U.S. earthquake insurance premium prices are based on scanty data and may be insufficient to cover losses, according to a rating firm analysis.

Standard & Poor's said that predicting earthquakes is extremely difficult, and historically major ones have not been forecasted.

It noted that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that over the next 30 years the probability of a major quake is 67 percent for the San Francisco Bay area and 60 percent for Southern California.

The possibility of a sizeable earthquake loss for the insurance industry "is a prospective risk, and it calls into question whether the price currently charged is sufficient," S&P analysts wrote.

Next year, the rating firm said, it will assess the capital adequacy of primary property-casualty insurers by using net exposure to losses==not catastrophe premiums, as is currently done.

S&P noted that the privately financed, publicly managed California Earthquake Authority is currently the world's largest residential earthquake insurer.

The rating firm said that at the end of 2004, St. Paul Travelers Companies and affiliates wrote $102.2 million of earthquake-specific direct premiums, which constituted a 14.2 percent share of the market==the largest amount. Zurich Insurance group had the second largest market share at 13.7 percent, with $98.6 million in direct premiums.

Major quakes in the United States are rare, the analysts wrote, "making estimating potential insurance losses and data quality and ongoing issue."

Analysts noted that as reference points for big quakes, insurers recently have only the experience of the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California with $17.8 billion in losses. Prior to that, there is the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the 1811 New Madrid quake, which damaged Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas and Illinois.

"Clearly property values, building locations and population trends have changed since then, which leaves underwriters and model users facing a difficult challenge in terms of price adequacy and setting capital requirements," S&P reported.

Despite the difficulty in pricing insurance and reinsurance, companies still offer the coverage. However, S&P said "it remains unclear as to the adequacy of that price and whether or not that price is sufficient to withstand the potential volatility that could occur."

The rating firm said that if it appears a company is using outdated data assumptions for quake frequency or severity, S&P will calculate that it needs a higher capital charge.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader

Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:

  • Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
  • Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
  • Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
  • Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.