(6) UNPAID LOSSES AND LAE

The liability for unpaid losses and LAE is determined on an individual-case basis for all incidents reported. The liability also includes amounts for unallocated expenses, anticipated future claim development and IBNR.

Activity in the liability for unpaid losses and LAE is summarized as follows.

	Years Ended December 31,
	2013			2012			2011
	(Dollars in Thousands)
Balance at January 1	$	49,908		$	59,983		$	66,529
Less reinsurance recoverables		(3,503	)		(2,088	)		(6,809	)
Net balance at January 1	$	46,405		$	57,895		$	59,720

Incurred related to
Current year	$	56,209		$	31,636		$	31,893
Prior years		201			(1,427	)		(997	)
Total incurred	$	56,410		$	30,209		$	30,896

Paid related to
Current year	$	22,695		$	15,892		$	13,672
Prior years		21,846			25,807			19,048
Total paid	$	44,541		$	41,699		$	32,720

Net balance at period end	$	58,274		$	46,405		$	57,896
Plus reinsurance recoverables		2,742			3,503			2,087
Balance at period end	$	61,016		$	49,908		$	59,983

Based upon consultations with our independent actuarial consultants and their statement of opinion on losses and LAE, we believe that the liability for unpaid losses and LAE is adequate to cover all claims and related expenses which may arise from incidents reported.

As shown above, and as a result of review of liability for losses and LAE, which includes a re-evaluation of the adequacy of reserve levels for prior year’s claims, we increased the liability for losses and LAE for claims occurring in prior years by $0.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 and decreased the liability for losses and LAE for claims occurring in prior years by $1.4 million and $1.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

We continue to revise our estimates of the ultimate financial impact of claims made resulting from past storms. The revisions to our estimates are based on our analysis of subsequent information that we receive regarding various factors, including: (i) per claim information; (ii) Company and industry historical loss experience; (iii) legislative enactments, judicial decisions, legal developments in the awarding of damages, and (iv) trends in general economic conditions, including the effects of inflation.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, our actuarial firm determined range of statutory loss and LAE reserves on a net basis range from a low of $51.5 million to a high of $60.9 million, with a best estimate of $55.5 million. The Company’s net loss and LAE reserves are carried on a statutory basis at $54.0 million, and on a GAAP consolidated basis at $61.0 million which when netted with our $2.7 million reinsurance recoverable totals $58.3 million. The Company’s statutory point estimate for its reserves as of December 31, 2013 is 2.6% below our actuary’s best estimate, which reflects management’s current analysis of the status and expected timing of our anticipated claims, our analysis of expected weather patterns in the regions in which we sell policies, our re-focus of our business growth efforts to areas outside of South Florida, and other factors.

The following is an overview of management’s loss reserving process

The Company’s loss reserves can generally be categorized into two distinct groups. One group is short-tail classes of business consisting principally of property risks in connection with homes and automobiles. The other group is long-tail casualty classes of business which include primarily commercial general liability and to a much lesser extent, homeowner and automobile liability. For operations writing short-tail coverages our loss reserves were generally geared toward determining an expected loss ratio for current business rather than maintaining a reserve for the outstanding exposure. Estimations of ultimate net loss reserves for long-tail casualty classes of business is a more complex process and depends on a number of factors including class and volume of business involved. Experience in the more recent accident years of long-tail casualty classes of business shows limited statistical credibility in reported net losses because a relatively low proportion of net losses would be reported claims and expenses and even smaller percentage would be net losses paid. Therefore, IBNR would constitute a relatively high proportion of net losses.

Additionally, the different methodologies are utilized the same, regardless of the line of business. However, the final selection of ultimate loss and LAE is certain to vary by both line of business and by accident period maturity. There is no prescribed combination of line of business, accident year maturity, and methodologies; consistency in results of the different methodologies and reasonableness of the result are the primary factors that drive the final selection of ultimate loss and LAE.

