RMS11StandardsDisclosures 20130514

North Atlantic Hurricane Model
RMS® RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509)
May 2013
Submitted in Compliance with the 2011 Standards of the

Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection
Methodology
Risk Management Solutions, Inc.
7575 Gateway Boulevard, Newark, CA 94560 USA

http://www.rms.com
© Risk Management Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
™
RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model, May 2013. Printed in the U.S.A.
© 2013 Risk Management Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Licenses and Trademarks
RiskLink, RiskBrowser, and ALM are registered trademarks of Risk Management Solutions, Inc.
RMS and the RMS logo are trademarks of Risk Management Solutions, Inc.
Windows, Excel, MS-DOS, and SQL Server are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.
SQL Server is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
dBASE is a registered trademark of Borland International.
IBM and PC are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation.
ZIP Code and ZIP+4 are registered trademarks of the U.S. Postal Service.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Chair, Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology
State Board of Administration
1801 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 100
Tallahassee, FL 32308
®
Re: Certification of the RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model, RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509)
Dear Chair:
We are pleased to offer for your review the documentation, data, and exhibits supporting our request
for certification of the above-referenced model.
Professionals having credentials and/or experience in the areas of meteorology, engineering,

actuarial science, statistics, and computer science have reviewed RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509); with
model settings as specified in the FCHLPM Certified Hurricane Losses DLM profile for compliance
with the Commission’s 2011 standards. As shown in the enclosed Expert Certification Forms (G-1 to
G-7), these persons have, in accordance with their professional standards and code of ethical
conduct, certified that the model meets or exceeds the 2011 Standards adopted by the Florida
Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, and the model is ready to be reviewed by
the Professional Team.
Enclosed with this letter please find all the required documentation as outlined in the attached model
submission checklist.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions. We thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Young
Senior Director
Model Product Management
Enc
®
RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model, RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509) May 2013
4
Model Submission Checklist
MODEL SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

1. Please indicate by checking below that the following has been included in your submission to the Florida Commission on
Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology.
Yes No Item
 1. Letter to the Commission
 a. Refers to the Certification Forms and states that professionals having
credentials and/or experience in the areas of meteorology, engineering,
actuarial science, statistics, and computer science have reviewed the model for
compliance with the Standards
 b. States model is ready to be reviewed by the Professional Team
 c. Any caveats to the above statements noted with a complete explanation
 2. Summary statement of compliance with each individual Standard and the data and
analyses required in the Disclosures and Forms
 3. General description of any trade secret information the modeling organization intends
to present to the Professional Team
 4. Model Identification
 5. 7 Bound Copies (duplexed)
 6. Link containing:
 a. Submission text in PDF format
 b. PDF file highlightable and bookmarked by Standard, Form, and section
 c. Data file names include abbreviated name of modeling organization, Standards
year, and Form name (when applicable)
 d. Form S-6 (if required) in PDF format
 e. Forms M-1, M-3, V-2, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, and A-8 in Excel format
 f. Form S-6 in ASCII format (if required)
 7. Table of Contents
 8. Materials consecutively numbered from beginning to end starting with the first page
(including cover) using a single numbering system
 9. All tables, graphs, and other non-text items consecutively numbered using whole
numbers
 10. All tables, graphs, and other non-text items specifically listed in Table of Contents
 11. All tables, graphs, and other non-text items clearly labeled with abbreviations defined
 12. All column headings shown and repeated at the top of every subsequent page for
Forms and tables
 13. Standards, Disclosures, and Forms in italics, modeling organization responses in non-
italics
 14. Graphs accompanied by legends and labels for all elements
 15. All units of measurement clearly identified with appropriate units used
 16. Hard copy of all Forms included in a submission document Appendix except Forms V-
3, A-6, and S-6
2. Explanation of ―No‖ responses indicated above. (Attach additional pages if needed.)
RMS has submitted Form S-6 at the previous submission cycle, in compliance with the 2009
Standards. No aspect of the model that would affect the results in Form S-6 has been changed.
RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509) 05/14/2013

Model Name Modeler Signature Date
®
5
Model Submission Checklist
®
6
Supplemental Information
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (CHECKLIST ITEM 3)

Information that has been requested regarding the disclosure of trade secret information to the Commission and
Professional Team are described below:
 Trade secret information that RMS will make available to the Professional Team for review during their
upcoming visit has been noted at various points throughout the submission document.
®
7
Supplemental Information
®
8
Model Identification
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
Name of Model and Version: North Atlantic Hurricane Model in RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509)
Name of Modeling Organization: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.
Street Address: 7575 Gateway Boulevard
City, State, ZIP Code: Newark, CA 94560
Mailing Address, if different from above: Same as above
Contact Person: Kay Cleary
Phone Number: 850-386-5292 Fax Number:
E-mail Address: kay.cleary@rms.com
Date: May 2013
®
9
Model Identification
®
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Model Submission Checklist 5

