The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP offers insurance coverage for physical losses to buildings and/or contents caused by a flood. Over the years, FEMA has incurred debt from the Department of Treasury to pay claims and expenses associated with NFIP-insured properties. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), FEMA is unlikely to collect enough in premiums from NFIP-insured properties to repay this debt. Although changes to the NFIP have been under consideration for some time in order to bridge the gap between premiums and expenditures, new rates for all NFIP-insured properties will go into effect on October 1, 2021 pursuant to a major overhaul of the NFIP referred to as “Risk Rating 2.0.”
What is Risk Rating 2.0?
Risk Rating 2.0 is FEMA’s comprehensive redesign of the flood risk rating system for all types of properties, including commercial and residential properties. Risk Rating 2.0 will incorporate a broader range of flood frequencies than the current rating methodology’s heavy dependence on the 1-percent-annual-chance-event. For example, Risk Rating 2.0’s methodology will focus on a property’s distance to a coast and other flooding sources, different types of flood risk (e.g., hurricane wind, storm surge, inland flooding, etc.), and structural variables (e.g., rebuilding cost, height of lowest floor relative to base flood elevation, and foundation type). Instead of primarily relying on FEMA’s existing flood mapping data and NFIP claims data to determine flood risk, Risk Rating 2.0 will also incorporate third-party, commercially-prepared catastrophe flood models and replacement cost data. In addition, under Risk Rating 2.0, flood zones will no longer be used in calculating flood insurance premiums, although flood zones will still be used for certain purposes such as the determination of the mandatory purchase requirement for property located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as well as floodplain management purposes. Accordingly, Risk Rating 2.0 will consider each property’s individual flood risk and underlying values from a broader data set, meaning that insurance rates may vary for different properties located in the same flood zone.
Proponents of Risk Rating 2.0, such as First Street Foundation, praise FEMA’s adoption of a climate-centric NFIP through its incorporation of commercially-prepared catastrophe flood models which account for the actual or perceived risk of climate change. Supporters of Risk Rating 2.0, such as David Maurstad, FEMA’s Deputy Associate Administrator, believe that flood insurance premiums could decrease under Risk Rating 2.0 for owners of lower value homes as replacement cost data better account for losses thereto.
Critics of Risk Rating 2.0 believe that commercially-prepared catastrophe flood models do not accurately predict tidal behavior, the effects of certain manmade structures such as levees, and stormwater management practices. These critics wonder whether commercially-prepared catastrophe flood models yield imprecise data which will result in negative implications for various stakeholders. There is also some concern among insurers that increased flood insurance premiums under Risk Rating 2.0 will cause some property owners to forego flood insurance.
Who Will the Changes Affect and How Will They Be Affected?
Risk Rating 2.0 means that new rates for existing NFIP-insured commercial and residential properties will go into effect on October 1, 2021. In addition, by incorporating commercially-prepared catastrophe flood models, the risk rating of additional commercial and residential properties may be reclassified to a higher risk category. GAO anticipates that increased flood insurance premiums from existing policyholders combined with new premiums from reclassified properties will contribute to the stabilization of the NFIP.
FEMA has not yet provided any information about premium increases or decreases associated with Risk Rating 2.0. Nevertheless, FEMA must adhere to the statutory requirements for premium increases set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 4015(e). By way of example, flood insurance premiums for commercial property could rise by 25% per year until full risk-based rates are achieved, and the flood insurance premium for a primary residence could rise by as much as 18% per year. Note that the foregoing percentages represent examples only and are subject to certain exceptions and limitations set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 4015. In addition, since surcharges and fees are not considered part of the policy premium, the total outlay to procure a flood policy will be greater than the foregoing percentage increases.
Owners of commercial and residential property in Florida are not the only ones who will be affected by Risk Rating 2.0. Insurers and insurance agents will see their business change as premiums rise for existing policyholders, some policyholders drop coverage due to affordability issues, and new insurance customers are generated by the reclassification of property to a higher risk category attributable to the individualized flood risk factors of Risk Rating 2.0. The owners of commercially-prepared catastrophe flood models, such as First Street Foundation, will also benefit as they sell or license their models and data sets to private parties. Lenders will be adversely impacted by Risk Rating 2.0 as borrowers struggle to pay for increased insurance premiums in mandatory flood insurance areas. Downward pressure on property values attributable to Risk Rating 2.0 may cause local governments to experience reduced property tax collections for some properties.
