Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology August 11-13 Meeting Report: Day Three
Aug 17, 2009
On August 13, 2009, the final day of a regularly-scheduled three-day meeting , the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology (“Commission”) continued its review and revision of Acceptability Standards and Forms. To view the complete meeting agenda, click here
In regard to General Standards, Commission members decided that all models would have to include information related to commercial and residential properties. Also, the Commission will require the inclusion of new, county-based maps and a description of any significant changes in the modelers’ processes.
In regard to Statistical Standards, the Commission is considering the revision of Form S-6, which is entitled “Hypothetical Events for Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis” and is a requirement for modeling organizations that have not previously provided the Commission with this analysis. Revisions to Form S-6 will be considered at the September meeting. To view the current Form S-6, click here,
Information regarding the effects of coinsurance on commercial and residential property was also added to the Actuarial Standards, along with requirements to provide an assessment of the impact of private adjusters. The Commission also directed modelers not to overestimate wind damage in low lying areas susceptible to storm surge.
A Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) representative asked modelers to provide a breakdown of loss estimates to the geocode level, rather than by ZIP codes, inasmuch as some properties are at a much higher risk than others in the same ZIP code. Commission Members asked the Citizens representative to work on the issue with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation and to report back at the September meeting.
A new process was discussed that provides modelers with a 30-day timeframe in which to appeal a rejection. After a rejection, a meeting would be held within 60 days to consider the appeal, followed by four weeks of correspondence related to further clarification. Then, a meeting would be held to reconsider the decision. However, while the Commission debated these proposed timelines extensively, they did not finalize them.
Further debate focused on ethics and tightening rules regarding communication among Commission members, professional staff, modelers and State Board of Administration staff. No final decisions on these issues were rendered.
The Commission assured modelers that they may be accompanied into closed meetings by personnel of their choosing. Also allowed will be direct inquiries to Commissioners about negative votes, although a Commissioner is not obligated to respond.
After additional consideration, a vote will be taken on changes to the Standards and Forms during the September 15 and 16 meetings.
The above information is a brief summary of technical discussions that took place during the meeting. Specific information will be published in the formal minutes of the meeting and in any meeting materials distributed. Should you have any comments or questions, please contact Colodny Fass.
To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please send an email to ccochran@cftlaw.com.