Insurers say rising losses demand standards and incentives for mitigation

Industry and finance speakers told the Resilience Working Group that insurers are often the first to see changing risk conditions and that market signals and standards are key levers to reduce exposure.

Karen Collins, vice president for property and environmental at the American Property Casualty and Insurance Association, said insured catastrophe losses "now routinely exceed $100,000,000,000" in recent years and that secondary perils — severe storms, wildfires and floods — are driving more frequent claims. "If a community is more difficult to insure, it's more difficult to finance, develop and grow," she said.

Collins urged alignment around evidence‑based standards, citing the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) as a widely used benchmark in the United States that enables insurers to offer discounts for verified mitigation. She and other panelists stressed that inconsistent policy signals — mismatched codes, incentives and financing — confuse property owners and weaken mitigation incentives.

James McIntyre of the Resiliency Company described small‑dollar mitigation lending and blended capital as tools to close the "resiliency gap" between the cost to rebuild and the additional expense to rebuild to higher standards. "Loan‑first, grant‑second," he said, arguing that verification and standards allow insurers and lenders to reward mitigation and scale finance products.

Panelists agreed modeling and better data are central: MIT’s flood modeling showed how missing local drainage information led to underestimated exposure, and improved modeling allowed project teams to shift mechanical systems and redesign to reduce risk without a clear extra cost in project budgets.

The working group said it would fold these industry perspectives into its finance and risk‑management panel work as it develops recommendations for incentives, verification systems and potential financing mechanisms.