Decoding Catastrophe Models: Karl Susman's Testimony and What It Means for California's Insurance Future
California's property insurance market stands at a crossroads. Wildfires, inflation, and regulatory gridlock have pushed many insurers to the brink, leading to policy non-renewals, coverage restrictions, and widespread consumer frustration.
At the heart of the debate over how to fix this broken system lies a single, powerful concept: catastrophe modeling, often shortened to CAT modeling.
In a recent California Department of Insurance (CDI) workshop, industry expert and Insurance Hour host Karl Susman delivered testimony supporting the state's proposed reforms to allow insurers to use catastrophe models in their rate filings — and in doing so, sought to dispel some of the misinformation surrounding them.
His remarks captured not only the urgency of California's insurance crisis but also the role that science, data, and transparency must play in rebuilding a sustainable marketplace.
Why the Workshop Mattered
The CDI's workshop on catastrophe modeling was part of the Sustainable Insurance Strategy, a comprehensive plan launched by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to stabilize California's insurance system.
The proposed changes would, for the first time, allow insurers to use forward-looking catastrophe models — sophisticated tools that combine climate science, historical data, and advanced analytics — to predict potential future losses.
The move has sparked both optimism and controversy. Proponents argue it's essential for solvency and long-term affordability. Critics claim it opens the door to "black box underwriting" — secret, unaccountable algorithms that could raise rates unfairly.
Susman's testimony tackled these issues head-on.
"We Know Why We're Here": A Market in Shambles
Susman began by acknowledging the elephant in the room — California's insurance crisis.
"We know why we're here," he said. "The California insurance marketplace is currently in shambles. Insurers are non-renewing policies, not offering policies, and leaving the state altogether."
The causes, he explained, aren't mysterious: insurers have repeatedly pointed to the regulatory environment as a major reason for their withdrawal.
Under Proposition 103, insurers must receive state approval for any rate changes — a process that can take years. During that time, inflation, wildfire exposure, and reinsurance costs can shift dramatically, leaving companies operating at a loss.
"Most of them claim the reasons for taking these actions are due to the regulatory environment that currently exists," Susman said.