Supplemental Information (Checklist Item 3) 7
Model Identification 9
General Standards 25
G-1 Scope of the Computer Model and Its Implementation 25
G-2 Qualifications of Modeling Organization Personnel and Consultants 45
G-3 Risk Location 57
G-4 Independence of Model Components 58
G-5 Editorial Compliance 59
Meteorological Standards 61
M-1 Base Hurricane Storm Set 61
M-2 Hurricane Parameters and Characteristics 62
M-3 Hurricane Probabilities 68
M-4 Hurricane Wind Field Structure 71
M-5 Landfall and Over-Land Weakening Methodologies 80
M-6 Logical Relationships of Hurricane Characteristics 86
Vulnerability Standards 89
V-1 Derivation of Vulnerability Functions 89
V-2 Derivation of Contents and Time Element Vulnerability Functions 103
V-3 Mitigation Measures 106
Actuarial Standards 113
A-1 Modeling Input Data 113
A-2 Event Definition 117
A-3 Modeled Loss Cost and Probable Maximum Loss Considerations 118
A-4 Policy Conditions 121
A-5 Coverages 123
A-6 Loss Output 124
Statistical Standards 129
S-1 Modeled Results and Goodness-of-Fit 129
S-2 Sensitivity Analysis for Model Output 141
S-3 Uncertainty Analysis for Model Output 142
S-4 County Level Aggregation 143
S-5 Replication of Known Hurricane Losses 144
S-6 Comparison of Projected Hurricane Loss Costs 148
®
11
Computer Standards 149
C-1 Documentation 149
C-2 Requirements 150
C-3 Model Architecture and Component Design 152
C-4 Implementation 154
C-5 Verification 157
C-6 Model Maintenance and Revision 161
C-7 Security 167
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms 169
Form G-1: General Standards Expert Certification 170
Form G-2: Meteorological Standards Expert Certification 171
Form G-3: Vulnerability Standards Expert Certification 172
Form G-4: Actuarial Standards Expert Certification 173
Form G-5: Statistical Standards Expert Certification 174
Form G-6: Computer Standards Expert Certification 175
Form G-7: Editorial Certification 176
Form M-1: Annual Occurrence Rates 177
Form M-2: Maps of Maximum Winds 185
Form M-3: Radius of Maximum Winds and Radii of Standard Wind Thresholds 192
Form V-1: One Hypothetical Event 196
Form V-2: Mitigation Measures – Range of Changes in Damage 199
Form V-3: Mitigation Measures – Mean Damage Ratio (Trade Secret Item) 201
Form A-1: Zero Deductible Personal Residential Loss Costs by ZIP Code 202
Form A-2: Base Hurricane Set Statewide Loss Costs 207
Form A-3: Cumulative Losses from the 2004 Hurricane Season 210
Form A-4: Output Ranges 245
Form A-5: Percentage Change in Output Ranges 260
Form A-6: Logical Relationship to Risk (Trade Secret Item) 271
Form A-7: Percentage Change in Logical Relationship to Risk 272
Form A-8: Probable Maximum Loss for Florida 283
Form S-1: Probability and Frequency of Florida Landfalling Hurricanes per Year 287
Form S-2: Examples of Loss Exceedance Estimates 288
Form S-3: Distributions of Stochastic Hurricane Parameters 289
Form S-4: Validation Comparisons 291
Form S-5: Average Annual Zero Deductible Statewide Loss Costs – Historical versus Modeled298
Form S-6: Hypothetical Events for Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis 299
Appendix B—RMS Technical Staff 301
®
12
Appendix C—External Expert Review of Hazard Module 325
Appendix D—External Expert Review of Vulnerability Module 331
Appendix E—RiskLink User Interface Screen Shots 335
Appendix F—RiskLink Reports 339
®
13
®
14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Comparison of Observations from 58 Years of HURDAT Tracks (1950-2007), to one “58
year” Model Realization of the RMS Statistical Track Model 26
Figure 2: Examples of Stochastic VRG (yellow boundaries) and ZIP Codes (red boundaries) in South
Florida 28
Figure 3: Flow Diagram of Major Model Components 32
Figure 4: Percentage Change in Average Annual Loss with Zero Deductible by County due to
Geocoding Changes 42
Figure 5: Percentage Change in Average Annual Loss with Zero Deductible by County due to Hazard
Module Changes 43
Figure 6: Percentage Change in Average Annual Loss with Zero Deductible by County due to All
Changes Combined 44
Figure 7: RMS Model Development, Testing, and Maintenance Business Workflow Diagram 53
Figure 8: RMS Landfall Gates 66
Figure 9: Historical Landfall Counts (1900-2011) by Landfall Gate for Category 1–2 Storms 67
Figure 10: Historical Landfall Counts (1900-2011) by Landfall Gate for Category 3–5 Storms 67
Figure 11: Observed (black) and Modeled (red) Histograms of Storm Heading for Landfalls in each
Florida Region and Adjacent Regions. Storm Heading “N” Stands for a Storm Heading North. 69
Figure 12: Radially Averaged Velocity Profile Based on the Parameters Given in the Text 72
Figure 13: Hurricane Charley on August 13th 2004 – 16:30 UTC. a) H*Wind Snapshot
(ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/pub/hwind/), b) H*Wind Composite, c) Best Fit for the Georgiou/Holland
Model, d) Best Fit for the RMS Wind Field Model. All wind speeds are 1-minute mean 10m winds in
mph. 73
Figure 14: As Figure 13, but for Hurricane Andrew on August 24th 1992–04:00 UTC 73
Figure 15: Footprint of Hurricane Charley (2004). Shown is the maximum 3-sec peak gust (in mph).
The triangles are stations and are colored according to the observed maximum peak gust. Grey
triangles indicate stations that failed and did not record the maximum 3-sec gust. The pink markers
indicate the stations for which a time series is shown in Figure 16. 76
Figure 16: Two Station Time Series of 3-second Gust Wind Speeds Comparing Model with
Observations for Hurricane Charley (2004) 76
Figure 17: As Figure 15 but for Hurricane Jeanne (2004) 77
Observations for Hurricane Jeanne (2004) 77
Figure 19: As Figure 15 but for Hurricane Wilma (2005) 78
®
15
Observations for Hurricane Wilma (2005) 78
Figure 21: Normalized central pressure time series as a function of time from landfall. The dashed
st th
black lines give the stochastic model envelope (1 and 99 percentiles). Colored time series
correspond to historical central pressure time series. 81
Figure 22: 3-second Gust Wind footprint (in mph) for Hurricane Frances (2004). Triangles locate a
subset of stations used for the reconstruction. As mentioned in the text, the central pressure time
series is given by the RMS inland filling model and not by the HURDAT time series. 82
Figure 23: Scatter Plot of Modeled versus Observed 3-second Gusts (mph) for Hurricane Frances 83
Figure 24: Roughness Coefficient as a Function of Distance to Coast (in miles). Each Point
Corresponds to a Florida ZIP Code. 84
Figure 25: Radius of Hurricane Force Wind Histograms Comparing Observed Radii Extended Best
Track dataset (EBT) (in black) with Simulated Radii (in red) for Hurricanes Having a Central Pressure
between 930 and 970hPa 87
Figure 26: Process for Deriving and Implementing Vulnerability Functions 91
Figure 27: Observed Damage ratios (dots and triangles) and modeled Mean Damage Ratios (MDR)
(solid line) versus Peak Gust Wind Speed for Contents and Time Element Losses 99
(solid line) versus Peak Gust Wind Speed for Appurtenant Structure Losses 99
Figure 29: Observed Damage Ratio (dots and triangles) and Modeled Mean Damage Ratio (MDR)
(solid line) versus Peak Gust Wind Speed 101
Figure 30: Relative Structure and Additional Living Expense (ALE) Damage Ratios: Actual Claims
Data 104
Figure 31: Modeled versus Observed Wind speeds (3-second Peak Gust) 132
Figure 32: Uncertainty in Loss Costs due to Vmax 133
Figure 33: Uncertainty in Loss Costs Due to Rmax 134
Figure 34: Central Pressure Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 135
Figure 35: Vmax Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 136
Figure 36: Pressure Time Series Over Land with Observed (black), Predicted (red) and Simulated
(dark blue for 50% and light blue for 90% bands) Filling Rate 137
Figure 37: Translational Speed (Forward Speed) Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 138
Figure 38: Rmax Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 139
Figure 39: Angle to Maximum Winds Histogram 140
Figure 40: Florida Industry Loss Estimates (Residential) for Recent Storms10F 145
®
16
Figure 41: Company Specific Loss Comparisons for Residential (RES) Structure Types 146
Figure 42: RiskLink Top Level Data Flow 153
Figure 43: High-Level Description of Model-Revision Policy 161
Figure 44: Detailed Description of Model-Revision Policy 163
Figure 45: RMS Product Development Process Diagram 164
Figure 46: Change in Track Parameters for the 2 of 7 Modified Hurricanes. Part (a) Left: Previous
Submission, Right: Current Submission 179
Figure 47: Change in Track Parameters for 2 of the 7 Modified Hurricanes. Part (b) Left: Previous
Figure 48: Change in Track Parameters for 2 of the 7 Modified Hurricanes. Part (c) Left: Previous
Figure 49: Change in Track Parameters for 1 of the 7 Modified Hurricanes. Part (d) Left: Previous
Submission, Right: Current Submission. 182
Figure 50: Comparison of Historical and Modeled Multiple Landfall Occurrences by Region 184
Figure 51: Maximum 1-minute Mean Wind Speed (mph) at ZIP Code level. Historical Set (1900-
2011)—Open Terrain 186
Figure 52: Maximum 1-minute Mean Wind Speed (mph) at ZIP Code level. Historical Set (1900-
2011)—Real Terrain 187
Figure 53: 100-year Return Period 1-minute Mean Wind Speed (mph) at ZIP Code level. Stochastic
Set—Open Terrain 188
Set—Real Terrain 189
Set—Open Terrain 190
Set—Real Terrain 191
Figure 57: Box Plot of Rmax (miles) as a Function of Central Pressure (hPa) using a 10hPa Central
Pressure Increment 193
Figure 58: Frequency Histogram of the Radius of Maximum Winds (miles) 194
Figure 59: Frequency Histogram Central Pressure (hPa) 194
Figure 60: Ratio of Estimated Damage and Subject Exposure versus One-Minute Wind Speed 198
Figure 61: Percent Change in Damage for Various Mitigation Measures 200
Figure 62: Zero Deductible Loss Costs by 5-Digit ZIP Code for Frame 204
®
17
Figure 63: Zero Deductible Loss Costs by 5-Digit ZIP Code for Masonry 205
Figure 64: Zero Deductible Loss Costs by 5-Digit ZIP Code for Mobile Home 206
Figure 65: Percentage of Residential Losses from Hurricane Charley (2004) by ZIP Code 240
Figure 66: Percentage of Residential Losses from Hurricane Frances (2004) by ZIP Code 241
Figure 67: Percentage of Residential Losses from Hurricane Ivan (2004) by ZIP Code 242
Figure 68: Percentage of Residential Losses from Hurricane Jeanne (2004) by ZIP Code 243
Figure 69: Percentage of Cumulative Residential Losses from 2004 Events by ZIP Code 244
Figure 70: Map by County Reflecting the Percentage Changes in the Average Loss Costs with
Specified Deductibles for Frame Owners from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted Model263
Specified Deductibles for Masonry Owners from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted
Model 264
Specified Deductibles for Mobile Home from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted Model 265
Specified Deductibles for Frame Renters from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted Model266
Specified deductibles for Masonry Renters from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted
Model 267
Specified Deductibles for Frame Condo Unit Owners from the Output Ranges from the Previously
Accepted Model 268
Specified Deductibles for Masonry Condo Unit Owners from the Output Ranges from the Previously
Accepted Model 269
Specified Deductibles for Commercial Residential from the Output Ranges from the Previously
Accepted Model 270
Figure 78: Comparison of Current Submission Return Times to the Prior Year’s Submission Return
Times 284
Figure 79: Example A1 Comparison of Modeled and Actual Losses by ZIP Code 292
®
18
Figure 84: Example B1 Comparison of Modeled and Actual Losses by ZIP Code 297
Figure 85: Screen Shot of Model Location Input Form (Part 1) 335
Figure 91: Screen Shot of the About RiskLink Screen, Showing Model Name and Version Number 338
Figure 92: Analysis Summary Report (Page 1 of 3) 339
Figure 95: Post Import Summary (Page 1 of 4) 343
®
19
®
20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Percentage Difference by Module 41
Table 2: Individuals Involved in Meteorological Aspects of the Model 47
Table 3: Individuals Involved in Vulnerability Aspects of the Model 47
Table 4: Individuals Involved in Actuarial Aspects of the Model 48
Table 5: Individuals Involved in Statistical Aspects of the Model 48
Table 6: Individuals Involved in Computer Science Aspects of the Model 49
Table 7: Individuals who are not Full-Time Employees 54
Table 8: Gust Factors for Typical Land Use Classes 64
Table 9: Observed and Modeled Maximum Peak Gusts at the Stations with Locations given on Figure
22 83
Table 10: Sample of Residential Datasets Used for Development and Calibration of Vulnerability
Functions 93
Table 11: Post-Storm Reconnaissance Missions Conducted by RMS 95
Table 12: RMS Hurricane Primary Building Classification Options 97
Table 13: RMS Secondary Characteristic Options in North Atlantic Hurricane Model 108
Table 14: Model settings corresponding to the DLM Profile called "FCHLPM Certified Hurricane
Losses". 115
Table 15: Geocoding Match Levels 119
Table 16: Example of Insurer Loss Calculation 122
Table 17: Portion of Modeled Wind Speeds within 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% of the Observed Value 131
Table 18: Comparison of Actual and Estimated Industry Loss ($ million) 145
Table 19: Sample Client Loss Data Comparison 146
Table 20: Comparison of Modeled and Historical Annual Occurrence Rates 177
Table 21: Ranges of Rmax used in Model’s Stochastic Storm Set 192
Table 22: Base Hurricane Storm Set Average Annual Zero Deductible 207
Table 23: Hurricane Charley (2004) Percent of Losses 210
Table 24: Hurricane Frances (2004) Percent of Losses 215
®
21
Table 25: Hurricane Ivan (2004) Percent of Losses 228
Table 26: Hurricane Jeanne (2004) Percent of Losses 229
Table 27: Loss Costs per $1000 for 0% Deductible 248
Table 28: Loss Costs per $1000 with Specified Deductibles 254
Table 29: Percentage Change in $0 Deductible Output Ranges 262
Table 30: Percentage Change in Specified Deductible Output Ranges 262
Table 31: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Deductible 273
Table 32: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Construction 275
Table 33: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Policy Form 276
Table 34: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Coverage 276
Table 35: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Building Code / Enforcement (Year Built)
Sensitivity 278
Table 36: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Building Strength 280
Table 37: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Condo Unit Floor 281
Table 38: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Number of Stories 282
Table 39: Distribution of Hurricanes by Size of Loss for the 2007 FHCF Combined Personal and
Commercial Residential Aggregate Exposure Data 285
Table 40: Estimated Loss for Each of the Return Periods Given for the 2007 FHCF Combined
Personal and Commercial Residential Aggregate Exposure Data 286
Table 41: Model Results—Probability and Frequency of Hurricanes per Year 287
Table 42: Examples of Loss Exceedance Estimates 288
Table 43: Average Annual Loss for Loss Exceedance Distribution 288
Table 44: Distributions of Hurricane Parameters 289
Table 45: Example A1 Portfolio Comparison of Modeled and Actual Loss 292
Table 50: Example B1 Portfolio Comparison of Modeled and Actual Loss 297
®
22
Table 51: Average Annual Zero Deductible Statewide Personal and Commercial Residential Loss
Costs 298
Table 52: Example of Client Output Table Showing Application of Annual Deductible Factors 347
®
23
®
24
General Standards G-1 Scope of the Computer Model and Its Implementation
GENERAL STANDARDS
G-1 Scope of the Computer Model and Its Implementation

