california personal auto rating plans l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
California Personal Auto Rating Plans PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
California Personal Auto Rating Plans

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

California Personal Auto Rating Plans - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 721 Views
  • Uploaded on

California Personal Auto Rating Plans The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Agenda California Private Passenger Automobile Regulations Background – Proposition 103 New Regulations Market Impact Pumping and Tempering Market Studies Industry Comments Lessons from Other States

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'California Personal Auto Rating Plans' - Pat_Xavi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
california personal auto rating plans

California Personal Auto Rating Plans

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Kelleen Arquette

agenda
Agenda
  • California Private Passenger Automobile Regulations
    • Background – Proposition 103
    • New Regulations
    • Market Impact
      • Pumping and Tempering
      • Market Studies
      • Industry Comments
      • Lessons from Other States
    • What Can Companies Do?
  • Other Regulations
background proposition 103
Background – Proposition 103
  • Enacted in 1988
  • Requires premiums based on certain variables in a certain order
    • Three Mandatory Factors
      • Driving Safety Record
      • Annual Mileage
      • Years of Driving Experience
    • Optional Rating Factors
      • Some can be combined with Years of Driving Experience
      • Only approved list allowed
  • Mandatory rate decrease
  • Average weight of optional factors below third mandatory factor
  • Requires rating plan factors to be developed using sequential analysis
  • Territorial Restrictions
    • 10 frequency bands and 10 severity bands
new regulations
New Regulations
  • Enacted July 14, 2006
  • Required each insurer to cap the amount of spread an insurer can use for territorial rating
    • 20 frequency bands and 20 severity bands
    • Although more bands allowed, restriction on weight limits territorial dispersion
  • Required each insurer to file an updated rate level indication
  • Weight of each optional factor below third mandatory factor
  • Two phases
    • First filing within 30 days – move part way towards full compliance, including rate filing
    • Second and subsequent filings – achieve full compliance within two years
implementation phase one
Implementation – Phase One
  • First filing required to correct for any non-compliance by 15%
    • For any factor with weight above the third mandatory factor, decrease the weight by 15%
  • Initial filings did not accomplish full compliance for factor weights
    • Frequency and severity bands
    • Gender and marital status in some cases
implementation phase one continued
Implementation – Phase One (continued)
  • Auto Club (Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club)
    • First to file
    • 7.0% decrease
    • Weights for multi-car, gender for a few coverages, frequency bands and severity bands still above third mandatory factor
    • Retained current frequency and severity band definitions
implementation phase one continued7
Implementation – Phase One (continued)
  • USAA
    • Second to file
    • 5.1% decrease
    • Weight for frequency band factors still above weight of third mandatory factor
    • Retained current frequency and severity band definitions
    • Reduced weight of frequency band factors by lowering the relativities for the highest rated bands and increasing the relativities for lowest rated bands, instead of tempering
implementation phase one continued8
Implementation – Phase One (Continued)

California Market Share

Pending Rate Changes

  • State Farm: -8%
  • Mercury: +4.5%
  • Auto Club: -7%
  • Farmers: 0%
  • Allstate: 0%
  • AIG: -5%
  • California State Auto: -5%
  • Progressive: -2%
  • USAA: -5%
  • GEICO: -5%
implementation phase two
Implementation – Phase Two
  • Full compliance with proposed regulations must be achieved by July 14, 2008
  • Requires at least one filing – rate and class plan
  • Redefine territory definitions to 20 territories
  • Number of filings will depend on
    • Customer rate impact
    • Customer retention
    • Rate indication
    • Competition
pumping and tempering
Pumping and Tempering
  • Factor weight
    • Weighted average of the absolute difference of the relativities from the mean
    • Measure of dispersion
    • Temper – lessens dispersion, decreases factor weight
    • Pump – increase dispersion, increases factor weight
  • Example
    • Driving Safety Record 10
    • Annual Mileage 9
    • Years of Driving Experience 8
    • Frequency Band 13
  • Possible solutions
    • Select different relativities to align weights
    • Temper frequency band relativities
    • Pump years of driving experience, annual mileage and driving safety record
pumping and tempering continued
Pumping and Tempering (continued)
  • Cross-subsidies
  • Pumping Driving Safety Record – Drivers with accidents and convictions pay too much, high surcharges may create incentive for unreported minor accidents
  • Pumping Annual Mileage – Long annual mileage drivers subsidize short annual mileage drivers, incentive for policyholder to underestimate annual mileage
  • Pumping Years of Driving Experience
    • Higher rates for new drivers increases likelihood of undisclosed drivers
    • Increase uninsured population of new drivers (<9 years driving experience) and experienced drivers (59+ years of driving experience)
  • Temper Cost and Frequency Bands – Urban rates subsidized by suburban and rural rates
  • Temper Gender/Marital Status – Rates for inexperienced single male drivers subsidized by other drivers
pumping and tempering continued12
Pumping and Tempering (continued)
  • 2003 study ranked importance of rating variables
  • Three most important factors connected to loss propensity do not align with California’s Three Mandatory Factors
  • Insurance score is not an optional factor in California
  • Years of driving experience used in California instead of age

