Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Project Methodology Meeting Report: June 16

Jun 17, 2011


The Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology (“FCHLPM”) met on June 16, 2011 to review two hurricane loss models submitted under the FCHLPM 2009 Standards to Determine Acceptability.  To view the agenda and meeting materials, click here.

The models under consideration included EQECAT Florida Hurricane Model 201 1a (“EQECAT”), submitted by EQECAT Inc., and the Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model (“FPM”), Version 4.1.   At meetings earlier this month, the FCHLPM approved two other models – Applied Research Associates, Inc.’s HurLoss Version 5.0 and Risk Management Solutions, Inc.’s RiskLink 11.0.

During the day-long meeting.  FCHLPM professional staff discussed each of six different model standards and the multiple subcategories within each standard. It was confirmed that EQECAT had adequately addressed all previously identified deficiencies.  Categories reviewed included general, meteorological, vulnerability, actuarial, statistical and computer. 

After a lengthy discussion, the FCHLPM agreed the EQECAT model met all the requirements of all six standards and voted unanimously to approval the EQECAT Florida Hurricane Model 201 1a.

The second model, the Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model (“FPM”), Version 4.1, did not fare as well.  Discussion stalled when Commissioners voiced concerned over an array of typographical errors in the document submitted for approval, and cited  problems such as mislabeled tables, incorrect page numbers and miscalculations.  Commissioners said the model failed to meet the standard of G-5 “editorial compliance” because the final document was rife with errors and had not been carefully or properly edited.  The FCHLPM voted “no” on that standard because of all the errors.

“We had a lot of heartburn with G-5,” one Commissioner stated.  “We are concerned there are systemic issues we did not find.”

To post documentation on the FCHLPM website of a model whose paperwork is peppered errors would not be professional, he said.  One Commissioner said he found more than 100 typographical errors in the document during a review.

Commissioners also expressed concern with the personnel who edited the document before it was submitted to the Commission.

After a very lengthy discussion, the FCHLPM did not approve the FPM Version 4.1, saying it failed because there were too many errors in the document that was submitted.

“When I voted against the standards, I felt it was not fair to you or us to put a document up that wasn’t corrected,” said one Commissioner.

It was explained that the FCHLPM’s decision can be appealed.  The applicant has up to 30 days to appeal the decision in writing, specifying reasons for the appeal, identifying the standard in question, and providing the appropriate data and information to justify its position.  The applicant may also request a follow-up reconsideration meeting.

Within 60 days of receiving the appeal, the FCHLPM must hold a public meeting for the purpose of reviewing the appeal documentation, a Commissioner explained.

In other business, the FCHLPM agreed to recommend Scott Wallace to the State Board of Administration for Chair.

With no other business before the FCHLPM, the meeting was adjourned.




Should you have any comments or questions, please contact Colodny Fass.


To unsubscribe from this newsletter, please send an email to Brooke Ellis at bellis@cftlaw.com.