Flood Modeling

Comparing Flood Maps

A presentation held in London drives home the point that flood modeling has a long way to go.
By: | December 18, 2017 • 6 min read

A greater validation of inland flooding data is required to improve the accuracy of U.S. flood models.

That was one of the key conclusions from presenters at the first comparison of U.S. inland flood risk modeling of its kind hosted by Ariel Re at Lloyd’s of London in November. The event, led by Dr. Federico Waisman, senior vice president, head of analytics, Ariel Re, showcased the U.S. flood models of four leading vendors: AIR, CoreLogic, KatRisk and Impact Forecasting.


RMS pulled out of the presentation because their model was not ready on time.

Compared to their earthquake and hurricane counterparts, flood models for U.S. risks are still in their relative infancy, relying largely on limited National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) data. But in the wake of the devastation of thousands of homes and businesses caused by the effects of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, the need for better flood modeling has arguably never been greater.

“Having more validation data would always be helpful,” said KatRisk’s chief technology officer and co-founder, Stefan Eppert.

“While in the U.S. we have got very good hazard data and excellent organization of data, on the loss side it would be nice to have generally agreed standards.”

Cagdas Kafali, senior vice president, research and modeling, AIR Worldwide, said there also needs to be more focus on commercial data sets.

Federico Waisman, senior vice president, head of analytics, Ariel Re

“There is some residential data available, but it’s also going to be important to validate these models’ vulnerability when it comes to the commercial risks,” he said. “The problem is that there is a lot of engineering assumptions in the absence of actual claims data.

“It’s also very difficult to get to peril-specific and coverage-specific claims when it comes to multi-location policies with sublimits. Hopefully that data will be available in the future and that will help to enhance the models.”

Risk Variety

Aon Benfield Impact Forecasting’s head of research and development, Siamak Daneshvaran, said that a bigger problem is capturing the different types of flooding risk.

“Flood risk is spread all over the country,” he said.

“It’s not only in river bank areas; you can have flood in pluvial regions that might be outside of the flood plain maps that FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] is producing.

“Therefore, the models need to laser in and generate more events to define the correct flood plain maps. Also, to capture events like Hurricane Harvey, where there was a large loss in downtown Houston, we really need to understand pluvial processes, drainage and all of those issues.”

In terms of available claims data, all four models draw on NFIP data to varying degrees, the panel surmised.

CoreLogic and KatRisk both use a combination of NFIP and company claims data, while Impact Forecasting supplements that with Aon’s own data to calibrate its model.

AIR’s Kafali, however, warned that when using NFIP data, its own limits shouldn’t be used as replacement values.

“Instead, in our model, we used actual replacement values from industry exposure data,” he said. “That gave us the actual cash value policies for contents so we could model them as an exposure.

“We have also been able to push the limits by looking at the data which has come from weather factors like storm surge. That has enabled us to make a lot of assumptions on the residential side, however, the commercial data is somewhat lacking.”

Flood models

Compared on a similar basis spread across 1.2m locations nationwide, AIR’s Inland Flood Model for the U.S. registered the highest number of flooding events per year, while CoreLogic’s U.S. Inland Flood Model: RQE v17.0 posted the lowest.


AIR also pegged the largest average annual gross loss by region at $576.4 million — 3.1 times larger than the smallest, KatRisk’s SpatialKat U.S. Inland Flood Model, at $185.1 million.

In three out of four vendors (AIR, CoreLogic and KatRisk), California accounted for the biggest loss, followed by the Ohio and Texas-Gulf regions.

Then the models were compared based on three historical scenarios: Hurricane Harvey (a precipitation event), the 2016 Louisiana flood (hurricane) and the 1993 Great Midwest flood (riverine).

“The challenge for users of these models is to interpret and make a decision about the various sciences and assumptions made to form your own view of the risk. That challenge is much greater than in other models like earthquake and hurricane where many models have been developed over the years.” — Federico Waisman, senior vice president, head of analytics, Ariel Re

CoreLogic reported the highest gross loss for Harvey at $986.4 million, closely followed by Impact Forecasting’s U.S. Inland Flood Model v11 at $915.2 million.

KatRisk and AIR were at the lower end with $591.4 million and $497.1 million respectively.

The same is true of the average claim size, with CoreLogic coming in highest at $86,431, Impact Forecasting with $44,398, KatRisk $22,467 and AIR $11,338.

That correlated with the number of claims, with AIR reporting 43,845 claims, KatRisk 26,321, Impact Forecasting 20,613 and CoreLogic 11,413.

It was a similar story for the Great Midwest flood, with CoreLogic coming in highest for losses at $741.6 million and average claim size of $55,823, while it also identified the lowest number of claims at 13,284.