Methods Used to Estimate Loss and LAE Reserves

The methods we use for our short-tail business do not differ from the methods we use for our long-tail business. The Incurred and Paid Development Methods intrinsically recognize the unique development characteristics contained within the historical experience of each material short-tail and long-tail line of business. The Incurred and Paid Cape Cod Methods reflect similar historical development unique to each material short-tail and long-tail line of business.

We apply the following general methods in projecting loss and LAE reserves:

Paid and Incurred Loss Development Method

Paid and Incurred Bornhuetter-Ferguson Incurred Method

Frequency / Severity Method

Description of Ultimate Loss Estimation Methods

The estimated Ultimate Loss and Defense and Cost Containment Expense (“DCCE”) is based on an analysis by line of business, coverage and by accident quarter performed using data as of December 31, 2013. The analysis relies primarily on four actuarial methods: Incurred Loss and DCCE Development Method, Paid Loss and DCCE Development Method, Bornhuetter-Ferguson Incurred Method, and Bornhuetter-Ferguson Paid Method. Each method relies on company experience, and, where relevant, the analysis includes comparisons to industry experience. The following is a description of each of these methods:

Incurred Loss and DCCE Development Method – This reserving method is based on the assumption that the historical incurred loss and DCCE development pattern as reflected by the Company is appropriate for estimating the future loss & DCCE development. Incurred paid plus case amounts separated by accident quarter of occurrence and at quarterly evaluations are used in this analysis. Case reserves do not have to be adequately stated for this method to be effective; they only need to have a fairly consistent level of adequacy at all stages of maturity. Historical “age-to-age” loss development factors were calculated to measure the relative development of an accident quarter from one maturity point to the next. Loss and DCCE development factors (“LDF”) are selected based on a review of the historical relationships between incurred loss & DCCE at successive valuations and based on industry patterns. The LDFs are multiplied together to derive cumulative LDF’s that, when multiplied by actual incurred loss and DCCE, produce estimates of ultimate loss and DCCE.

Paid Loss & DCCE Development Method – This method is similar to the Incurred Loss & DCCE Development Method only paid loss & DCCE and paid patterns are substituted for the incurred loss & DCCE and incurred patterns.

Bornhuetter-Ferguson Incurred Method – This reserving method combines estimated initial expected unreported loss & DCCE with the actual loss & DCCE to yield the ultimate loss & DCCE estimate. Expected unreported loss & DCCE are equal to expected total loss & DCCE times the expected unreported percentage of loss & DCCE for each policy year. The incurred loss & DCCE emergence pattern used to determine the unreported percentages in our projections is based on the selected LDF’s from the Incurred Loss & DCCE Development Method described above. The estimate of initial expected total loss & DCCE is based on the historical loss ratio for more mature accident years. While this approach reduces the independence of the Bornhuetter-Ferguson Method from the loss & DCCE development methods for older policy years, it is used primarily for estimating ultimate loss & DCCE for more recent, less mature, policy years.

Bornhuetter-Ferguson Paid Method – This method is similar to the Bornhuetter-Ferguson Incurred Method only paid loss & DCCE and paid patterns are substituted for the incurred loss & DCCE and incurred patterns.

We select an estimate of ultimate loss & DCCE for each accident quarter after considering the results of each projection method for the quarter and the relative maturity of the quarter (the time elapsed between the start of the quarter and December 31, 2013). Reserves for unpaid losses & DCCE for each quarter are the differences between these ultimate estimates and the amount already paid. The reserves for each quarter and each coverage are summed, and the result is the overall estimate of unpaid losses & DCCE liability for the company.

We also produce an estimate of unpaid Adjusting and Other Expense (“A&O”), as a reserve is required under Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”) even if this expense has been pre-paid or with an unconsolidated affiliate. Although we do not prepay for A&O, the majority of the A&O incurred is with an affiliated company and eliminated under the accounting principles for consolidation. The unpaid A&O is added to unpaid losses & DCCE, resulting in total unpaid losses and LAE.