A. The computer model shall project loss costs and probable maximum loss levels for
residential property insured damage from hurricane events.
®
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model projects loss costs and probable maximum loss levels from
hurricanes for residential property for the following coverages, as appropriate to the type and
composition of the policy form in question: primary structures, appurtenant structures, con tents, and
additional living expenses. Output from the model can explicitly and separately define expected losses
for each of these coverages.
B. The modeling organization shall maintain a documented process to assure continual

agreement and correct correspondence of databases, data files, and computer source
code to slides, technical papers, and/or modeling organization documents.
RMS uses a variety of systems to track and maintain documentation, data and computer source code.
These systems include the use of source control software, bug tracking systems, and internal
documentation standards and protocols.
G-1.1 Specify the model and program version number.
The model being submitted for rate filing in Florida is the North Atlantic Hurricane Model in RiskLink
13.0 (Build 1509).
G-1.2 Provide a comprehensive summary of the model. This summary shall include a technical
description of the model including each major component of the model used to produce
residential loss costs and probable maximum loss levels in the State of Florida. Describe
the theoretical basis of the model and include a description of the methodology,
particularly the wind components, the damage components, and the insured loss
components used in the model. The description shall be complete and shall not reference
unpublished work.
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model consists of four major model components, or modules:
 Stochastic Module
 Wind Field (or Wind Hazard) Module
 Vulnerability or Damage Assessment Module
 Financial Loss Module
Descriptions of each of the modules follow.
Stochastic Module
The stochastic module is made of a set of thousands of stochastic events that represents more than
100,000 years of hurricane activity. RMS scientists have used state-of-the-art modeling technologies to
develop a stochastic event set made of events that are physically realistic and span the range of all
possible storms that could occur in the coming years.
At the heart of the stochastic module is a statistical track model that relies on advanced statistical
techniques (Hall & Jewson 2007) to extrapolate the HURDAT catalogue (Jarvinen et al. 1984) and
generate a set of stochastic tracks having similar statistical characteristics to the HURDAT historical
®
25
tracks (see example in Figure 1). Stochastic tracks are simulated from genesis (starting point) to lysis
(last point) using a semi-parametric statistical track model that is based upon historical data. Simulated
hurricane tracks provide the key drivers of risk, including landfall intensity, landfall frequency and
landfall correlation.
(a) Observed (b) Modeled