However, with the Louisiana flood, the one outlier was AIR, which estimated the largest loss at $124.3 million but the smallest average claim at $4,704. It also captured the largest number of claims at 26,434.

“AIR has the lowest average claim size across all three of the historic scenarios and CoreLogic the highest,” said Waisman.

“AIR also has the largest number of claims and CoreLogic the lowest.”

Kafali said that the difference in event frequency between the models could be down to the definition of an event.

“Event definition may be one reason why we have different numbers, because we might be defining events differently,” he said.

“It’s not like with earthquake and hurricane where you have a defined scale of measurement.”

Eppert added, “By rights, the event definition should be driven by contract terms. However, this has the downside that you have got a different event set for each contract, so there’s a compromise between adequately representing the terms that you insure and being able to communicate the losses.”

Biggest Challenges

Waisman concluded that while there were many similarities between the models’ results, there were also a lot of material deviations.

“In fact, the norm tends to be more deviations than similarities,” he said.


“The differences tend to be higher when we extend the model to its limits, like higher return periods, or under extreme circumstances, like high deductibles, where they depart the most.”

He added: “The challenge for users of these models is to interpret and make a decision about the various sciences and assumptions made to form your own view of the risk. That challenge is much greater than in other models, like earthquake and hurricane, where many models have been developed over the years.

“Flood as a peril, by contrast, is extremely complex to model. The U.S. has a variety of precipitous weather patterns and not enough claims data, but I have no doubt that all four of these vendor models will help play a part in tackling this problem.”

Head of Lloyd’s risk aggregation David Clouston concluded, “Widespread flooding as a result of windstorms Harvey and Irma has once again highlighted the costs of natural catastrophes — both in terms of human suffering and economic hardship. The need for a deeper understanding of inland flood modeling is therefore more important than ever.” &

Alex Wright is a U.K.-based business journalist, who previously was deputy business editor at The Royal Gazette in Bermuda. You can reach him at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Employment Practices


Sexual harassment is a growing concern for corporate America. Risk managers can pave the way to top-down culture change.
By: | March 5, 2018 • 12 min read

The #MeToo and #TimesUp movements opened up Pandora’s Box, launching countless public scandals and accusations. The stories that continue to emerge paint an unflattering picture of corporate America and the culture of sexual harassment that has permeated it for decades.


“The clock has run out on sexual assault, harassment and inequality in the workplace. It’s time to do something about it,” reads the official tagline of Time’s Up, one of the most vocal groups demanding change.

The GoFundMe campaign that supports the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund raised more than $16.7 million in less than a month, making it the most successful GoFundMe initiative on record.

Funds will be used to help victims of sexual harassment and assault bring legal action against harassers, as well as provide public relations consultation to manage any media attention such suits might attract.

The problem was never really a secret.

In surveys conducted since 1980 by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 40 percent of women and 15 percent of men consistently reported being sexually harassed at work.

In a sweeping meta-analysis of 25 years’ worth of research data, published in “Personnel Psychology,” an average of 25 percent of women reported experiencing sexual harassment at work. When respondents were given clear definitions of harassing behavior, that figure shot up to 60 percent.

The current climate is just now pushing awareness to the forefront. It was reported last November that law firms in the nation’s capital are seeing a spike in inquiries about sexual harassment cases.

Laura Coppola, regional head of commercial management liability in North America, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty

In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website is seeing visits to its harassment web page double.

There’s no question the costs to businesses can be staggering. Twenty-First Century Fox reportedly incurred $50 million in costs tied to the settlement of sexual harassment and discrimination allegations in its Fox News division, as well as a $90 million settlement of shareholder claims arising from sexual harassment scandals.

In June, the company disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had $224 million in costs during the fiscal year related to “management and employee transitions and restructuring” at business units, including the group that houses Fox News.

If time is indeed up, it won’t just impact Hollywood, Silicon Valley or Capitol Hill. It will impact every workplace, in every industry.

“It affects everybody,” said Marie-France Gelot, senior vice president and insurance & claims counsel for Lockton’s Northeast Claims Advisory Group.

“I think anybody in corporate America — at some point — has seen it or been aware of it or been around it.”

“This particular phenomenon is certainly at a much wider scope than we’ve seen in the last decade or so,” said Laura Coppola, regional head of commercial management liability in North America, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty.

“This is going to touch many industries, many segments, and many people.”

Employers are beginning to wonder if their workplace could be next.

“I think if you’d been asking [insureds] a year ago, ‘Are you interested in hearing about sexual harassment prevention?’ I think the answer would have been, ‘No, we’re good, we’ve got it,’ ” said Bob Graham, vice president, HUB International Limited.

