Rate dislocation analysis that shows who pays how much more — before the filing goes in
Capping needs and notice counts known before the filing goes in.
See one case, screen by screen ↓It is the work of showing how a proposed rate or rule change moves each policyholder’s premium — not just the overall average — so the pricing team can see the segments it disrupts most, decide who needs a cap, and count the notices and nonrenewals it triggers. Rate Dislocation Analysis does it on every in-force policy, from one run that also feeds the filing exhibits.
How to choose AI solutions for insurance →
Updated
Before a personal-lines rate or rule change is filed, the pricing team has to re-rate the in-force book under the proposed rates, show how premiums move by state and segment, decide who needs a cap, and count the renewal notices and nonrenewals the change will trigger. Today that is a workbook rebuilt for every state and every scenario, run off a monthly extract. A question like “what if territory goes in at 60%?” takes a day, so the team compares two or three scenarios instead of the right one.
The overall change goes in the memo, but the tail is where the trouble is. Large increases are often found at renewal, by agents and policyholders. The cap is designed after the rate, without seeing the people it protects. And the filing exhibit, the capping rule and the notice file come from different extracts, so the counts disagree — a missed notice is a regulatory problem, and a cap that does not converge is an objection that pushes back the effective date.
Estimated split for one state program’s dislocation work, in working days, by hand and with the solution.
Six agents re-rate every policy, explain each increase, design the cap and count the notices; the actuary signs.
Harrow Point Mutual’s Texas Homeowners HO-3 program, 2027 rate review: 186,420 policies in force, $585.5M written premium, renewals from 1 Mar 2027, and the filing due Tue 3 Nov. Here is the review, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Priya opens the Impact screen on rate plan v3. As indicated, the book moves +11.9% — $69.6M a year on $585.5M written. But the histogram shows what the average hides: 23,802 policyholders, 12.8% of the book, above +25%, the largest at +56.6%, and 88,950 Texas 10% notices.
Run log: “Book rerater — re-rated 186,420 policies under rate plan v3 · extract 30 Sep 2026 · 3.1 s”
She clicks the shaded +25% area and the policyholders open, largest increase first, each with a bar showing which rating factor caused it. Territory leads for 61% of them, roof age for 12%, both for 27%. More than half are in Dallas–Fort Worth north, territory T06.
Linda and James Okafor, 4117 Brambleton Dr, Frisco, renew on 14 Mar 2027. The waterfall shows each step: base rate +$40, territory T06 +$980, a 27-year roof +$647, the 1% wind and hail deductible +$225, protection class 9–10 +$351 — +56.6% in all. Beside it, the renewal notice that would be mailed, with the four main reasons in dollars.
“Each step applies one rating factor to the running premium, in rating order, so the steps add up to the proposed premium exactly.”
She moves the territory slider from 100% to 60%. All 186,420 policies are re-rated again and the bars reshape against the ghost outline of the indicated shape: the tail falls from 23,802 to 9,165, the overall change to +8.6% ($50.6M), Texas notices to 72,907, the largest increase to +44.3%. The balance of the territory change goes into the 2028 review.
The heatmap crosses 12 territories with 6 roof-age bands. Even at 60%, Dallas–Fort Worth north with roofs over 25 years averages +30.2%, and Tarrant west and Parker +26.9%. Marcus, who owns the roof eligibility rule and talks to the agents, sees which renewals will draw calls before the agents do.
A +25% renewal cap catches the remaining 9,165 policies for $1.51M of premium foregone in the first year — 0.26% of written. Year-one overall is +8.4%. Every capped policy reaches its filed premium in 2 renewals, inside the 4-renewal standard. All four checks pass, and the Rule 9 text for the filing is drafted.
“The cap applies to rate changes only — not to changes in coverage, deductible or the property.”
Texas requires notice of a 10%+ renewal increase no later than the 30th day before it takes effect. The counter schedules 72,907 notices across twelve renewal months, first mailing 30 Jan 2027, and 1,231 nonrenewals under the new wood-shake roof rule. Then the tie-out: workbook v7 counted 71,233 notices for the same scenario.
“1,674 policies had a mid-term endorsement after the 31 Aug extract the workbook used; it rated them on the old premium, below the 10% line.”
Elena uses the run’s count. The notice file and Exhibit 7 now both carry 72,907, and the change — the workbook’s 71,233 replaced by the run’s 72,907 — is recorded on the activity trail.
“Resolved. The notice file and Exhibit 7 use the run’s 72,907. Recorded on the audit trail.”
Exhibit B rate data — overall indicated +14.6%, first-year impact after Rule 9 +8.4%, written premium change $49,134,420, maximum +25.0%, minimum −17.1% — and Exhibit 7, the distribution of premium changes at first renewal. The tie-out checker confirms every number: maximum and minimum match Exhibit 7, the total matches policies in force, the memo’s notice count matches the notice file.
Priya recommends scenario C — territory at 60%, capped at +25% — and requests approval. Tom approves it: +8.4%, 72,907 notices. Priya signs the actuarial memorandum, which locks run v3 and sends the package to Elena to file in SERFF by Tue 3 Nov.
“The memo, Exhibit B, Exhibit 7 and Rule 9 are drafted from run v3 and every count ties. Signing locks the run and sends the package to Elena Brooks for SERFF.”
The same Texas rate review, seen by the four people who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents re-rate every policy, explain each increase, design the cap and count the notices; the actuary signs.