Figure 1: Comparison of Observations from 58 Years of HURDAT Tracks (1950-2007), to one ―58
year‖ Model Realization of the RMS Statistical Track Model
Track genesis location is sampled from a spatial Poisson process. The intensity field is derived from
historical genesis locations, weighed according to their distance from site. The length scale involved in
the smoothing process is optimized through cross validation to avoid both over fitting and unrealistic
genesis points. Once the location of the first track point has been simulated, the central pressure (used
as a measure of storm intensity) is sampled from the observed distribution of genesis central pressure.
Then the track is simulated forward in time with a 6 hour increment, , using the following equations
(Hall & Jewson 2007):
where and are the zonal and meridional components of the translational speed derived by running
a weighted average of the historical records. The variable is the 6-hourly change in central
pressure. When the storm center is located over water, the model for is a local linear regression
with predictors that include the previous change in central pressure and the zonal and meridional
components of the translational speed. When the storm center is located over land, is computed
using the filling rate associated with the landfall of interest (Colette et al . 2010). At each time step,
central pressure is constrained to fall within the local Maximal Potential Intensity (Emanuel 1986)
(when over water) and the local far field pressure.
RMS scientists have also used the best elements of numerical modeling in an effort to complement the
historical records in areas where historical data is sparse. Because historical landfall details are
generally poorly known, RMS has used a bogusing technique (Kurihara et al. 1993) to generate
thousands of synthetic storms which inform the inland filling model (Colette et al. 2010), even though
the model has been thoroughly tested and validated against the limited historical records.
®
26
Eventually, tracks are killed by sampling a logistic regression model at each time step. The model has
various predictors including the difference between far field pressure and central pressure, making
storms more likely to vanish when this difference is small.
Although central pressure is the main intensity variable in the model, RMS also derive s a maximum
wind time series (Vmax) that is similar to the HURDAT Vmax time series when the storm is over water but
different when the storm is over land as our modeled time series provides equivalent over water Vmax.
The Vmax model is a log-linear regression with pressure difference, and latitude as predictors. Note that
only over water HURDAT points are used to fit the regression.
The last step is a calibration process ensuring that simulated landfall frequencies are in agreement with
the historical record. Target landfall rates are computed on a set of 69 linear coastal segments by
smoothing the historical landfall rates. This smoothing technique is widely used in the scientific
community to reduce the local under-sampling or over-sampling issues associated with the limited
historical records (112 years). The stochastic set is then adjusted toward these targets using methods
such as selecting the optimum intensity time series among several candidates.
Importance sampling of the simulated tracks is performed to create the computationally efficient event
set used for loss cost determinations. The hurricane model contains 20,247 stochastic events affecting
Florida.
Wind Field (or Wind Hazard) Module
Once tracks and intensities have been simulated by the stochastic module, the wind field module
simulates 10 meter 3-second gusts on a variable resolution grid (VRG) to be saved in the stochastic
hazard database.
There are four parts of the Wind Field Module:
 Variable resolution grid—Geographic framework used to store high resolution hazard information.
U
 Assign wind field parameters—Parameters, associated with the size and shape of the wind field,
U
are generated for each track point along each stochastic event. For each track (and every five
minutes) 10 meter, 1-minute mean winds equivalent over water are computed on the variable
resolution grid.
 Downscale and convert wind speeds—Downscale and apply directional roughness and gust
U
coefficients to generate 10 meter, 3-second gust wind speeds over local terrain.
 Maximum peak gust—Determine final hazard footprint from maximum gusts simulated at each site
over the entire lifecycle of the storm.
Variable resolution grid: Terrain, coastline, and hurricane hazard can often vary dramatically across an
U U
individual ZIP Code. To capture this detail, RMS stores hazard data in a patented standard high-
resolution grid, called a variable resolution grid (Carttar, 2012). VRG grid cell sizes are established
such that the smallest cells occur where the hazard gradient is highest and/or high densities of
exposure exist. Like U.S. ZIP Codes and counties, the VRG constitutes a set of ge ographic boundaries
that can be used to store hazard information. Figure 2 compares the VRG for stochastic data in the
North Atlantic Hurricane Model (shown in yellow) with ZIP Codes (in red). While relative size o f both is
similar—with ZIP Codes also varying in size with population density—the VRG resolution is always
finer than the ZIP Code.
®
27
Figure 2: Examples of Stochastic VRG (yellow boundaries) and ZIP Codes (red boundaries) in South
Florida
W ind field parameters : Size and shape of the time stepping wind fields are generated using an
U U
analytical wind profile derived from Willoughby et al. (2006), with parameters fitted from the extended
best track dataset (Demuth et al. 2006) and the H*Wind product (Powell et al. 2010).
At any given point in time and space, the 1-minute mean wind (equivalent over water) is entirely
prescribed by the position from the storm center and the following set of parameters: maximum wind
(Vmax), radius of maximum wind (R max), two shape parameters giving the radial profile inside and
outside the eyewall, the angle between the location of the maximum winds and the track, and four
additional parameters (empirical orthogonal functions, or EOFs) that reduce the variance between
observed and modeled wind fields.
Rmax time series are given by a regression model with central pressure and latitude as predictors. The
Rmax model is fitted on observations available in the extended best track dataset. RMS has filtered out
years with missing R max values set to climatology.
All other wind field parameters have been fitted to the H*Wind dataset, and additional validation has
been performed using the extended best track dataset, especially for the radius of hurricane force
winds. The H*Wind database has been filtered to keep only snapshots with damaging winds. For each
of the remaining 629 snapshots, the best values of the wind field parameters have been fitted, applying
®
28
a high weight around the location of the maximum wind. These best fit values are then used as a
training dataset to build linear regression models.
Downscale and convert wind speed: The simulated 1 -minute mean wind (equivalent over water) at a
U U
site is then downscaled to account for local and upstream roughness conditions. This captures the
transition from sea to land or any change in upstream roughness. The model formulation is based on a
peer reviewed wind engineering model (Cook 1985, 1997) and roughness lengths are derived from the
15-30m resolution ASTER satellite imagery (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer, h ttp://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov ) with a 2001-2007 vintage. An additional component of the
U U
roughness model converts mean winds over local terrain to 3-second gusts over local terrain (Deaves
and Harris 1978; Harris and Deaves 1980; Deaves 1981; Cook 1985; Cook 1997; Wieringa 1993 and
2001; Vickery and Skerlj 2005).
The wind field model has been validated through the reconstruction of all damaging storms in the
HURDAT database. The model is able to reproduce accurately hourly gust observations for a large
range of wind stations (including coastal and inland stations). When considering Hurricane Andrew
1992 and all the major post 2004 U.S. landfalling hurricanes, the root mean squared error between
observed and modeled hourly gusts is approximately 10mph, which is acceptable given the uncertainty
associated with hurricane force wind observations.
Maximum peak gust footprints: The output from the wind field module is the hazard database that is
U U
made of the stochastic footprints. Each footprint contains the maximum damaging 3 -second gust wind
speed to affect each of the variable resolution grid cells. This information is pre-compiled for efficient
access at run-time for loss calculation in the subsequent modules.
Vulnerability or Damage Assessment Module
Given an event, the model estimates the wind and surge (optional) hazards present at a user -specified
site. Local wind and surge hazards are measured in terms of peak gust wind speed and flood depth,
respectively. These parameters are then used to derive the estimate of damage to a specific location.
Estimated damage is measured in terms of a mean damage ratio (MDR) and a deviation around the
mean represented by the coefficient of variation (CV). The MDR is defined as the ratio of the repair
cost divided by replacement cost of the asset. The curve that relates the MDR to the peak gust wind
speed is called a vulnerability function. RMS has developed vulnerability functions for hundreds of
building classifications per vulnerability region. Each classification has a vulnerability function for
damage to buildings due to wind and a vulnerability function for damage to building contents due to
wind, as well as similar vulnerability functions for surge damage. Additional living expenses (ALE) /
business interruption (BI) vulnerability functions are based upon the building damage function and the
occupancy of the structure.
The vulnerability classes depend on a combination of:
 Construction Class
 Building Height (number of stories)
 Building Occupancy
 Year Built
 Floor Area (single family residential only)
 Region of State (vulnerability region)
®
29
The possible classifications for each of the six primary characteristics are described in
Disclosure V-1.6.
The vulnerability functions consist of a matrix of wind speed levels (measured as peak gust in mph)
and corresponding MDRs. To calculate a MDR for a given location, RiskLink first determines an
expected wind speed, and then looks up the corresponding MDRs for building and contents based on
the building classification. RMS has also developed CVs associated with each MDR. The CV is used to
develop a probability distribution for the damage at each wind speed and for each classification. A beta
distribution is used for this purpose.
The vulnerability relationships are developed using structural and wind engineering principles
underlying the RMS Component Vulnerability Model (CVM) (Khanduri, 2003) coupled with analysis of
historical storm loss data, building codes, published studies, and RMS internal engineering
developments in consultation with wind engineering experts including the late Dr. Dale Perry and Dr.
Norris Stubbs of Texas A&M University. The CVM allows objective modeling of the vulnerability
functions, especially at higher wind speed ranges where little historical loss data is available. The CVM
is also used to obtain the vulnerability relativities by building class and gain insight into the effects of
hurricane mitigation. These approaches also build on the earlier input received from Dr. Peter Sparks
of Clemson University, and the late Dr. Alan Davenport of the University of Western Ontario.
The engineering model based on the CVM is calibrated using historical claims data at ZIP Code
resolution for building, contents, and additional living expenses (ALE) coverages. The calibration
process involves a comparison of modeled MDR with that obtained from observed losses. Since the
vulnerability model is a function of the wind speed, the calibration involves varying both wind speed
and vulnerability within the bounds established by i) the science and historical observations governing
the hazard at a given location and ii) the engineering and historical observations governing the
damageability of property at that location. Thus, one primary goal of calibration is to ensure that the
vulnerability function is confined within the high and low vulnerability bounds as established by the
CVM.
RMS also uses published documents, expert opinion, and conventional structural engineering analysis.
RMS has reviewed research and data contained in numerous technical reports, special publications,
and books related to wind engineering and damage to structures due to wind. References are provided
in Disclosure G-1.4.
The RMS engineering staff includes several engineers with PhD qualifications in Civil and Structural
Engineering. These engineers have significant experience and expertise in the und erstanding of
building performance and structural vulnerability, and are dedicated to the development of vulnerability
relationships for risk models worldwide. RMS engineers have participated in several reconnaissance
missions as described in Disclosure V-1.4.
The knowledge and data gathered during these site visits has been used in the calibration and
validation of vulnerability functions. The final calibration of the vulnerability functions has been made
using over $11 billion of loss data, with corresponding exposure information.
The vulnerability of buildings modeled by each of the building classes represents the ―average‖
vulnerability of a portfolio of buildings in that class. The vulnerability will vary depending upon specific
®
30
characteristics of buildings in that portfolio. This variation can be addressed in the model through the
use of secondary modifiers that can consider secondary building characteristics or mitigation measures
to improve a building’s wind resistance. The secondary modifiers could be building-characteristic
specific (e.g., improved roof sheathing or anchors) or external (e.g., storm shutters). These secondary
modifiers modify the base, ―average‖ vulnerability functions according to specific building
characteristics or mitigation measures. The secondary modifiers are discussed in Standard V-3.
Financial Loss Module
To calculate losses, the damage ratio for each stochastic event derived in the Vulnerability Module is
translated into dollar loss by multiplying the damage ratio (including loss amplification as appropriate)
by the value of the property. This is done for each coverage at each location. Using the mean and
coefficient of variation, a beta distribution is fit to represent the loss distri bution. From the loss
distribution one can find the expected loss and the loss corresponding to a selected quantile.
RiskLink uses the loss distribution to estimate the portion of loss carried by each participant within a
financial structure (insured, insurer, re-insurer). This distribution is used to calculate the loss net of any
deductibles and limits.
Demand surge impacts on estimated losses are incorporated in the Post -event Loss Amplification
(PLA) component of the North Atlantic Hurricane Model. This component estimates the degree to which
losses are escalated by a combination of economic, social and operational conditions that follow after a
given event. The PLA component accounts for three separate mechanisms of escalation arising from:
 Economic Demand Surge (EDS)—increase in the costs of building materials and labor costs as
demand exceeds supply
 Claims Inflation (CI)—cost inflation due to the difficulties in fully adjusting claims following a
catastrophic event
 Super Catastrophe Scenarios—coverage and loss expansion due to a complex collection of factors
such as containment failures, evacuation effects, and systemic economic downturns in selected
urban areas
These loss amplification factors are developed for each stochastic event in the model by cov erage and
applied to the damage ratio on a ground up basis.
G-1.3 Provide a flow diagram that illustrates interactions among major model components.
The high-level flow chart is shown in Figure 3.
®
31
Stochastic Event Generation Loss Calculation

User Input:
Stochastic Module Building Information
- Statistical Track Model Vulnerability Primary:
generates set of Event Module - Construction Class
stochastic storms Database - Occupancy
- Damage ratios - Number of Stories
Track Path, calculated for - Year Built
Central Pressure, Building, Contents, - Location
V_max Time Element Secondary:
- Roof Shape
Windfield Module - Roof Cover
Hazard - Opening Protection
- Windfield Parameter Financial Module
Database - etc.
Model generates Rmax,
shape parameters for - Quantify Loss
each stochastic event Amplification per
- Wind Footprint event User Input:
generated for each event - Loss is product of Insurance Policy
at 5 min intervals at Damage Ratio and Information
Variable Resolution Grid Replacement Value -Building, Contents &
locations --Loss represented Time Element Values
- Determine Peak wind by mean damage - Policy Limits
footprint per event ratio and standard - Deductible
(output as 3-sec gust at deviation - Coinsurance
10 m height over land) - etc.
Roughness & Vulnerability Financial Loss to Policy

Gust Coeff. Curve Participants
Database Database
Figure 3: Flow Diagram of Major Model Components
G-1.4 Provide a comprehensive list of complete references pertinent to the submission by

