In 2006, the Risk Retention Reporter conducted a similar survey, canvassing only RRGs. At that time, only 40 percent of respondents were interested in property coverage for their group.

The reasoning for the change would seem to be the difference in markets. With the soft market, being able to write a more comprehensive package would help to keep members and attract new members.

At the time of the last survey, taken at the height of the hard market, property didn't make such a big difference.

Of RRGs surveyed this summer, 66 percent say there would be a moderate to definite likelihood their RRG would add property coverage to the products offered to their members. Only 34 percent answer there is little to no possibility their RRGs would offer the coverage (see chart).

The PG survey returns even more positive results: 33 percent of PG managers indicate they would definitely add property coverage. Another 33 percent note a high likelihood they would offer the coverage; and 11 percent answer there is a moderate likelihood of offering the coverage. Just 23 percent respond there is little to no chance they would offer property (see chart).

BOON TO BUSINESS?

Both PGs and RRGs were asked whether the addition of property coverage would be a boon to their business and allow them to expand their base of insureds.

PGs are overwhelmingly more positive about the impact that HR 2126 would have on their business. Of PG respondents, 63 percent indicate there is a high to very high chance that the additional coverage would positively aid their business.

RRG managers are less enthusiastic, with only 30 percent responding there would be a high to very high chance that it would help them.

Another question asked was whether respondents thought the ability to write property insurance would make their business sector more competitive—with new RRGs and PGs forming to write that type of coverage.

Only 35 percent of PG respondents believe it would negatively affect their business and 65 percent think there is moderate to no chance the addition of property coverage would make their business sector more competitive.

The majority of RRG respondents, 59 percent, also say they believe the chance of new competition would be low to unlikely.

Many survey respondents are enthusiastic about the opportunity to offer property coverage (especially auto). Several respondents, however, note the substantial differences between underwriting and claims handling for liability and for property, observing that many existing groups would not have the experience to manage property coverage—and they caution that careful preparation would be needed of RRGs before entering the property arena.