90% Of 330 Insurance Cos In 5 States Surveyed Have No Public Position On Climate, Associated Risks

[hatrack]

EDIT

The heads of insurance departments in five states—California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York and Washington—required large insurers to fill out climate risk disclosure surveys in 2013. The states wanted to know how the companies regard climate change, and what they might do in the face of it. Ceres, which works with investors and businesses on issues concerning the environment and sustainability, organized, analyzed and ranked the responses, which are publicly available.

The participating 330 companies make up 87 percent of the American insurance industry. They are mostly U.S.-based and include both insurers and reinsurers, companies that cover against other insurers' losses. All companies fall under three large umbrellas of business: property, life or health.

According to the report "Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey Report & Scorecard" released this week, around 90 percent of participating companies have yet to issue a public statement on their approach to climate change. To this point, the report said: "This near total silence on climate change is deeply troubling and is thwarting constructive public engagement on appropriate responses."

American-based Allstate and Europe's Zurich are the only two major companies that have issued such statements from America's top 10 list of property insurers. State Farm, the country's No. 1 property insurer, has remained silent. So have Berkshire Hathaway Group and Nationwide, two other companies in the top 10. These three companies are also among a majority of property insurers whose top executives don't publicly acknowledge the issue.

EDIT

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20141023/us-insurers-meet-climate-risk-deeply-troubling-silence

[OnlinePoker]

1. Earlier this year we heard the opposite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025037926

[FBaggins]

2. Nor should they

Insurance is repriced on an annual basis - taking into account actual losses. They don't need a "position on climate"... because it's built into the model. If climate change causes there to be more (and more severe) storms here in NC (which we have seen) - then rates will rise in following years to account for the greater risk of insured loss.

I doubt that my insurer (USAA) has a "position on climate"... but their rate adjustments for added risk here in NC are really the same thing. My home is only worth marginally more than it was a decade ago, but it's much more expensive to insure... and that isn't because it's more likely to burn down or explode in a gas leak.

Climate change occurs over many MANY such cycles. There's no need to have a company policy that considers whether some part of Florida will be under water in 50-75 years... because they don't comit themselves to pricing today that wil bind them to coverage that far in the future.

[Nihil]

3. That's a valid point ...

> they don't commit themselves to pricing today that will bind them to coverage
> that far (50-75 years) in the future.

In addition, from the OP quote,
>> a majority of property insurers whose top executives don't publicly acknowledge the issue.
(my emphasis)

This survey thus has no validity with respect to the companies own positions, their recognition (or otherwise)
of future problems and their strategy to respond to it. They are quite capable of having an *internal* plan
along the lines of "withdraw from areas A, B & F after hiking the rates exorbitantly for a few years so that we
can legitimately claim that there is insufficient business for us there".

Stating such a policy publicly would lead to them being pilloried for "abandoning" the customers in those
areas. Applying it without admitting it as such will simply achieve their long term goals of reducing payments
and maximising profits.

[dumbcat]

4. I think we should also know

these companies public position on the impact of a large asteroid striking the earth.