The validity of the results from using a loss development approach can be affected by many conditions, such as internal claim department processing changes, a shift between single and multiple claim payments, legal changes, or variations in a company’s mix of business from year to year. Also, since the percentage of losses paid for immature years is often low, development factors can be volatile. A small variation in the number of claims paid can have a leveraging effect that could lead to significant changes in estimated ultimate values. Accordingly, our reserves are estimates because there are uncertainties inherent in the determination of ultimate losses. Court decisions, regulatory changes and economic conditions can affect the ultimate cost of claims that occurred in the past as well as create uncertainties regarding future loss cost trends. We compute our estimated ultimate liability using the most appropriate principles and procedures applicable to the lines of business written. However, because the establishment of loss reserves is an inherently uncertain process, we cannot be certain that ultimate losses will not exceed the established loss reserves and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Frequency / Severity Method – This method separately estimates the two components of ultimate losses (the frequency, or number of claims and the severity, or cost per claim) and then combines the resulting estimates in a multiplicative fashion to estimate ultimate losses. The approach is valuable because sometimes there is more inherent stability in the frequency and severity data when viewed separately than in the total losses.

We developed reported claim counts to ultimate levels using the development approach. The mechanics of this approach are the same as we described previously for paid and incurred losses. The validity of the results of this method depends on the stability of claim reporting and settlement rates. Then we developed accident year incurred severities (incurred losses divided by reported claim counts) to ultimate levels using the development approach.

We trended these severities to accident year 2013 levels. Trend rates were selected based on a review of historical severities. Selected severity was chosen based on judgment considering the developed severities and the trended severities, considering industry benchmarks for each segment. The loss & ALAE, claim count and severity triangles are evaluated as of 12 months, 24 months, 36 months etc. We selected loss development factors based on the loss development history, to the extent credible, and supplemented with industry data where appropriate.

A key assumption underlying the estimation of the reserve for loss and LAE is that past experience serves as the most reliable estimator of future events. This assumption may materially affect the estimates when the insurance market, the regulatory environment, the legal environment, the economic environment, the book of business, the claims handling department, or other factors (known or unknown) have varied over time during the experience period and / or will vary (expectedly or unexpectedly) in the future. Changes in estimates, or differences between estimates and amounts ultimately paid, are reflected in the operating results of the period during which such adjustments are made. Therefore, the ultimate liability for unpaid losses and LAE will likely differ from the amount recorded at December 31, 2013.

The following describes the extent of our procedures for determining the reserve for loss and LAE on both an annual and interim reporting basis:

Annually - Our policy is to select a single point estimate that best reflects our in-house actuarial determination for unpaid losses and LAE. Our independent actuarial firm, examining the exact same data set, will independently select a point estimate which determines a high point and low point range. Both processes rely on objective and subjective determinations. If our point estimate falls within the range determined from the point estimate of our actuary, then the Company’s policy has been that no adjustments by management would be required. In consideration thereof, the company does not have a policy for adjusting the liability for unpaid losses and LAE to an amount that is different than an amount set forth within the range determined by our independent actuary, although the reserve level ultimately determined by us may not be the mid-point of our independent actuary’s range. Further, there can be no assurances that our actual losses will be within our actuary’s range. Our independent actuary’s report expressly states that the report is based on assumptions developed from its own analysis and based on information provided by management and that notwithstanding its analysis, there is a significant risk of material adverse deviation from its range.

Interim – During 2013 our interim approach was very similar to the annual process noted above.

A number of other actuarial assumptions are generally made in the review of reserves for each class of business.

For each class of business, expected ultimate loss ratios for each accident year are estimated based on loss reserve development patterns. The expected loss ratio generally reflects the projected loss ratio from prior accident years, adjusted for the loss trend and the effect of rate changes and other quantifiable factors on the loss ratio.

In practice there are factors that change over time; however, many (such as inflation) are intrinsically reflected in the historical development patterns, and others typically do not materially affect the estimate of the reserve for unpaid losses and LAE. Therefore, no specific adjustments have been incorporated for such contingencies projecting future development of losses and LAE. There are no key assumptions as of December 31, 2013 premised on future emergence inconsistent with historical loss reserve development patterns.