Standard grouping, (according to professional citation standards).
Meteorological Standards References
ASCE 7-98, American Society of Civil Engineers-ASCE (1998), ―ASCE 7-98 - Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures,‖ American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Carttar; David; Sharma; Mohan; Gunturi; Surya; Muir-Wood; Robert; Stojanovski; Pane, Inventors. (2012)
"System and method for producing a flexible geographical grid." US Patent Number US 8,229,766. Filed
Aug 5, 2004. Issued July 24, 2012.
Colette, A, N. Leith, V. Daniel, E. Bellone, D.S. Nolan (2010), ―Using Mesoscale Simulations to Train
Statistical Models of Tropical Cyclone Intensity over Land.” Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 2058–2073.
Cook, N. J. (1997) “The Deaves and Harris ABL model applied to a heterogeneous terrain.” J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn, 66, 197-214, March 1997.
®
32
Cook, N.J. (1985), ―The Designer’s Guide to Wind Loading of Building Structures,‖ Building Research
Establishment Report, Butterworths, London, England.
Deaves, D.M. (1981) ―Computations of wind flow over changes in surface roughness,‖ J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 7, 65-94.
Deaves, D. M. and R.I. Harris (1978) A Mathematical Model of the Structure of Strong Winds. CIRIA Report
76, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London.
Demuth, J., M. DeMaria, and J.A. Knaff, (2006), ―Improvement of advanced microwave sounder unit tropical
cyclone intensity and size estimation algorithms.‖ J. Appl. Meteor., 45, 1573-1581.
Georgiou, P.N. (1985), ―Design Wind Speeds in Tropical Cyclone-Prone Regions,‖ BLWT-2-1985 Submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Hall, T. and S. Jewson (2007a), ―Statistical modeling of North Atlantic tropical cyclone tracks.‖ Tellus
59A:486–498.
Hall, T. and S. Jewson (2007b), “Comparison of Local and Basin-Wide Methods for Risk Assessment of
Tropical Cyclone Landfall.” J. of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 47, 361–367.
Harris, R.I. and D.M. Deaves (1980), ―The structure of strong winds.” Wind Engineering in the Eighties.,
Proc. CIRIA Conf., 12/13 November 1980, Paper 4, Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London.
Holland, G. J. (1980), ―An analytic model of the wind and pressure profiles in hurricanes.‖ Mon. Wea. Rev.,
108, 1212–1218.
Jarvinen, B. R., C. J. Neumann, and M. A. S. Davis (1984), ―A Tropical Cyclone Data Tape for the North
Atlantic Basin, 1886-1983: Contents, limitations, and uses.‖ NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC 22,
Coral Gables, Florida.
Landsea, C. W., C. Anderson, N. Charles, G. Clark, J. Dunion, J. Fernandez-Partagas, P. Hungerford, C.