Re-rates every in-force policy under the proposed rates and rules, scenario by scenario, using the endorsed premium for any policy with a mid-term endorsement.
Splits each policy’s change into its rating factors, in rating order, and ranks the factors that drove the increase.
Proposes a renewal cap, counts the policies capped, the premium foregone and the renewals each needs to reach its filed premium, checks the rule against the rate-stability standards and drafts the rule text.
Applies each state’s notice and eligibility rules by renewal month, schedules each notice by its statutory deadline and drafts it with up to four plain reasons in dollars.
Drafts the state’s rate data exhibit, the distribution of premium changes, the rate stability rule and the policyholder-impact paragraph of the actuarial memo from the chosen scenario’s run.
Compares every count and amount in the exhibits, the memo and the notice file with the run, and with any workbook circulated for the same scenario, and explains each difference down to the policies that cause it.
Signs; head of personal lines approves. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask who pays more and why, try a what-if, or check a count. Answers cite the indication memo, the statute or the workbook they rest on.
Who is in the +25% tail, and why?
With territory at 60% of the indication, 9,165 policyholders are above +25% before any cap. 7,156 of them (78%) are in T06 and T07 — north of Dallas and west of Fort Worth — where the territory indication is +21% and +16%. 95% have roofs over 20 years, which the new roof-age curve raises by up to +13%.
What if territory goes in at 60% of the indication?
The tail falls from 23,802 to 9,165 policyholders above +25%, the overall change from +11.9% to +8.6%, and Texas 10% notices from 88,950 to 72,907. The balance would go in the 2028 review.
Cap renewals at +25% — what does it cost?
With territory at 60%, a +25% cap limits 9,165 policies and forgoes $1.51M in the first year (0.26% of written premium). Year-one overall becomes +8.4%. Every capped policy reaches its filed premium by renewal 2, inside the four-renewal standard.
Do the notice counts tie to the filing exhibit?
Not yet. For territory at 60%, workbook v7 counts 71,233 Texas 10% notices; the run counts 72,907. The 1,674 difference is policies with a mid-term endorsement that the workbook rated on the old premium. Each of them needs a notice under §2251.005.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Lines, state rules, cap standards, approvers and data are settings — each change is saved as a new version.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Tail line — policyholders above it are shaded and listed | +25% | +15% to +40% |
| Show the “as indicated” outline | On | On · Off — ghost bars behind the histogram |
| Renewal cap | +25% | +15 · +20 · +25 · +30 · +35% |
| Reach the filed premium within | 4 renewals | The Missouri four-year standard, the house rule for every state |
| Cap rule checks | Uniform rule · no across-the-board split | Same cap for every policy in the program; the Washington standard on staging |
| State notice and nonrenewal rules | Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana in use | Florida, Oregon and New Jersey available |
| Approvals | Head of personal lines | Chief actuary as second approval above +15% overall |
| In-force extract | Nightly at 02:00 | From policy administration; the filing extract is kept with the run |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample book · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (CAS Ratemaking Seminar handout, McKeethan, 2009 — in a revenue-neutral filing 15–20% of the book can see +20% or more). Notice and capping rules as cited: Tex. Ins. Code §2251.005 · Missouri Bulletin 11-02 · N.J.A.C. 11:2-42.3. People, companies, policyholders and addresses named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
It is the work of showing how a proposed rate or rule change moves each policyholder’s premium — not just the overall average — so the pricing team can see the segments it disrupts most, decide who needs a cap, and count the notices and nonrenewals it triggers. Rate Dislocation Analysis does it on every in-force policy, from one run that also feeds the filing exhibits.
It re-rates every in-force policy under the proposed plan and draws the distribution of premium changes as a histogram. Click the tail or any bar to see the policyholders in it, each with the rating factor behind the increase, and open one to see its premium waterfall factor by factor and the renewal notice it would get.
Yes. There is a slider for each rating factor — base rate, territory, roof age, wind and hail deductible, fire protection class — and a switch for the eligibility rule. Moving one re-rates the whole book and reshapes the histogram against the indicated outline; any result can be saved as a scenario.
It proposes one. The capping designer counts the policies capped, the premium foregone and the renewals each needs to reach its filed premium, checks the rule is uniform, converges within your standard and does not stage an across-the-board increase, and drafts the rule text. The actuary decides whether the cap goes into the scenario.
The notice and nonrenewal counter applies each state’s rules by renewal month — in Texas, notice of a 10%+ increase no later than the 30th day before it takes effect — and counts nonrenewals under the eligibility rules. It uses the endorsed premium, which is how it found 1,674 notices a workbook built on an older extract had missed.
They come from the same run. The exhibit drafter writes the rate data exhibit, the distribution exhibit, the rate stability rule and the memo paragraph from the chosen scenario, and the tie-out checker blocks sending any exhibit whose counts do not agree with the run and the notice file.
Yes. The agents never change a filed rate or a policy record, never send a notice and never file. The head of personal lines approves the scenario, the pricing actuary signs the actuarial memorandum, and every step is on the activity trail.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your rate plans, in-force extract, state rules and capping standards — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own book first.
Only the renewals whose hazard or roof changed reach an underwriter.
1-min demoAerial Imagery VerificationNo bind, cancel or nonrenewal resting on one out-of-date picture.
1-min demoRate & Form Filing AutomationGaps caught before a regulator sees them; objections answered from the record.
1-min demoWe’ll run Rate Dislocation Analysis on your own in-force book and a proposed rate plan.