Source: The Relationship of Credit-Based Insurance Scores to Private Passenger Automobile Insurance Loss Propensity, Michael Miller, FCAS and Richard Smith, FCAS, Epic Actuaries, June 2003

market studies robert downer study
Market Studies – Robert Downer Study
  • Study commissioned by Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC) and Association of California Insurance Companies (ACIC)
  • Study performed by Robert Downer of ARM Consultants, Inc.
  • Data from four large auto insurers
  • Study focused on rate changes for individual drivers rather than rates relative to indicated costs
  • Study assumed revenue neutral changes
  • Study shows
    • Over 60% of all drivers will receive a rate increase
    • Nearly 75% of drivers with 34 years driving experience (50+ years old) will receive rate increases
    • Over 60% of California Good Drivers will receive rate increases
    • Over 55% of drivers not considered California Good Drivers will receive rate decreases

Source: Personal Insurance Federation of California Reference Book, “Impact of petition to modify use of Optional

Rating Factors”, Robert Downer

market studies mercer oliver wyman study
Market Studies – Mercer Oliver Wyman Study
  • California Department of Insurance commissioned study by Mercer Oliver Wyman
  • Participation from several companies
  • Three instruction sets completed by participating companies, data provided to Mercer Oliver and Wyman for analysis
  • Study focused on rate changes for individual drivers rather than rates relative to indicated costs
  • Study assumed revenue neutral changes
  • Study shows
    • Rate increases for 52 of 58 counties
    • Approximately 60% of California drivers would receive a rate increase
    • 27% of all drivers will get a rate increase of over 10%
    • Rural drivers subsidize urban drivers
    • Magnitude of cross-subsidies range from $344 million to $742 million
  • Two studies show same results – New regulations will result in rate changes for drivers across the state
  • Rate changes not considered in either study

Source: California Farm Bureau Federation Fact Sheet, “Proposed Amendment of Title 10 California Code of Regulations, Section 2632.8 – Optional Automobile Insurance Rating Factors”

Californians to Stop Unfair Rate Increases, “Two Different Studies – Same Conclusion, Department of Insurance Proposal Will Result In Higher Auto Insurance Rates for More Drivers?”

industry comments 45 day comment period
Industry Comments – 45 Day Comment Period
  • Insurer comments during 45 day comment period prior to passage of new regulations
    • Rates should be cost-based and substantially related to the risk of loss
    • A driver’s location (zip code) should be a critical factor in calculating insurance rates
    • Drivers in rural regions of the state should not be forced to subsidize the rates for drivers in urban regions of the state
    • The proposed regulations will result in arbitrary rates because of the act of pumping and tempering and the resulting cross-subsidies. Pumping and tempering move rate relativities in opposite direction of indicated
lessons from other states michigan
Lessons from other states - Michigan
  • Michigan Essential Insurance Act
    • Take-all-comers provision
    • Territory restrictions
      • 20 territories
      • Maximum 10% rate differential between adjacent territories
      • Restrictions on maximum rate differential between highest and lowest rated territories (lowest rated not less than 45% of highest rated)
  • Market Impact
    • Urban territories subsidized by suburban and rural territories
    • Insurers specialized in urban or rural areas, with rates that reflected their market area
    • Coverage availability problems in Detroit
    • Increase in the involuntary market, especially in Detroit
  • Similarities to California Regulations
    • Territory restrictions that create a subsidy for urban drivers
    • CA insurers must accept all California Good Drivers