Neumann, and M. Zimmer (2004). "The Atlantic Hurricane Database Re-analysis Project: Documentation for
the 1851-1910 Alterations and Additions to the HURDAT Database." Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past,
Present and Future, R. J. Murname and K.-B. Liu, Eds., Columbia University Press, 177-221.
Masters, F (2004), "Measurement, Modeling and Simulation of Ground-Level Tropical Cyclone Winds." PhD
Dissertation, University of Florida, Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, Gainesville, Florida.
McCullagh, P, and J. Nelder (1989). ―Generalized Linear Models.‖ London: Chapman and Hall
Powell, M.D., P.J. Vickery, and T.A. Reinhold (2003), ―Reduced drag coefficient for high wind speeds in
tropical cyclones,‖ Nature, 422, 279-283,
Powell, M. D., S. Murillo, P. Dodge, E. Uhlhorn, J. Gamache, V. Cardone, A. Cox, S. Otero, N. Carrasco, B.
Annane, and R. St. Fleur (2010), ―Reconstruction of Hurricane Katrina’s wind fields for storm surge and
wave hindcasting.‖ Ocean Engineering, 37, 26-36.
Vickery, P.J. (2005). ―Simple Empirical Models for Estimating the Increase in the Central Pressure of
Tropical Cyclones after Landfall along the Coastline of the United States.” J. Appl. Meteor., 44, 1807-1826.
Vickery, P.J. and P.F. Skerlj, (2005), “Hurricane Gust Factors Revisited,” J. Struct. Eng., 131(5), 825-832.
Weisberg, S. (1985). ―Applied Linear Regression,” 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley.
Wieringa, J., (1993), ―Representative Roughness Parameters for Homogeneous Terrain,‖ Boundary-Layer
Meteorol 63, 323-393.
®
33
Wieringa, J., (2001), ―New Revision of Davenport Roughness Classification,” in Proc. 3EACWE, Eindhoven,
Netherlands, July 2-6, 2001, 285-292.
Wieringa, J., (1992), ―Updating the Davenport roughness classification,‖ J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, Volume
41, 357-368.
Willoughby, H.E., R.W.R. Darling, M.E. Rahn (2006), ―Parametric representation of the primary hurricane
vortex. Part II: A family of sectionally continuous profiles.‖ Mon. Wea. Rev. 134, 1102-1120.
Zhu, Ping, Jun A. Zhang, Forrest J. Masters, 2010: ―Wavelet Analyses of Turbulence in the Hurricane
Surface Layer during Landfalls.‖ J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 3793–3805.
Vulnerability Standards References
American Society of Civil Engineers-ASCE (1998), ―ASCE 7-98 - Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
American Society of Civil Engineers-ASCE (2010), ―ASCE 7-10 - Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
American Society of Civil Engineers-ASCE, (1994), ―Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, ANSI/ASCE 7-93,” approved May 12, 1994, ANSI Revision of ANSI/ASCE 7-88. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (2002), ―Development of Loss Relativities for Wind Resistive Features of
Residential Structures,‖ prepared for Florida Department of Community Affairs, DCA contract 02-RC-11-14-
00-22-003, Tallahassee, Florida.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. (2008), ―2008 Florida Residential Wind Loss Mitigation Study‖, prepared
for Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, Contract Number IR018. Tallahassee, Florida.
Ayscue, J. K. (1996), “Hurricane Damage to Residential Structures: Risk and Mitigation,” Natural Hazards
Research and Applications Information Center, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Baskaran, A., O. Dutt (1997), “Performance of Roof Fasteners Under Simulated Loading Conditions,” J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, 72, 389-400.
Chiu, G.L.F., D.C. Perry, and A.N.L. Chiu (1994), "Structural Performance in Hurricane Iniki,” proceedings of
Seventh United States National Wind Engineering Conference, Volume I. Gary C. Hart, Editor, Washington,
D.C., National Science Foundation.
Cook, N.J., (1985), ―The Designer’s Guide to Wind Loading of Building Structures,‖ Building Research
Establishment Report, Butterworths, London, England.
Cook, R. L., Jr. (1991), "Lessons Learned by a Roof Consultant," Hurricane Hugo One Year Later, Benjamin
A. Sill and Peter R. Sparks, Editors, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Copple, J.H. (1985), “A Review and Analysis of Building Codes and Construction Standards to Mitigate
Coastal Storm Hazards,” Hazard Mitigation Research Program, Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Crandell, J. H., M.T. Gibson, E.M. Laatsch, and A.V. Overeem (1994), “Statistically-Based Evaluation of
Homes Damaged by Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki,” Hurricanes of 1992, Ronald A. Cook and Mehrdad
Soltani, Editors, American Society of Civil Engineers. New York.
Cunningham, T. P. (1994), “Evaluation of Roof Sheathing Fastening Schedules for High Wind Uplift
Pressures,” Hurricanes of 1992, Ronald A. Cook and Mehrdad Soltani, Editors, American Society of Civil
Engineers. New York.
®
34
Davenport, A.G., G. Harris, D. Johnson, (1989), ―The performance of Low Industrial Buildings in Hurricane
Gilbert with Special Reference to Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings,‖ presented at the Metal Building
Manufacturers Association Meeting at the University of Western Ontario, Aug. 14-15, 1989, London, Ontario.
FBC (2001) ―Florida Building Code,‖ State of Florida, Tallahassee, FL.
FEMA (1992), ―Building Performance: Hurricane Andrew in Florida; Observations, Recommendations, and
Technical Guidance,‖ Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Mitigation Division Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2005a), Mitigation Assessment Team Report - Hurricane Charley in Florida, Observations,
Recommendations, and Technical Guidance, FEMA 488, April 2005, Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2005b), Mitigation Assessment Team Report - Hurricane Ivan in Alabama and Florida –
Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance, FEMA 489, Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2005c), “Summary Report on Building Performance: 2004 Hurricane Season,” FEMA 490,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division
Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2005d), Summary Report on Building Performance - Hurricane Katrina 2005, FEMA 548, April 2006,
Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2006a), Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast - Mitigation Assessment Team Report - Building
Performance Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance, FEMA 549, July 2006,
Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2006b), Recommended Residential Construction for the Gulf Coast - Building on Strong and Safe
Foundations, FEMA 550, July 2006, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Mitigation Division Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009a), ―Mitigation Assessment Team Report - Hurricane Ike in Texas and Louisiana – Building
Performance Observations, Recommendations, and Technical Guidance,‖ FEMA P-757, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Division Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009b), Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Hurricane Model, HAZUS®MH MR4, Technical
Manual, Developed by: Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mitigation Division Washington, D.C.
Florida Department of Insurance Regulation (2010), ―Uniform Mitigation Verification Inspection Form, OIR-
B1-1802 (Rev. 02/10) Adopted by Rule 69O-170.0155,‖ Tallahassee, Florida.
Friedman, D.G., and Travelers Insurance Company, (1987), ―US Hurricanes & Windstorms – a Technical
Briefing,‖ based on a presentation at a DYP Insurance & Reinsurance Research Group Workshop, May
1987, London Insurance & Reinsurance Research Group Ltd., U.K.
FWUA (2000), ―Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association: Manual of Rates, Rules and Procedures,”
FWUA, Jacksonville, Florida.
Gurley, K. (2006), ―Post 2004 Hurricane Field Survey – an Evaluation of the Relative Performance of the
Standard Building Code and the Florida Building Code,” UF Project No. 00053102, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
Hart, G.C., (1976), ―Estimation of Structural Damage Due to Tornadoes,” University of California Los
Angeles, Symposium on Tornadoes: Assessment of Knowledge and Implications for Man, Texas Tech
University, Texas.
®
35
HUD (1993), ―Assessment of Damage to Single-Family Homes Caused by Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki,‖
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
IBHS (2007), ―The Benefits of Modern Wind Resistant Building Codes on Hurricane Claim Frequency and
Severity - A Summary Report - Hurricane Charley Charlotte County, Florida August 13, 2004.‖ Institute for
Business & Home Safety, Tampa, Florida, http://DisasterSafety.org.
IBHS (2009), ―Hurricane Ike Nature’s Force vs. Structural Strength,‖ Institute for Business & Home Safety,
Tampa, Florida, http://DisasterSafety.org
IBHS (2010) ―Fortified for Existing Homes,‖ Institute for Business & Home Safety, Tampa, FL,
http://DisasterSafety.org
IBHS (2010), ―Surviving Nature’s Fury: Performance of Asphalt Shingle Roofs in the Real World,‖ Disaster
Safety Review. Volume 9 Summer 2010, The Institute for Business & Home Safety, http://DisasterSafety.org
J. H. Wiggins Company (1980), ―Assessment of Damageability for Existing Buildings in a Natural Hazards
Environment, Volume 1: Methodology,” prepared for The National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.,
Technical Report No. 80-1332-1.
Khanduri, A.C., (2003), ―Catastrophe Modeling and Windstorm Loss Mitigation,‖ 11th International
Conference on Wind Engineering, Texas Tech University, June 2-5, 2003.
Kumamaru, M., N. Tsuru, J. Maeda, and A. Miyake (1999), “Some Effects of Roof Shapes on Housing Wind
th
Loads,” proceedings of 10 International Conference on Wind Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Liu, H. (1991), ―Wind Engineering - A Handbook for Structural Engineers,” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Liu, H., H.S. Saffir, and P.R. Sparks, (1989), ―Wind Damage to Wood-Frame Houses: Problems, Solutions
and Research Needs,‖ J. of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1989.
Manning, B. R. and G.R. Nichols (1991), "Hugo Lessons Learned," Hurricane Hugo One Year Later,
Benjamin A. Sill and Peter R. Sparks, Editors, New York, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Marshall, T.P. (2005), ―Hurricane Katrina Damage Survey.‖ Haag Engineering, Dallas, Texas.
Menun, C. and M. Rahnama (2012), "The Relationship Between the Wind Damage Sustained by a
Residential Building and its Floor Area," proceedings of the Advances in Hurricane Engineering conference,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Miami.
McDonald, J., K.C. Mehta (2006), ‖A Recommendation for an ENHANCED FUJITA SCALE (EF-Scale)‖
WIND SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CENTER, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, October 10, 2006
Revision 2
McDonald, J.R. and J.F. Mehnert, (1990), ―A Review of Standards Practice of Wind Resistant Manufactured
Housing,‖ J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, 36 (1990) 949-956.
McDonald, J.R., and W.P. Vann, (1986), ―Hurricane Damage to Manufactured Homes,‖ presented at
American Society of Civil Engineers Structures Congress, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 14-19, 1986.
Mehta, K.C., J.E. Minor., and T.A. Reinhold, (1983), ―Hurricane Speed - Damage Correlation in Hurricane
Frederic,” J. of Structural Engineering, 109(1).
Mehta, K.C., R.H. Cheshire, and J.R. McDonald, (1992), ―Wind Resistance Categorization of Buildings for
Insurance,‖ J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, 41-44 (1992) 2617-2628.
Miami-Dade County Building Code Compliance Office. (2006), ―Post Hurricane Wilma Progress
Assessment.‖ Miami-Dade County Building Code Compliance Office.
®
36
Minor, J.E. and R.A. Behr (1994), “Improving the Performance of Architectural Glazing in Hurricanes,”
Hurricanes of 1992, Ronald A. Cook and Mehrdad Soltani, Editors, American Society of Civil Engineers.
New York.
Minor, J.E., and K.C. Mehta, (1979), ―Wind Damage Observations and Implications,‖ J. of Structural
Division, ASCE, 105(ST11), Proc. Paper 14980, November 1979, pp. 2279-2291.
Mitrani, J.D. C.B. Wilson and J. Jarrell (1995), ―The effectiveness of hurricane shutters in mitigating storm
damage,‖ Technical Publication No.116., Miami, Florida, Department of Construction Management, Florida
International University, Miami, Florida.
National Bureau of Standards-NBS (1981), ―Hurricane-Induced Wind Loads,” PB82-132267, prepared for
the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council, Committee on Natural Disasters, (1993), ―Wind and the Built Environment,‖ U.S.
needs in Wind Engineering and Hazard Mitigation, panel on the Assessment of Wind Engineering Issues in
the United States, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
NIST (2006), ―Performance of physical structures in hurricane Katrina and hurricane Rita: A
Reconnaissance Report,‖ NIST Technical Note 1476, National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST),
Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standard and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD.
Oliver, C. and C. Hanson (1994), “Failure of Residential Envelopes as a Result of Hurricane Andrew in Dade
county, Florida,” Hurricanes of 1992, ASCE.
Peacock, W.G., B.K. Morrow, and H. Gladwin (1998), ―South Florida Mitigation Baseline Survey Report,‖
International Hurricane Center and Institute for Public Opinion Research, Florida International University,
Miami, Florida.
RICOWI (2006), ―Hurricanes Charley and Ivan Investigation Report,” Roofing Industry Committee on
Weather Issues, Inc., Powder Springs, Georgia
RICOWI (2007), ―Hurricane Katrina Wind Investigation Report,” Roofing Industry Committee on Weather
Issues, Inc., Powder Springs, Georgia.
RICOWI (2009), ―Hurricane Ike Wind Investigation Report,” Roofing Industry Committee on Weather Issues,
Inc., Powder Springs, Georgia.
RMS (2010), ―Study of Florida’s Windstorm Mitigation Credits, Assessing the Impact on the Florida
Insurance Market,‖ report by Risk Management Solutions, Inc. under contract to the Florida Department of
Financial Services, DFS 09/10-14, Tallahassee, Florida.,
SBC (1997), ―1997 Standard Building Code,‖ Southern Building Code Congress International, Birmingham,
Alabama.
SBCCI (1999a), “SBCCI Test Standard for Determining Wind Resistance of Concrete or Clay Roof Tiles -
SSTD 11-99,” Southern Building Code Congress International, Birmingham, Alabama.
SBCCI (1999b), “SBCCI Test Standard for Determining Impact Resistance from Windborne Debris - SSTD
12-99,” Southern Building Code Congress International, Birmingham, Alabama.
Simiu, E., and R.H. Scanlan, (1986), ―Wind Effects on Structures - An Introduction To Wind Engineering,”
Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, second edition.
Simpson, R.H., and H. Riehl, (1981), ―The Hurricane and Its Impact,” Louisiana State University Press,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
®
37
Skerlj, P., J. Kleinn, H. Castella (2004), ―Hurricane Charley, August 10–15, 2004 Post-Storm Damage
Survey,‖ PartnerRe, Inc., http://www.partnerre.com.
Smith, T.L. (1994), "Causes of Roof Covering Damage and Failure Modes: Insights Provided by Hurricane
Andrew," Hurricanes of 1992, Ronald A. Cook and Mehrdad Soltani, Editors, American Society of Civil
Engineers. New York.
South Florida Building Code (SFBC), 1994 Edition, Miami, Metropolitan Dade County, FL 1994.
Sparks, P.R., and H.S. Saffir, (1990), ―Mitigation of Wind Damage to Non-Engineered and Marginally
Engineered Buildings,‖ J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, 36 (1990) 957-966.
Sparks, P.R., and S.A. Bhinderwala, (1993), ―Relationship between Residential Insurance Losses and Wind
Conditions in Hurricane Andrew,‖ Conference, December 1993, Miami, Florida.
Sparks, P.R., M.L. Hessig, J.A. Murden., B.L. Sill, (1988), ―On the Failure of Single-story Wood-Framed
Houses in Severe Storms,‖ J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, 29 (1988) 245-252.
Stubbs, N., and A. Boissonnade, (1993), ―Damage Simulation Model for Building Contents in a Hurricane
Environment,‖ proceeding of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Wind Engineering, June 27, 1993,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Stubbs, N., D. Perry, and P. Lombard, (1995), “Cost Effectiveness of the New Building Code for Windstorm
Resistant Construction along the Texas Coast,” report from Texas A&M University, Mechanics and Materials
Center to the Texas Department of Insurance.
Stubbs, N., D.C. Perry (1996), ―A Damage Simulation Model for Buildings and Contents in a Hurricane
Environment,” Conference – ASCE Structures Congress, April 1996, Chicago, IL
Tryggvason, B.V., et al., (1976), ―Predicting Wind-Induced Response in Hurricane Zones,” J. of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. 102, No. ST12.
TTU (1978), ―A Study of Building Damage Caused by Wind Forces,‖ report by Texas Tech University
prepared for Veterans Administration, Washington D.C., Office of Construction, U.S. Dept. Of Commerce
National Technical Information Service, PB-286-604.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-USACE (1990), ―Tri-State Hurricane Loss and Contingency Planning Study
Phase II: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,‖ Executive Summary and Technical Data Report, US Army Corps
Engineers, Mobile District.
Wolfe, R. W.; R.M. Riba; and M. Triche (1994). "Wind Resistance of Conventional Light-Frame Buildings,"
Hurricanes of 1992, Ronald A. Cook and Mehrdad Soltani, Editors, American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York.
Zollo, R.F., (1993), ―Hurricane Andrew August 24, 1992, Structural Performance of Buildings in Dade
County, Florida,” Technical Report No. CEN 93-1, Univ. of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida.
Actuarial Standards References
Brown, B.Z.; and M.C. Schmitz (1998), “Study Note Reading on Deductible,” CAS Study Note.
Brown, L.D.; and L.H. Zhao (2002), ―A Test for the Poisson Distribution,‖ Indian J. of Statistics, Volume 64.
Dacy, D.C. and H. Kunreuther (1969), "The Economics of Natural Disasters: Implications for Federal Policy,"
the Free Press, New York.
Hogg, R.V.; and S.A. Klugman (1984), ―Loss Distributions,” John Wiley & Sons.
®
38
Lee, Y.S. (1988), “The Mathematics of Excess of Loss Coverages and Retrospective Rating – A Graphical
Approach,” Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial Society Vol. LXXV.
Miccolis, R.S. (1977), “On the Theory of Increased Limits and Excess of Loss Pricing,” Proceedings of the
Casualty Actuarial Society, Vol. LXIV.
Robertson, J.P. (1992), ―The Computation of Aggregate Loss Distributions,‖ Proceedings of the Casualty
Actuarial Society, Vol. LXXIX.
Statistical Standards References
Colette, A, N. Leith, V. Daniel, E. Bellone, D.S. Nolan (2010), ―Using Mesoscale Simulations to Train
Statistical Models of Tropical Cyclone Intensity over Land.” Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 2058–2073.
Demuth, J., M. DeMaria, and J.A. Knaff, (2006): ―Improvement of advanced microwave sounder unit tropical
cyclone intensity and size estimation algorithms.‖ J. Appl. Meteor., 45, 1573-1581.
Emanuel, K.A. (1986), An air-sea interaction theory for tropical cyclones. Part I: Steady state maintenance.
J. Atmos. Sci., 43, 585-604
Hall, T. and S. Jewson (2007a), ―Statistical modeling of North Atlantic tropical cyclone tracks.‖ Tellus
59A:486–498.
Ho, F.P., J.C. Su., K.L. Hanevich, R.J. Smith., and F.P. Richards (1987), "Hurricane Climatology for the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States," study completed under agreement EMW-84-E-1589 for
Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NWS
38.
Iman, R.L., M.E. Johnson and T.A. Schroeder (2002a), ―Assessing Hurricane Effects. Part 1. Sensitivity
Analysis,‖ Reliability Engineering and System Safety 78.
Iman, R.L., M.E. Johnson and T.A. Schroeder (2002b), ―Assessing Hurricane Effects. Part 2. Uncertainty
Analysis,‖ Reliability Engineering and System Safety 78.
Jarvinen, B. R., C. J. Neumann, and M. A. S. Davis (1984), ―A Tropical Cyclone Data Tape for the North
Atlantic Basin, 1886-1983: Contents, limitations, and uses.‖ NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC 22,
Coral Gables, Florida.
Knaff, J.A. and R.M. Zehr, (2007). Reexamination of tropical cyclone wind pressure relationships. Weather.
forecasting, 22, 71–88
Kurihara, Y., M.A. Bender, and R.J. Ross, (1993): An Initialisation Scheme of Hurricane Models by Vortex
Specification. Mon. Wea. Rev., 121, 2030–2045
Landsea, C. W., C. Anderson, N. Charles, G. Clark, J. Dunion, J. Fernandez-Partagas, P. Hungerford, C.