“But I think now everyone’s saying ‘Sure, yes, we’d like to hear something.’ ”

Leading the Conversation

As American workplaces come under increasing scrutiny, the time is ripe for a large-scale pivot in the way employers manage risks related to sexual harassment.

The co-chairs of the EEOC’s select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace expressed it aptly in 2016:

“With legal liability long ago established, with reputational harm from harassment well known, with an entire cottage industry of workplace compliance and training adopted and encouraged for 30 years, why does so much harassment persist and take place in so many of our workplaces? And, most important of all, what can be done to prevent it? After 30 years — is there something we’ve been missing?”

Experts in the management liability field unanimously told Risk & Insurance® these issues should be elevated to the board level and the C-suite.

“Just as cyber liability shifted rapidly from an IT discussion to a board level discussion, so too will the harassment and discrimination discussion go beyond HR and be elevated to the highest levels,” said Coppola. It will become a corporate-wide, enterprise-wide conversation.

“It’s going to take some time to get to that board level, but it’s going to have to happen,” said Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services.

“Risk management and HR cannot go down parallel paths, not understanding one another. Not anymore. There’s too much at stake.” — Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services

Risk managers, said Kelly Thoerig, U.S. employment practices liability coverage leader, Marsh, are well suited to lead this conversation, which means actively partnering with human resources, the legal department, the general counsel’s office and outside counsel.


“Just like the quarterback depends on the offensive line, on receivers, on the running backs, it’s not a one-man show,” said King. “This can’t be the risk manager operating in a vacuum; they have to be liaising with multiple parts of the organization.”

Added King, “Risk management and HR cannot go down parallel paths, not understanding one another. Not anymore. There’s too much at stake.”

Connecting with outside counsel can also be of great benefit to risk managers, said Coppola.

“[They can] provide a very independent objective view of what they see in the overall market and how their knowledge of the individual client’s best practices can be improved and enhanced to ensure that they are protecting employees and the organization.”

Brokers and carriers also may be able to offer insights and services. Unfortunately, that piece is often lost because risk management and HR are siloed.

“The [knowledge of the] services that come with the insurance policy end up with the policy — in a drawer in the risk manager’s office,” said Tom Hams, employment practice liability insurance leader, Aon.

“HR doesn’t know that they exist. Even if they’re just online blogs or something like that, they could be more meaningful to the HR department than they are to risk management.

“So it’s important to make sure that companies are aware they’ve got those tools and — more importantly — to share them internally.”

Expediting Cultural Change

The X factor that underpins every aspect of these efforts is culture, experts agreed.

“It’s not so much ‘does the company have best-in-class policies and procedures in place;’ I think many of them do. I think that a significant change needed is doing a full overhaul of corporate culture, and that’s no small feat,” said Gelot.

Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services

True culture change can only come from the top level. But that isn’t likely to happen unless everyone at the top understands what the scope of the exposure could be if it’s not addressed appropriately on the front end. And for that, money talks, said Thoerig, who will be presenting on the topic at RIMS 2018 in San Antonio.

“Nothing is more instructive than real tangible claims examples and settlement amounts. Arm yourself with … recent, relevant claims examples specific to the industry and the jurisdictions the company operates in.”

In addition, said King, HR and legal should be regularly feeding claims information to risk managers to share at quarterly meetings of the board and give specific updates around these issues.

Armed with that level of intelligence, top brass can set the goals that will drive all anti-harassment efforts, said experts, putting an emphasis on identifying and correcting behavior that could potentially expose a company to liability.

Better Training and Reporting 

The best anti-harassment programs are multilayered, said Hams, with each facet carefully tailored to suit the employee population, the industry and the organization’s goals. A clearly defined policy is essential, stating that harassment will not be tolerated and neither will retaliation against those who report it.

The policy should be clear that employees are expected to report harassment or unacceptable behavior. Hams said he’s seen companies go so far as to state employees who don’t speak up are in violation of the policy.

“At least it should give them pause to stop and think about what they might have seen before they click the button or sign the document,” he said.

Companies should consider how uncomfortable employees may be about speaking up. An open-door policy is a start.

But there should also be multiple reporting points throughout the organization, said Hams, and an anonymous hotline for those reluctant to bring the matter up with anyone in their chain of command, and a multilingual hotline as well.

An effective training plan will have multiple moving parts and should touch every level of the organization from the executive suite to managers and supervisors to the rank and file. Comprehensive training is especially critical for the managers and supervisors who might receive or investigate complaints.

Many large employers already have training programs that can be considered best-in-class. Small to midsized employers, however, may still be using the cookie-cutter compliance-centric training that has dominated the field for decades.

