Pinnacle Actuarial Resources prepared an independent actuarial analysis on behalf of the Colorado Auto Insurance Working Group to determine the cost implications of changes to the Colorado no-fault law. One of the scenarios analyzed was the complete repeal of the no-fault law, replacing it with medical payments coverage.
 
The analysis employed data from a recent study by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) to assess the impact of a $2,500 economic loss threshold relative to BI losses. Loss and trend information from the Fast-Track monitoring system was reviewed to estimate the impact of implementing no-fault systems from other jurisdictions. Moreover, the Fast Track data was evaluated to assess the impact on costs of other jurisdictions that had previously repealed their no-fault systems.

Lastly, the indicated cost estimates for the state of Colorado were compared to those of tort states in order to assess the reasonableness of the study’s outcomes. The results from this study were used to support rate filings of several of our clients in support of the reforms.

In 2009, we were retained by a lawyers’ association to evaluate the historical impact of contributory negligence and comparative negligence tort systems on personal automobile insurance.

Pinnacle was asked to provide a legislative costing analysis and expert testimony regarding proposed legislation that would substantially expand coverage for construction defects in Oregon. Pinnacle’s study and testimony focused not only on the current conditions of the contractors’ liability insurance market compared to other states, but also the historical changes seen when other states made similar changes. Our analysis also focused on the relationship between home warranties and commercial general liability insurance policies and how these risk mitigation techniques differ over time after a home is completed.

In 2006 and 2007, Pinnacle was retained by Floridians for Lower Insurance Costs (FLIC) to conduct independent actuarial studies to determine the cost implications on the Florida Health Care system from various changes to the Florida No Fault Law.

First in 2006 we conducted an independent actuarial study to determine the cost implications of repealing Florida’s current no-fault law. Pinnacle also priced first party medical payments benefits of $2,500, $5,000 and $10,000 as replacements for current personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.

Then in 2007, Pinnacle determined the impact that would result from the sunset of Florida’s current no fault law. Pinnacle also determined what current PIP insurance costs will be absorbed by other insurance programs compared to costs that will go unreimbursed since the current PIP coverage will be eliminated at the time that no fault is sunset. Pinnacle testified before the Florida House Committee Working Group on Insurance in support of the analysis.The Florida No Fault Law was sunset only to be reenacted immediately thereafter.

Pinnacle was retained by an industry trade organization to provide an independent review of the proposed costing of a new private passenger auto insurance program for low income insureds. The project included working in an open session with legislators and public members to arrive at a workable rate and classification plan for the new program.

A state insurance regulator asked Pinnacle to determine the potential impact of several proposed tort reforms, including a change to non-economic damage caps for medical professional liability claims. Pinnacle worked with medical society to identify the most appropriate claims databases for assessing the potential legislative change. Our detailed analysis not only considered data from that state, but several others to stress test the results and provide a range of reasonable outcomes. In many cases, the specific reform’s effect, for example “I’m Sorry” legislation, was very difficult to isolate. Through this industry analysis, we identified differences well beyond a simple loss limitation to provide a more complete review of potential environmental changes that could be expected in the state.

This comprehensive analysis helped our client identify the effect of various legislative options, which empowered them to be a strong voice in the legislative debate and to influence policymaking in the state.

Pinnacle has developed an excellent working knowledge of patient compensation and birth-related injury funds in many jurisdictions, including Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In several of these states, we not only complete regular rate indications and loss reserve analyses, we are frequently involved in legislative costing of proposed laws that may impact the fund. These proposed laws have included addition, modification and removal of damage caps, changes to primary coverage limits, revisions to program eligibility or mandatory coverage requirements, and program benefits changes. In all of these states, policymakers have benefitted from Pinnacle’s expert analysis, understandable reports and insightful advice.

The Insurance Federation of Minnesota retained Pinnacle in 2006 to conduct an independent actuarial study to determine the possible cost implications of changing Minnesota’s current no-fault law. The scenarios were:

• A complete repeal of the no-fault law, which would be replaced with a tort system including mandatory liability insurance. We also priced first party medical payments benefits of $2,500, $5,000 and $10,000 as replacements for current personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.
• Implementing a medical fee schedule. This option would consider two different fee schedules: the Minnesota Worker’s Compensation fee schedule, and 115% of the Medicare fee schedule.
• Introducing a Michigan-style verbal threshold implementation with several PIP limit options.
• Capping treatments on soft tissue injuries to $2,500.
• Making alternative care optional for an additional premium.
• Reducing the PIP benefit limit from $20,000 each for the separate medical and non-medical limits (with $40,000 of coverage total) to $10,000 for each separate sub-limit. This would also include an additional $10,000 of coverage for “trauma care.” 

Save Choices for New Jersey Drivers (SCNJD), an ad-hoc coalition of insurers, trade and business associations asked Pinnacle to determine how proposed legislation would affect drivers.

The New Jersey Auto Cost Reduction Act eliminated the judicial requirement that permanent injuries that do not meet the other eligibility criteria for tort claims in no fault cases must have a “serious impact” on the claimant’s life. Pinnacle evaluated the affect of eliminating this requirement and determined the law would “significantly increase “losses eligible for tort recovery. Hence, Bodily Injury (BI) Liability and Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UM/UIM) costs and premiums would increase for drivers selecting the verbal threshold.

On June 14, 2005, two years after Pinnacle conducted its analysis, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded does not imply a "serious impact" requirement for those seeking damages for non-economic losses (Octavio Serrano v. Jacqueline Serrano, et al. (A-99-03) and DiProspero v. Penn, et al., (A-66-03). As a result, injured claimants may seek recompense from the at-fault party for losses such as pain and suffering. SCNJD hired Pinnacle again to update the analysis based upon the later Insurance Research Council (IRC) data, which became available subsequent to the release of its 2003 report. 

Pinnacle was retained by a major national political organization to investigate the impact of several workers compensation reforms including: implementation of mandatory managed care, privatization of state workers compensation insurance funds and the permitting of private insurers to enter previously monopolistic workers compensation states. Our analysis looked at state-level differences in rate levels, insurer experience, coverage competition, the mix of medical and indemnity claims and numerous other metrics. The study was extremely well received and ultimately presented to more than half of the nation’s governors.