged the FCHLPM to reconsider its previous rejection of the model.

A representative of the Professional Team, which reviews the FCHLPM model submissions, sought assurance that the revised FMP document was properly edited.

“Are you saying this document is ready for publication to publish to our website?  Are you confident of your work?” it was asked.

“Yes, I am confident,” the FPM representative replied.  The FCHLPM subsequently approved the FPM with one Commission member voting “no.”

Much of the two-day-long review of the Standards consisted of making technical and editorial changes, agreeing to eliminate certain forms and renumber others, and making note of sections that merit further discussion for the workshop tentatively planned for September 2011.  The Standards are divided into six sections:  General, Meteorological, Statistical, Computer, Actuarial, and Vulnerability.

Among items listed for workshop discussion are clarifying the definition of “hurricane” and re-organizing the computer standards.

Form A-4 was so outdated it included references to Hurricane Andrew (1992) percent of losses.  The FCHLPM voted to eliminate the Form, and then agreed there may be others that merit review, something which could be discussed at the proposed workshop.

“I am all for simplifying,” said one Commission member.  It was agreed that a representative for each Standards section should discuss possible updates, changes, and revisions with the Professional Team and modelers, then submit an outline a week before the proposed workshop so FCHLPM members have specifics to review.

FCHLPM members agreed “longer term” issues should be the focus of the proposed workshop.

With no further business before the FCHLPM, the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Colodny Fass.

 

 

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please send an email to Brooke Ellis at bellis@cftlaw.com.