The goal of this training is to hit all the bases related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, ticking off a list of acts or speech that would be considered illegal and affirming the company will not tolerate illegal behavior.

Overwhelmingly though, this type of training misses the mark. Studies have shown that this one-size-fits-all training is ineffective, especially when it’s a rote check-the-box exercise. Employees get the message their employer doesn’t take the subject too seriously.

Worse, it can even aggravate tensions, creating more discriminatory behavior from men who avoid working with women just to eliminate the chance of being accused of anything.

One study even found that men were more likely to place blame on the victim of sexual abuse after they’d received that type of anti-harassment training.

Even at best, compliance-centric training will still fail, because it only addresses behaviors that violate the law. But there is a broad array of behavior that — while not quite illegal — shouldn’t be tolerated.

When this kind of activity is allowed to flourish unchecked, the environment becomes increasingly toxic for those on the receiving end. It also tells employees that the company will tolerate harassment as long as it’s not overly egregious. In that case, it’s just a matter of time before the company is faced with a serious claim.

“Nothing is more instructive than real tangible claims examples and settlement amounts. Arm yourself with … recent, relevant claims examples specific to the industry and the jurisdictions the company operates in.” — Kelly Thoerig, U.S. employment practices liability coverage leader, Marsh

In its 2016 report, the EEOC’s harassment task force recommended changing tactics, exploring alternative training models such as respect-based civility training — what some call professionalism training.


The theory is “if you train them to act in a professional manner, these things tend not to happen at all,” said Hams.

The EEOC also suggested bystander intervention training, which is designed to empower employees to intervene when they witness harassing behavior.

Experts agreed whatever training programs or modules a company chooses, it’s important the training material reflect the workforce and be continuous and regularly refreshed.

A certification scheme also should be put in place to ensure the training is hitting the mark. While the law does not yet require companies to prove the effectiveness of their programs, some suggest it’s only a matter of time before the courts catch up to the problem.

What’s more, said Coppola, it’s simply the right thing to do for companies that want to confirm they’ve created a culture where all employees can expect to be treated professionally.

Zero Tolerance

Gelot and others believe a zero-tolerance policy should be a key component of an effective anti-harassment program.

“There are many companies that have Harvey Weinsteins and Matt Lauers and Kevin Spaceys working in their midst and those people are tolerated. Employees know about them — it’s not a secret.”

Bob Graham, vice president, HUB International Limited

Particularly when the harasser is a high-level executive, companies may wrestle with the decision to look the other way or lose a key rainmaker. In a zero-tolerance environment — one that starts at the top — the decision would be clear.

“What we saw with Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose — they were terminated immediately as the accusations came out. That’s zero tolerance. That’s sending a message to all of the employees within the company that this is completely unacceptable, we won’t tolerate it, and [it] clearly sends a message to the public at large.”

Employers should promote a workplace culture where all forms of harassment and discrimination are unacceptable and reportable, said Gelot. That’s the only way to take the fear and the stigma out of reporting.

That said, the EEOC offers a word of caution on zero-tolerance policies applied militantly without regard for common sense. Employers should hash out the specifics of which acts merit immediate termination versus a warning.

Overzealous application of the zero-tolerance doctrine can backfire if an employee fears her coworker’s children will go hungry if she reports his lewd or sexist jokes.

Creating a Dialogue

As with managing any other exposure that touches everyone, robust sharing of ideas and best practices has the power to improve the risk profile of entire industry sectors.

Facebook raised eyebrows in December, making public its sexual harassment policy in full.

“I hope in sharing it we will start a discussion, both to help smaller companies thinking about this for the first time, and to improve our own practices by learning from other companies,” wrote Lori Goler, Facebook’s global VP of people, about the company’s bold move.


That level of disclosure is making some risk professionals uncomfortable. But others acknowledge the wisdom of it.

“Any time you can share best practices that’s probably a great idea, because no one has all the answers … or at least not all the right answers,” said Graham.

“There’s a reason they did that, and I think it’s for all the right, positive reasons. They want to drive the momentum that is going to reduce or even eliminate what we have seen in corporate America over the last 50-plus years. They want to lead by example, they want to be the model and rightly so,” added Coppola.

“I think we are at a perfect time in our economic environment that allows the evolution of equality in our workplace.”

Part of that should involve making the workplace more egalitarian, said Gelot, and figuring out “how to make female employees not feel ostracized by a ‘boys’ club’ atmosphere, and actively championing the ascension of women into senior rolls.”

“We can’t focus on the past,” said Coppola. “But we can work very hard collectively as a community, and within the insurance industry specifically, to move forward.” &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]