Source: Mackinac Center for Public Policy, www.mackinac.org, “The Essential Insurance Act”

lessons from other states massachusetts
Lessons from other states - Massachusetts
  • State-mandated rates
  • Territories
    • Territory definitions are re-defined every two years
    • Urban territories subsidized by rural territories
    • 27 territories
  • Age, gender and marital status prohibited
  • Mandatory Offer Rule
  • Tempering and capping
  • Exit restrictions
  • Reallocation of premiums across insurers based on loss experience

Source: Chapter 2 “Automobile Insurance Regulation: The Massachusetts Experience” Sharon Tennyson, Mary A. Weiss, Laureen Regen

lessons from other states massachusetts continued
Lessons from other states – Massachusetts (continued)
  • Market Impact
    • Cross-subsidies – urban territories subsidized by rural territories, inexperienced drivers subsidized by experienced drivers
    • Massachusetts auto insurance market less profitable than the U.S. auto insurance market overall
    • Increase in residual market
    • Fewer firms in the market compared to other states
    • Shift to Massachusetts-only firms
    • Cross-subsidies distort consumer behavior
      • Insurance premiums charged do not reflect true cost of providing insurance
      • Greater relative participation of high risk drivers in the driving and insuring population, increasing average expected costs
    • Companies specialize in urban or rural markets
    • Regulations lead to higher insurance costs

Source: Chapter 2 “Automobile Insurance Regulation: The Massachusetts Experience” Sharon Tennyson, Mary A. Weiss, Laureen Regen

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies press release, “Study supports NAMIC Position That Massachusetts Over-Regulation Leads to Higher Insurance Costs”, April 30, 2004

lessons from other states massachusetts continued19
Lessons from other states – Massachusetts (continued)
  • Proposed legislation in 2006 to revise auto system. Although not passed, work is ongoing to build support
  • Similarities to California market
    • Territorial restrictions
    • CA insurers must accept all CA Good Drivers
    • Pumping and tempering
    • Complex system of cross-subsidies
  • Difference from the California market
    • No mechanism for reallocation of premium

Source: Chapter 2 “Automobile Insurance Regulation: The Massachusetts Experience” Sharon Tennyson, Mary A. Weiss, Laureen Regen

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies press release, “Study supports NAMIC Position That Massachusetts Over-Regulation Leads to Higher Insurance Costs”, April 30, 2004

conclusions
Conclusions
  • Cross-subsidies
  • Reduce incentive for companies to write subsidized drivers
  • Insurance premiums charged do not reflect true cost of providing insurance
  • Greater relative participation of high risk drivers in the driving and insuring population, increasing average expected costs
  • Companies specialize in rural or urban markets
  • Higher insurance costs
  • Auto insurance market less profitable than U.S. auto insurance market
  • Rate increases for rural and suburban drivers
  • Rate changes across the state
  • Consumer shopping
what can companies do
What can companies do?
  • Diligent data collection for accurate rating
    • MVR reports – must balance with cost of MVR ($ )
    • Annual mileage
    • Undisclosed drivers
  • Misclassification lowers factor weights
    • Underestimation of annual miles lowers the factor weight for annual mileage annual mileage
what can companies do continued
What can companies do? (continued)
  • Redefine cost and frequency bands – geographic clustering
  • As major competitors make class plan filings, include competitive review and make adjustments to proposed class plan
  • Maximize use of optional rating factors
what can companies do continued23
What can companies do? (continued)
  • Optional Rating Factors
    • Type of vehicle
    • Vehicle performance capabilities (including alterations)
    • Type of use of vehicle (pleasure, business, commute, etc.)
    • Percentage use of the vehicle by the rated driver
    • Multi-vehicle households
    • Academic standing (Good Student Discount)
    • Driver training or defensive driving courses
    • Vehicle characteristics (protective devices, theft deterrent devices)
    • Gender
    • Marital status
    • Persistency (renewal discount)
    • Non-smoker
    • Secondary driver characteristics (safety record, years licensed, gender, marital status, driver training, academic standing for drivers not assigned as primary or secondary drivers on another vehicle)
    • Multi-policy discount
    • Relative claims frequency
    • Relative claims severity

