Plate Movement

That's not exactly the kind of plate movement I plan on discussing today. As I mentioned last week, I planned on writing a post on earthquakes before I got interrupted by another snow storm. Luckily, because of the lag time before posting far more people have written on the topic of earthquakes and I can provide you with links for further reading. Just like the 2001 "summer of the shark" 2010 could have been called "the year of earthquakes." The number of earthquakes in 2010 (and so far in 2011) does not seem to be above average. You can look at earthquake data for the last decade from the U. S. Geological Survey for confirmation. According to the June, 2010 Reactions Magazine article, The $1trn Exposure "The number of earthquakes this year [2010] has been normal but the casualties and insured losses have not. Risk Modellers are asking where the next Mega quake could strike." UPDATE: This sentiment was re-affirmed today by the Wall Street Journal article: Swiss Re Expects Quakes to Become Deadlier, Costlier. The article goes on to provide some forecasting of the most vulnerable regions world wide. The region in Japan they thought most likely to cause severe damage (and casualties) was not the one where the current earthquake has hit. Wired Magazinee discusses this error in their article Japan Quake Epicenter Was in Unexpected Location. I believe if you asked the average person where they think the next big US-based earthquake would be, they would respond California. They wouldn't necessarily be wrong. Cascadia is listed as a "most vulnerable area" in the Reactions article cited above. Los Angeles is listed as a U.S. Megadisaster threat for earthquakes on an informative map that Risk Management Magazine published in March of 2010 (for more from this map, feel free to contact us, or stop by the library to take a look). George Santayana would be disappointed in those responses though, especially in this, the bicentennial year of the New Madrid earthquakes. According to Risk Management Magazine's Risk Atlas mentioned above, "recent research suggests that the [New Madrid] fault line may be more stable than ever, but FEMA has said that a 7.7 magnitude quake here could lead to 'the highest economic losses due to a natural disaster in the United States." The fault line affects Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee but when it quaked in 1811 and 1812 it affected states even farther away. BestWeek, in a February 28, 2011 article said: "The area along the Mississippi River is no longer a sparsely populated area with the occasional log cabin. If a series of three major earthquakes were to strike that area today, it could cost an estimated $79 billion in insured property losses, according to AIR Worldwide." The article is accompanied by a colorful loss map illustrating the losses in millions for the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Of course, insured losses are different than total losses; this is especially true in the United States where flood and earthquake insurance are not included in the standard homeowners or commercial property policies. BestWeek published another article in their February 28, 2011 issue titled Costly Quake Covers Limit U.S. Policies. The article points out that 90% of the homeowners in New Zealand (the site of two earthquakes in the last six months) have earthquake insurance. New Zealanders attending a meeting on earthquake insurance, were shocked to find out that 90% of Californians do not have earthquake coverage. According to Advisen's front page news on Monday, The Wall Street Journal published an article examining coverage in the United States for major disasters like those in Japan. The article, entitled: Disaster Insurance: How Well Are You Covered, addresses some of the same concerns as those mentioned in the BestWeek article. Risk Management Magazine has an article in the March, 2010 edition titled After Haiti: The Future of Disasters. They end their article with this: "Catastrophes are just as possible domestically as they are abroad. The longer we go without taking the necessary steps to increase preparedness, the sooner we will have to stop calling these natural disasters and start calling them man-made catastrophes." Perhaps that's a bit sensational, but it does get across the point that natural disasters, especially earthquakes, require preparation on our part. The library stands ready to answer more in-depth questions about earthquake insurance, both for consumers and those in the industry. We have access to any of the articles mentioned in this blog post as well as statistical information on earthquake insurance and groups writing such insurance in various states. We even have some (though not a lot) of information on earthquake and other natural disaster forecasting. Please feel free to contact us if you're interested in any specific information.

Snow Business, Like No Business I Know

It's snowing again here in Boston and, according to weather.com, it could snow again on the 27th. I don't usually complain about cold weather because I grew up in Alaska and I prefer the cold to the sweltering heat and humidity Boston can throw at you, but I am tired of winter. I left Alaska for a reason.

I planned on writing a blog post on earthquake risk in the United States, but I can't think of anything other than snow at this point. It's old news but in case you missed it AIR Worldwide announced in early February that the snowstorms which took place on February 1st and 2nd were projected to cost 1.4 Billion dollars. It was one of the largest storms across the country since the 1950s. The snow storm back in February wasn't as disastrous for us as the, infamous in these parts, "blizzard of '78." Estimated losses for that blizzard were about $350 million more than the losses AIR is projecting for this year's storm. In case you were interested in some background and visuals on the blizzard of '78, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put together a power point presentation for the 30th anniversary.