Neumann, and M. Zimmer, (2004) : "The Atlantic Hurricane Database Re-analysis Project: Documentation
for the 1851-1910 Alterations and Additions to the HURDAT Database." Hurricanes and Typhoons: Past,
Present and Future, R. J. Murname and K.-B. Liu, Eds., Columbia University Press, 177-221.
McCullagh, Peter; Nelder, John (1989). ―Generalized Linear Models.‖ Chapman and Hall. London.
NOAA (1979), ―Meteorological Criteria for Standard Project Hurricane and Probable Maximum Hurricane
Windfields, Gulf and East Coasts of the United States,” NOAA Technical Report, NWS 23, Washington,
D.C., September, 1979.
Vickery, P.J. (2005). ―Simple Empirical Models for Estimating the Increase in the Central Pressure of
Tropical Cyclones after Landfall along the Coastline of the United States.” J. Appl. Meteor., 44, 1807-1826.
Weisberg, S. (1985). ―Applied Linear Regression,” 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley
®
39
G-1.5 Provide the following information related to changes in the model from the previously
accepted submission to the initial submission this year.
G-1.5.A Model changes:

1. A summary description of changes that affect the personal or commercial
residential loss costs or probable maximum loss levels,
2. A list of all other changes, and
3. The rationale for each change.
The following significant changes have been revised in the model relative to the previously
submitted version:
Hazard module changes: There are two changes related to the hazard component -
hazard module changes are the main driver of the change in statewide loss costs.
 Stochastic Module—For RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509), the rates associated with the
stochastic event set have been revised based on updated data from the 2011 version
of the HURDAT dataset.
 Historical Footprint Recreations—The version of the HURDAT database published
as of November 2011 includes re-analysis of years 1926-1930. RMS has revised the
historical footprint recreations of seven events in the model accordingly.
Geocoding: Updates to the geocoding module have been incorporated. There are two
components to the update:
 2012 postal code vintage data has been incorporated as per our policy to update
geocoding data at least every 24 months.
 Revision of 'reverse geocoding' methodology (assignment of ZIP Code to user-input
latitude and longitude coordinates) to correct occasional problems with assigning
correct postal code to user defined coordinates. Note this issue does not affect
normal 'address-driven' geocoding, nor zip-aggregate loss costs.
Financial Model: Refinements related to the application of annual aggregate deductibles

to probable maximum loss.
G-1.5.B Percentage difference in average annual zero deductible statewide loss costs
for:
1. All changes combined, and
RMS has compiled the percentage difference in Average Annual Zero Deductible
Statewide Loss Costs relative to RiskLink 11.0.SP2c using the 2007 FHCF data.
Overall, RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509) is 1.2% lower than the previous submission.
2. Each individual model component change.
The contribution of significant model components is shown in Table 1. The changes

are calculated progressively so that the changes to the hazard module are calculated
after incorporating the updated geocoding. The percentage differences are
calculated in an additive format, such that the total change is equal to the sum of the
changes for each significant component change.
RMS® North Atlantic Hurricane Model, RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509) May 2013
40
Table 1: Percentage Difference by Module
Statewide Component Module

Percentage
Difference Geocoding Hazard Financial
-1.2% 0.0% -1.2% 0.0%
G-1.5.C Color-coded maps by county reflecting the percentage difference in average

annual zero deductible statewide loss costs for each model component
change.
Maps of the changes by significant component at a county resolution are sho wn in

Figure 4 to Figure 6. Note that the scale in each map has been held constant to facilitate
comparisons between components
®
41
Figure 4: Percentage Change in Average Annual Loss with Zero Deductible by County due to
Geocoding Changes
®
42
Figure 5: Percentage Change in Average Annual Loss with Zero Deductible by County due to Hazard
Module Changes
®
43
Figure 6: Percentage Change in Average Annual Loss with Zero Deductible by County due to All
Changes Combined
®
44
General Standards G-2 Qualifications of Modeling Organization Personnel and Consultants
G-2 Qualifications of Modeling Organization Personnel and

Consultants
A. Model construction, testing, and evaluation shall be performed by modeling organization
personnel or consultants who possess the necessary skills, formal education, and
experience to develop the relevant components for hurricane loss projection
methodologies.
Overall, RMS employs 190 engineers and scientists who participate in various areas of model
development (not all on the North Atlantic Hurricane Model). The team possesses a wide range of
multi-disciplinary skills in engineering, the physical sciences, actuarial science, statistics data
development, data analysis and numerical modeling, computer science/engineering, and quality
assurance engineering. Of this staff, about 75% hold advanced degrees and over 50 possess PhD
level qualifications in their fields of expertise. These individuals possess the necessary skill s, formal
education, and experience, in all required disciplines, to develop hurricane loss projection
methodologies.
B. The model or any modifications to an accepted model shall be reviewed by either

modeling organization personnel or consultants in the following professional disciplines:
structural/wind engineering (licensed Professional Engineer), statistics (advanced degree),
actuarial science (Associate or Fellow of Casualty Actuarial Society), meteorology
(advanced degree), and computer/information science (advanced degree). These
individuals shall certify Forms G-1 through G-6 as applicable and shall abide by the
standards of their profession.
The education and experience of RMS staff and consultants reflect all of the professional disciplines
listed above and are outlined in Disclosure G-2.2A. Qualified modeling personnel and/or independent
experts review all model modifications. These individuals abide by the standards of professional
conduct adopted by their profession.
G-2.1 Organization Background