How Should Owners and Prospective Owners Prepare for the Changes?
Property owners and prospective property owners can take the following steps to prepare for Risk Rating 2.0:
- Research the property. Compare the property’s designation on FEMA’s flood map to a commercially-prepared catastrophe flood model. Consider the effects of high tide flooding in coastal areas of Florida. For example, some of the roads which the City of Miami Beach recently elevated has placed certain properties below street level and caused the pooling of water on those properties.
- Contact an insurance agent. Communicate with an insurance agent who issues flood insurance policies to see if the agent can provide information about the property and how the property may be affected by Risk Rating 2.0. FEMA’s website provides a listing by state of participating insurance providers as well as their contact information.
- Review commercial leases. Review commercial leases to confirm which party to the lease is responsible for flood insurance. Be prepared to address the issue of increased flood premiums as soon as information concerning premium increases becomes available.
- Contact local government. Communicate with local government (or hire a consultant) to investigate whether there are any moratoria or restrictions affecting the property which directly pertain to flood risk. For example, the City of St. Petersburg in the Tampa Bay area has implemented certain restrictions and requirements in high risk flood areas relative to density, building elevations, and structural materials.
- Explore flood risk mitigation measures. Whether building new or retrofitting existing structures, flood risk mitigation measures can offset flood risks and provide mitigation credits to reduce premiums. Examples of such mitigation measures, which can be costly, include:
- Installing flood openings in the base of the structure in order to facilitate the flow of floodwater in accordance with 44 C.F.R. § 60.3;
- Elevating structures onto posts, piles, or piers; and
- Elevating equipment and machinery and equipment above the lowest floor.
Conclusion
FEMA’s implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 is scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2021. Owners of Florida property should brace themselves for Risk Rating 2.0, which will impact property ownership costs and the resale market for years to come. Commercial landlords and tenants should review their leases and be prepared for increased flood insurance premiums. Potential buyers of Florida property should be aware of flood risks in certain parts of Florida and evaluate their purchase decisions in light of Risk Rating 2.0. Owners of commercial and residential property should be prepared for lenders to require flood insurance for properties having increased flood risks resulting from Risk Rating 2.0.
The law firm of Shutts & Bowen LLP advises parties on transactions involving the sale, leasing, and use of real property in Florida.
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Construction Contractors Should Prepare for the Effects of Potential New Tariffs on Construction Material Prices and Availability
- Federal Court Strikes Down the DOL’s Increased Salary Thresholds for Executive, Administrative, Professional, And Highly Compensated Employee Overtime Exemptions
- Breaking News: FinCEN Postpones Beneficial Ownership Reporting Deadlines for Companies Impacted by Recent Major Storms
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
Popular Categories
- Construction
- Construction Litigation
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Landlord-Tenant
- Department of Labor
- Real Estate Law
- Competition
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Salary
- Appeals
- Contracts
- Litigation
- Trusts and Estates
- Data Security
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Development/Land Use
- Public Private Partnership
- IP Litigation
- Technology
- Privacy
- Patents
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Business
- Public Finance
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Contracting
- Health Care
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Property Tax
- Government
- Lease
- Conveyances
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Cyber fraud
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- Bid Protest
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Arbitration
- International
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Promissory Notes
- Title
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- Consumer Privacy
- International Arbitration
- Liens and encumbrances
- Liens
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Venue
- Power Generation
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Record on Appeal
- FINRA
- Rehearing
- Eviction
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Dispute Resolution
- Liens
- Damages
- Maritime
- Briefing
- Request for Proposal
- Patents - Obviousness
- Commercial Brokerage
- Trade Secrets
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Design Professionals
- Stay
- Certiorari
- email hacking
- Forum Selection
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Banking
- Designer Liability
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Fintech
- Marketing/Advertising
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Mootness
- Preservation
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016