Source: California Insurance Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4.7, Section 2632.5

what can companies do continued24
What can companies do? (continued)
  • Years of driving experience can be combined with
    • Percent use
    • Academic standing
    • Gender
    • Marital status
    • Driver training
  • Analyze rating factors used by competitors
    • Household Composition Factor (Allstate)
    • Liability Symbol (Allstate)
    • Model year for liability coverages in addition to liability symbol (Auto Club)
    • New Vehicle Discount (USAA)
    • Multiple Policy Discount (State Farm)
    • Garaging location for comprehensive coverage (Auto Club)
    • Persistency Discount (several insurers)

Source: California Insurance Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4.7, Section 2632.5

what can companies do continued25
What can companies do? (continued)
  • Sequential Analysis
    • Order of optional factor
      • Driving Safety Record (first), Annual Mileage (second), Years of Driving Experience (third)
      • Cost and Frequency Bands (last)
    • Multivariate analysis to compare proposed to indicated
other regulations
Other Regulations
  • Regulations on the Horizon
    • Annual Mileage Regulations
    • Prior Approval Regulations
regulations on the horizon annual mileage
Regulations on the horizon – Annual Mileage
  • Proposed regulations
    • Estimated annual mileage (new business or added vehicles)
      • Based on policyholder estimate
      • May use reasonable estimate if policyholder’s estimate is not available
    • Calculation
      • Distance to/from work, number of days driven to work
      • Difference between estimate and prior 12 months
    • Verification (renewal business)
      • Odometer reading from insured
      • Service records (insurer can’t require)
      • Technological devices provided by insurer
      • Smog check odometer readings
    • New business – cannot request annual mileage from prior carrier

Source: CDI Proposed Regulation Text, Mileage Verification, Section 2632.5

regulations on the horizon annual mileage continued
Regulations on the horizon – Annual Mileage (continued)
  • Association of California Insurance Companies’ response to proposed annual mileage regulation
    • Insurers should be allowed more flexibility in estimating annual mileage
    • Annual mileage verification should be allowed on new business
    • High potential costs to insurers as regulations may require collection of annual mileage information from current book

Source: Statement of the Association of California Insurance Companies on “Proposed Amendments of Section 2632.5”,

June 2006

regulations on the horizon annual mileage continued29
Regulations on the horizon – Annual Mileage (continued)
  • “Black Box” rating (telematics)
    • Potentially provides information to car makers (and insurers) through on-board sensors, Global Positioning Units (GPS) units and mobile phone technology
    • GM announced telematics will be standard on all GM vehicles by 2007 (and has been standard for Mercedes-Benz and BMW)
    • If cost and potential legislative barriers are overcome, could provide exact annual mileage
  • Progressive has been piloting a system in Minnesota since 2004 and Texas since 1998
regulations on the horizon prior approval insurance regulations
Regulations on the horizon – Prior Approval Insurance Regulations
  • Prior Approval Regulations
    • Specifies methodology for developing rate indication
      • Loss Development – dollar-weighted average of last three link ratios, no tail factor
      • Trend – company’s latest 12 quarters of calendar year paid claim cost and frequency data, developed using exponential curve of best fit
      • Efficiency Standard – maximum allowable expense ratio set by insurance commissioner, three-year average expense ratio
      • Leverage Factors and Surplus – allocation based on loss and unearned premium reserves
      • Credibility – current rate plus a trend
      • Catastrophes – historical experience only, no external data
    • Limited scope for variance requests

Source: Proposed Regulation Text 2642.4 – 2648.4

regulations on the horizon prior approval insurance regulations continued
Regulations on the horizon – Prior Approval Insurance Regulations (continued)
  • Association of California Insurance Companies – “Comments on Proposed California Prior Approval Insurance Regulations”, Michael A. Walters
    • Unprecedented degree of prescription – no ratemaking methodology is appropriate in all cases
    • Removes actuarial judgment
      • Methodology
      • Input
    • Result – cause operating losses or inadequate returns for insurers and lines constricted by simplistic rate indication approach
    • Recommendation – proposed procedures guideline for simplistic approach, identify filings that need more attention

Source: Michael A. Walters, Tillinghast report to the Association of California Insurance Companies,

September 13, 2006