Clearly, today's snow flurries here in Boston don't compare with others we've faced even this winter, but I'm tired of snow. Isn't it time we should be facing risks from rain? I can't believe I just typed that since we just passed the 1 year mark for the flood The Library had in its basement which destroyed a number of valuable items. It required a week of 12+ hour days to save what historical items we could and we're still reminded of the flood daily as we look at the recovered items still waiting to be scanned.

On the other hand, it might be exciting to test the three new sump pumps we had put in after last year's extreme rain. I suppose I'll have to wait for those April showers, but what happened to the lamb March was supposed to go out like?

Six Degrees of Separation

I missed my posts the last two weeks. The past week was such a blur it's been hard to catch up. I was hoping that one of the presidents had worked as an insurance agent or company man before taking on the mantle of leadership for our country so I could post on that; unfortunately, I found no evidence to that effect. Instead, I offer you a recent request and how it ended up interrelated (in my mind) with other recent topics we've discussed.

I was asked if insurance companies were allowed to use credit scores when giving homeowners insurance rates in Massachusetts. The following answer is posted on the Massachusetts Division of Insurance website under FAQ for homeowners insurance in response to a question that is NOT the same, but I think the answer still applies: "Unlike Massachusetts' auto insurance market, the homeowner insurance market is not take-all-comers. Insurers may decide to non-renew your policy or decline offering a policy as long as they do not base their decision on specific criteria outlined in our insurance laws (M.G.L. Ch. 175, section 4C)."

As far as credit reporting, Chapter 93 Section 51 seems to imply it can be used for insurance generally (see subsection 3 (iii)) and Chapter 93 Section 62 outlines other ways that the information can be used in insurance. Just to be sure that credit scoring wasn't considered unfair, I also checked the Massachusetts “UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES IN THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE”regulation which does not mention the use of credit scores at all. You, dear readers, may remember this law from our mention of it back in our insurance rebating post. While all of those laws indicate that credit scores can be used for homeowners insurance, currently credit scoring is not allowable in Massachusetts auto insurance rating, according to regulation 211 CMR 79.

The use of credit scores for insurance rating is not a topic without controversy. I almost mentioned what a hot topic credit scoring for insurance rates was in our post on redlining. People have suggested that using credit scores is the newest form of discrimination. You can read a recent Rough Notes article, "Remain Calm All is Well" on it. That is not the first article on the topic though, Independent Agent, for example, had an article back in May of 2002.

The National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) created a model act in 2002 "regarding use of Credit Information in Personal Insurance." It was last updated in 2009. As of 2007, 26 states had adopted the law. The model appears to allow the use of credit scores but:

prohibits an insurer from refusing to insure an applicant, insured, or other individual seeking insurance coverage because the person’s insurance score fails to meet or exceed a minimum numeric threshold, unless one or more other applicable underwriting factors independent of credit information are considered.

Massachusetts was not one of the adopters of the model, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that this topic has cropped up almost every year in the last decade (we have The Standard and MassAgent articles to prove it). Massachusetts appears to still allow the use of credit scores in homeowners insurance, though, as we mentioned above it's prohibited it in the use of auto insurance rating.

The Massachusetts Attorney General's office as recently as the fall of 2010 was attempting to strengthen the anti-credit scoring regulations. They issued this report on it in December of 2009. Finally, I am not sure about the documentation of the claim, but according to autoinsurance.org, there are currently 46 states in which an auto insurer can look at your credit score and use it as a factor in rating, Massachusetts is one of the four states in which this is not legal.

As I learned researching a different request this week, Massachusetts has had unique auto insurance regulations almost since the dawn of auto regulation. According to Donald Hillman in his 1980 publication: Strategic Study in Support of Competitive Automobile Insurance Rating in Massachusetts, "In 1925, Massachusetts, after four years of legislative study, adopted the first compulsory auto insurance law in the nation. It was to be the only compulsory auto insurance law in the United States for the next 32 years." He goes on to discuss how Massachusetts introduced no-fault auto liability insurance in 1970:

This first-in-the-nation law radically changed the manner in which bodily injury claims were adjusted and paid. The no-fault law is the one example of undeniably successful lawmaking in the area of auto insurance in Massachusetts -- claims were reduced and premiums for bodily injury coverages fell accordingly.

Massachusetts's current stance on the use of credit scoring in auto insurance appears in keeping with its pattern of being in the minority (dare I say forefront) of auto insurance regulation.