While increasingly hostile weather has played a role in growing annual catastrophe losses that now average $132 billion globally, it’s actually non-hazard factors such as oil prices, construction materials, and labor costs that account for 80-90% of the cost. That’s the surprising research finding from global reinsurance broker Gallagher Re. The lines between “primary” and “secondary” perils also need rethinking.

Former Florida Deputy Insurance Commissioner Lisa Miller sits down with the chief researcher, and with the chief risk officer of one of Florida’s largest property insurance companies to discuss the importance of considering these non-hazard factors in rate calculations, and the need for better building codes, resilience efforts, and potential legislative incentives to mitigate risks and reduce costs.

Show Notes

Joining Host Miller are Steve Bowen, Gallagher Re’s Chief Science Officer and researcher behind the Q1 2026 Gallagher Re Natural Catastrophe and Climate Report, and Ryan Hodges, Senior Vice President of Risk Management for American Integrity Insurance Company, headquartered in Tampa, Florida. The focus was on the practical implications the research findings have for insurance companies, reinsurers, policymakers, builders, and consumers alike. Miller opened the discussion by noting that global insured catastrophe losses now average approximately $132 billion annually and that severe convective storms − including thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, and straight-line winds − have become major contributors to those losses.

The Rise of “Non-Hazard” Cost Drivers

While climate and weather patterns certainly matter, the Gallagher Re report concludes they account for only about 10% to 20% of the increase in insured losses over the past two decades.

“When you're looking at the overall frequency of events, there's not really any data that suggests that we're seeing an overall increase in the number of the events themselves,” said Bowen, who is also a meteorologist. “We’re starting to see some emerging signs that events are behaving a bit more radically, there’s more volatility than what we've seen before in the past, but it wasn't enough of an obvious signal for us to feel like this is really what's driving why losses continue to go up.”

The report found that 2008 marked a major shift in replacement and exposure costs, and identifies several major non-hazard contributors to the remaining 80% to 90% of rising loss severity, including:

• Oil price increases affecting asphalt roofing materials
• Rising labor and construction costs
• Supply chain disruptions
• Inflation and consumer price index increases
• Claims litigation and social inflation
• Urbanization and population growth in exposed regions

All of the above have led to the majority of higher replacement costs following catastrophes.

Urbanization and the Expansion of Risk

One of the non-hazard factors noted is the increasing concentration of... (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-64-hidden-cost-drivers-of-severe-storms/)

New guidance from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is reshaping the intersection of mortgage lending and property insurance − introducing greater flexibility that could significantly impact housing affordability and insurance availability in Florida and nationwide.

Former Florida Deputy Insurance Commissioner Lisa Miller sits down with leaders from the real estate and insurance industries to break down these changes, including the headline shift allowing roofs to be insured at Actual Cash Value (ACV) rather than full Replacement Cost Value (RCV). The discussion explores what this means for homeowners, condo associations, lenders, insurance companies, and Realtors − and the critical balance between affordability, risk, and consumer protection.

Show Notes (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-63-easing-insurance-requirements-on-mortgages/)

This episode examines major policy changes from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), implemented through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that aim to better align mortgage requirements with modern insurance market realities. The most notable update allows roofs to be insured on an Actual Cash Value (ACV) basis, while maintaining Replacement Cost Value (RCV) requirements for the primary structure of a home. These changes come amid rising insurance costs, reduced market participation, and increasing pressure on housing affordability.

Host Lisa Miller is joined by Danielle Blake, Chief of Residential Real Estate and Advocacy at the Miami Association of Realtors, and Karen Collins, Vice President of Property and Environmental Issues at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), to explore how these reforms could ease lending challenges while introducing new considerations for consumer awareness and financial responsibility. It also underscores a central trade-off in public policy: Affordability versus new risks for consumers.

Understanding the Shift: ACV vs. RCV

The new guidance allows roofs to be insured using Actual Cash Value, which factors in depreciation and typically results in lower premiums—but also lower claim payouts. While this creates affordability opportunities, it introduces new financial responsibilities for homeowners, who may need to cover gaps at the time of loss.

“Because ACV policies are cheaper, they also pay less at the time of claim, factoring in depreciation. It’s like auto insurance. If your car is totaled, you don’t get the money to buy a new car − you get the cash value of the car prior to the accident,” explained Host Miller.

The policy shift reflects growing recognition that roofs − particularly aging ones − are a primary driver of insurance losses and require a... (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-63-easing-insurance-requirements-on-mortgages/)

The Florida Board of Professional Engineers has drafted proposed rules to govern how engineers write formal damage evaluation reports, often used in insurance claims lawsuits. The rules were prompted by an influx of new complaints and mounting frustration about questionable engineering reports and testimony on behalf of plaintiffs – typically involving roof damage.

Former Florida Deputy Insurance Commissioner Lisa Miller sits down with two engineers to discuss the current lack of formal ethics rules, the impact on Florida’s property insurance market, outright examples of fraud, and how the new rules – plus consumer education – will help solve the problem.

Show Notes (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-62-questionable-engineering-reports/)

The Florida Board of Professional Engineers currently has no rules regarding ethics and responsibilities by Florida’s 46,000 licensed professional engineers in drafting damage assessments. Most of the Board’s rules on responsibility have to do with design standards for new projects and other particulars. The podcast discusses new regulations (New Rule Chapter 61G15-38) aimed at improving the accuracy and ethics of damage reports in insurance claims and lawsuits.

Background: Lack of Ethics Rules

George Miles, Senior Principal Engineer with Alligator Consulting Engineers in Edgewater, Florida, has seen the problem first-hand. The 25-year engineering veteran has written damage evaluation reports and testified in insurance claims cases in both civil and criminal court. The lack of ethics rules “has made it a little bit like the wild, wild west,” he said. “One engineer specifically, he made up a method that basically said that wind as it went over a house, would speed up. This is completely untrue. Nothing further from the truth. He testified in court to it for years. When I saw it, I knew it was false. He went as far as taking a NASA document that said this theory was false, cutting out the picture of the NASA document to just show the diagram, and used it to try to prove his method was true.”

Miles said he complained and the board simply told the engineer not to use that method anymore – but he has persisted in doing so. Miles said the Board is “handcuffed” without ethics rules; that its prosecuting attorney has said that it is difficult to find probable cause against an engineer, even when a complaint may be valid, without having rules in place that address reports and standards for existing damaged buildings. Miles said he’s turned in about 18 engineers with questionable reports to the board and is among those leading the charge to implement the proposed rules.... (For full Show Notes, visit https://lisamillerassociates.com/episode-62-questionable-engineering-reports/)