|

Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate Releases Second Annual Report

The Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate advocates for the fair treatment of policyholders and property owners by providing education and guidance on all aspects of the National Flood
Insurance Program, identifying trends affecting the public, and making recommendations for program improvements to Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration leadership.

In its second year of operations, the OFIA has handled approximately 400 inquiries, which is 30% more than last year’s inquiry traffic. Consistent with what was reported in 2015,
approximately 77% of inquiries were related to flood insurance, 15% related to flood hazard mapping, and the remaining 8% shared between floodplain management and Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants. The majority of these cases are highly complex and require a high degree of collaboration across FIMA.

The OFIA’s second annual report highlights six areas of customer frustration related to the NFIP, specifically in relation to flood insurance, flood hazard mapping, Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants and floodplain management.

The six issues presented in the report are as follows:

Erroneous Severe Repetitive Loss Properties Designation: A subset of policyholders have
buildings that are incorrectly identified as being an SRL property, even after
the property has been mitigated. The complicated appeal process makes it
challenging for policyholders to correct the designation, resulting in some
property owners facing a 25% increase to their annual premiums.

Gaps in Flood Insurance Agent Education: Flood insurance education for insurance agents
who sell and service NFIP flood insurance needs to be more robust. In addition
to the twice yearly standard program changes, the NFIP is undergoing
significant change due to legislative reform. The one-time, three-hour flood
insurance training requirement is not sufficient to ensure customers are being
sold an accurately rated flood insurance policy and agents are communicating
correct NFIP information.

The Need for Consistency across Regions in Public Mapping Outreach: Policyholders and
property owners continue to face significant challenges in obtaining consistent
and understandable mapping information and outreach-related information across
FEMA’s 10 regions. Customers need answers to their questions regarding the
effects map revisions have on flood insurance, such as how they will impact
premiums, the requirement to purchase a policy, and associated refund
procedures.

Difficulties Accessing Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage: Customers continue to be
frustrated with several issues related to the ICC portion of the claim process. One issue is that insurers do not advance ICC payments to policyholders in order to pay contractors to begin mitigation projects. Policyholders are also confused when ICC is denied (because they have received the maximum amount of building coverage available under the NFIP, but have been paying premium for ICC coverage). It also appears there is not enough readily accessible ICC
guidance to assist policyholders with successfully navigating the ICC claim process. Finally, there continues to be a concern that the maximum amount of ICC coverage available ($30,000) under the NFIP is insufficient to complete most mitigation projects.

Difficulties with Multiple and Conflicting Flood Zone Determinations: Flood zone determinations by multiple entities are a major issue affecting policyholders and property
owners. Confusion occurs when property owners are told by their lender they must purchase flood insurance because their building is located within a high-risk flood area. However, their insurance agent determines their building is located in a moderate- to low-risk flood area and the requirement to purchase flood insurance does not apply. This is confusing when both sources use the same flood map to make the flood zone determination, leaving the property owner frustrated. Flood zone discrepancies can also cause premium rating disputes
that may require policyholders to pay more for flood insurance. There is no clear path for these different sources to work together to solve the discrepancy.

Inability to Obtain a Refund of the HFIAA Surcharge when Canceling an NFIP Policy: Policyholders are voicing concerns about the inability to obtain a refund of the surcharge from the NFIP when policies are canceled and a full or pro rata portion of the premium is returned. The OFIA will continue to work on the NFIP issues and recommendations by engaging with
the FIMA program offices to discuss, understand and identify opportunities that
exist to address these issues for policyholders and property owners.

Similar Posts