COMPETITION
Our specialty property and casualty insurance subsidiaries are part of a very competitive industry that is cyclical and historically characterized by periods of high premium rates and shortages of underwriting capacity followed by periods of severe competition and excess underwriting capacity. Within the United States alone, approximately 2,600 companies actively market property and casualty coverages. Our primary competitors in the casualty segment include Arch, Aspen, Berkley, Chubb, CNA, Great American, Great West, Hartford, Hudson, James River, Kinsale, Lancer, Markel, Protective, RSUI, Sompo, Travelers, USLI and Zurich. Primary competitors in the property segment include AmRisc, Arch, Chubb, CNA, Golden Bear, Lexington, Liberty Mutual, Palomar, RSUI, Sompo, Travelers and Velocity. Primary competitors in the surety segment are Arch, Chubb, CNA, Great American, Hartford, Intact, Liberty Mutual, Markel, Merchants, Philadelphia, Sompo, Swiss Re, Travelers and Zurich. The combination of coverages, service, pricing and other methods of competition vary from line to line. Our principal methods of meeting this competition are innovative coverages, consistency and quality service to the agents and policyholders, at a fair price. We compete favorably, in part, because of our sound financial condition and reputation, as well as our broad, geographic footprint in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam. In the casualty, property and surety areas, we have experienced underwriting and claim specialists in our branch and home offices. We continue to maintain our underwriting standards by not seeking market share at the expense of underwriting profit. We have a track record of withdrawing from markets when conditions become overly adverse and offering new coverages and programs where the opportunity exists to provide needed insurance coverage with exceptional service on a profitable basis.
FINANCIAL STRENGTH RATINGS
Financial strength ratings are an important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. Publications of AM Best, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s indicate that A and A+ ratings are assigned to those companies that, in their opinion, have a superior ability to meet ongoing insurance obligations, a strong capacity to meet financial commitments or a low credit risk, respectively. The ratings are independent opinions of an insurer’s financial strength and ability to meet ongoing insurance policy and contract obligations, based on a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of balance sheet strength, operating performance, business profile and enterprise risk management. These ratings are based on factors relevant to policyholders, agents, insurance brokers and intermediaries and are not specifically related to securities issued by the company.
At December 31, 2022, the following ratings were assigned to our insurance companies:
| | |
AM Best | | |
RLI Ins., Mt. Hawley and CBIC* (group-rated) | | A+, Superior |
Standard & Poor’s | | |
RLI Ins. and Mt. Hawley | | A, Strong |
Moody’s | | |
RLI Ins. and Mt. Hawley | | A2 |
*CBIC is only rated by AM Best
For AM Best, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, the financial strength ratings represented above are affirmations of previously assigned ratings. In addition to assigning a financial strength rating, AM Best also assigns financial size categories. In December 2022, RLI Ins., Mt. Hawley and CBIC, which are collectively rated as a group, were assigned a financial size category of XII (adjusted policyholders’ surplus of between $1 billion and $1.25 billion). As of December 31, 2022, the policyholders’ statutory surplus of RLI Insurance Group totaled $1.4 billion, which results in AM Best’s financial size category of XIII (adjusted policyholders’ surplus of between $1.25 billion and $1.5 billion).
REINSURANCE
In the ordinary course of business, we rely on other insurance companies to share risks through reinsurance, paying or ceding to the reinsurer a portion of the premiums received on such policies. These arrangements allow the Company to pursue greater diversification of business and serve to limit the maximum net loss on catastrophes and large risks. We use reinsurance as an alternative to using our own capital to take risks and reduce volatility. Retention levels are evaluated each year to maintain a balance between the growth in surplus and the cost of reinsurance. Although reinsurance does not legally discharge an insurer from its primary liability for the full amount of the policies, it does make the assuming reinsurer liable to the insurer to the extent of the insurance ceded. The following table illustrates the degree to which we have utilized reinsurance during the past three years. For an expanded discussion of the impact of reinsurance on our operations, see note 5 to the consolidated financial statements within Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.