G-2.1.A Describe the ownership structure of the modeling organization. Describe
affiliations with other companies and the nature of the relationship, if any.
Indicate if your organization has changed its name and explain the
circumstances.
Risk Management Solutions, Inc. (RMS) is a wholly owned subsidiary of DMG Information,
Inc., part of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc, a U.K. Corporation.
G-2.1.B If the model is developed by an entity other than a modeling company,

describe its organizational structure and indicate how proprietary rights and
control over the model and its critical components is exercised. If more than
one entity is involved in the development of the model, describe all involved.
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model was developed only by employees of RMS and
its consultants.
G-2.1.C If the model is developed by an entity other than a modeling company,

describe the funding source for the model.
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model was developed only by employees of RMS and
its consultants.
®
45
G-2.1.D Describe the modeling organization’s services.
RMS provides products and services for the quantification and management of
catastrophe risks. The company’s natural hazard risk modeling solutions are used by over
400 insurers, reinsurers, trading companies, and other financial institutions worldwide.
RMS receives revenues from software licenses, analytical reports, consulting services,
and miscellaneous other services.
G-2.1.E Indicate if the modeling organization has ever been involved directly in
litigation or challenged by a statutory authority where the credibility of one of
its U.S. hurricane model versions for projection of loss costs or probable
maximum loss levels was disputed. Describe the nature of each case and its
conclusion.
RMS has interacted with several departments of insurance (DOIs) (such as FL, HI, and
LA) in the context of hurricane rate making. None of these relationships have been
adversarial.
In 2005 and 2007, the Massachusetts Department of Insurance initiated reviews of rate
filings for the Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Association (MPIUA).
Hearings on the MPIUA's proposed rates covered a variety of issues related to rate
setting, including the catastrophe models used to estimate potential insured losses from
hurricanes impacting Massachusetts. The MPIUA was asked to demonstrate that the RMS
general U.S. Hurricane Model (version 6.0) was appropriate for developing rates in
Massachusetts. The decision on the 2005 filing concluded that it was reasonable for the
MPIUA to use the RMS model. The decision on the 2007 filing concluded that the MPIUA
did not demonstrate that the RMS model was appropriately calibrated to Massachusetts.
G-2.2 Professional Credentials

G-2.2.A Provide in a chart format (a) the highest degree obtained (discipline and
University), (b) employment or consultant status and tenure in years, and (c)
relevant experience and responsibilities of individuals currently involved in the
acceptability process or in any of the following aspects of the model:
1. Meteorology
2. Vulnerability
3. Actuarial Science
4. Statistics
5. Computer Science
The highest degree obtained, employment or consultant status, and tenure is provided in
the following tables. The relevant experience of these individuals is contained in the brief
biographies provided in Appendix B.
®
46
Table 2: Individuals Involved in Meteorological Aspects of the Model
Staff (S)/ Tenure

Name Credentials
Consultant (C) (Years)
Dr. Enrica Bellone PhD, Statistics
S 7
University of Washington
Dr. Auguste Boissonnade PhD, Civil Engineering
S 17
Stanford University
Dr. Mark Dixon PhD, Physics,
S 2
University of Warwick
Dr. Michael Drayton PhD, Applied Mathematics
S/C 8/9
Cambridge University
Dr. Shree Khare PhD, Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic
Sciences S 6
Princeton University
Dr. Timothy Hall PhD, Physics
C N.A.1
Cornell University
Dr. Joss Matthewman PhD, Applied Mathematics
S .5
University College London (UCL), 2009
Dr. Thomas Loridan PhD, Physical Geography
S 1
King’s College London
Dr. Robert Muir-Wood PhD, Earth Sciences
S 16.5
Dr. Emilie Scherer PhD, Atmospheric Science
S 3
Paris VI University, France
Dr. Michael Smith PhD, Civil Engineering
S 2
Dundee University
Dr. Christine Ziehmann PhD, Meteorology
S 12
Frie University of Berlin
Table 3: Individuals Involved in Vulnerability Aspects of the Model
Staff (S)/ Tenure

Name Credentials
S 17
Stanford University
Mr. Manabu Masuda MS, Civil Engineering,
S 8.5
Stanford University
Mr. Rohit Mehta MS, Statistics,
S 12
California State University, Hayward
Dr. Charles Menun PhD, Structural Engineering
S/C 4/3.5
University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Mohsen Rahnama PhD, Structural Engineering,
S 13.5
Stanford University
Mr. Agustin Rodriguez MS, Structural Engineering
S 11
University of California-Berkeley
Dr. Pooya Sarabandi PhD, Structural Engineering
S 5.5
Stanford university
Dr. Nilesh Shome PhD, Structural Engineering
S 3
Stanford University
Mr. Michael Young MS, Engineering Science
S 9
University of Western Ontario, Canada
1
Non-RMS Staff
®
47
Table 4: Individuals Involved in Actuarial Aspects of the Model
Staff (S)/ Tenure

Name Credentials
S 17
Stanford University
Ms. Kay Cleary BA, Psychology
Northwestern University S 6
FCAS, MAAA
Dr. Weimin Dong PhD, Civil Engineering
S 23
Stanford University
Ms. Nathalie Grima MS, Mathematics
S 8
San Jose State University
Mr. Matthew Nielsen MS, Atmospheric Science
S 7
Colorado State University
Dr. Ambica Rajagopal PhD, Mathematics
S 5
Purdue University
Ms. Neha Shah BS, Applied Mathematics
S 5.5
University of California, Los Angeles
Dr. Bronislava Sigal PhD, Statistics
S 3.5
Stanford University
Dr. Ajay Singhal PhD, Civil Engineering
S 10.5
Stanford University
Ms. Beth Stamann Certificate of General Ins
S 16.5
Insurance Institute of America
Mr. Joel Taylor BS Mathematics
S 5.5
Bradley University
S 9
Table 5: Individuals Involved in Statistical Aspects of the Model
Staff (S)/
Name Credentials Tenure (Years)
Consultant (C)
Dr. Enrica Bellone PhD, Statistics
S 7.5
University of Washington
S 17
Stanford University
Dr. Timothy Hall PhD, Physics
C N.A.2
Cornell University
Dr. Joss Matthewman PhD, Applied Mathematics
S .5
University College London (UCL), 2009
Dr. Charles Menun PhD, Structural Engineering
S/C 4/3.5
Dr. Robert Muir-Wood PhD, Earth Sciences
S 16
Mr. Edida Rajesh MS, Technology (Geophysics)
S 15.5
Andhra University
Dr. Emilie Scherer PhD, Atmospheric Science
S 3
Paris VI University, France
Dr. Nilesh Shome PhD, Structural Engineering
S 3
Stanford University
Ms. Taronne Tabucchi MS, Civil & Environmental Engineering,
S 5
Cornell University
2
Non-RMS Staff.
®
48
Staff (S)/
Consultant (C)
Mr. Joel Taylor BS, Mathematics
S 5.5
Bradley University
S 7.5
Dr. Christine Ziehmann PhD, Meteorology
S 12
Frie University of Berlin
Table 6: Individuals Involved in Computer Science Aspects of the Model
Staff (S)/
Consultant (C)
Ms. Shobana Azariah M.Phil., Public Administration
S 10.5
University of Madras, India
Mrs. Victoria Babina BS, Computer Science
BS, Psychology S 4.5
Moscow State University
Ms. Ramani Balijepalli MS, Computer Applications
S 6
Andhra University, India
Mr. Aman Bhardwaj MS, Computer Applications
Institute of Management Technology S 12
India
Mr. Suman Bhattacharya Diploma in Electrical Engineering
RK Mission Shilpamandira, Kolkata, S 5
India
Mr. Jim Bull MS, Computer Science,
Washington University - Sever Institute S 17
of Technology, St. Louis
Dr. Stan Buyanov PhD, Technical Science,
S 4
Academy of Science, Moscow
Mr. Jordan Byk MBA, Marketing and Finance
Rutgers – The State University of New S 6
Jersey
Mr. Chris Campbell BA, Geography
University of Texas San Antonio, San S 5
Antonio, TX
Mr. David Carttar MS, City Planning
S 18
Mr. Steven Chau BS. MIS, BS Finance
S 12
University of Iowa
Ms. Monisha Chahal MS, Computer Programming
S 12
IBM Education, New Delhi
Mr. Deval Chauhan MS, Computer Science
S 5
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago
Dr. Han Chen PhD, Geophysics
S 17.5
Institute of Geophysics at SSB, China
Mr. Tommy Chou BA, Developmental Studies of Industrial
Societies S 7.5
Mrs. Karishma Dambe BS, Computer Engineering
S 5
Pune University, India
Mr. Ravisher Dhillon MS, Software Engineering,
S 4
Ms. Anjali Garg MS, Computer Applications (MCA)
Institute of Management Studies, Uttar S 11.5
Pradesh, India
®
49
Staff (S)/
Consultant (C)
Mr. Garrett Girod BS, Computer Science
S 9.5
Louisiana Tech University
Mr. David Glaubman BS, Mathematics
S 8
Northeastern University, Boston
Ms. Olga Goldin BS, Power Engineering,
Azerbaijan University of Oil and S 17
Chemistry
Mr. Atin Jain MS, Physics (Spl. Electronics)
S 3
Rewa University, India
Ms. Pratiksha Kadam MS, Modeling and Simulation
University of Central Florida, Orlando, S 5.5
FL
Mrs. Vidya Karthigeyan MS, Computer Information Systems
S 5
California State University, East Bay
Mr. Joseph Kim MS, Computer Science
S 4
University of Southern California
Mr. Swaminathan Krishnamoorthy MS, Computer Applications
S 6.5
University of Madras, India
Ms. Veena Krishnamoorthy MS, Physics
S 5
Madurai Kamaraj University
Mr. Punit Kumar BS, Computer Science & Engineering
S 3.8
Karnataka University, India
Mr. Tanmay Kumar MS, Computer Applications,
S 4
MNREC Allahabad University, India
Ms. Nereida Lark MS, Computer Information Systems,
S 3
University of Phoenix
Ms. Siyuan (Terry) Liu MS, Computer Science
S 6.5
University of Tennessee, U.S.
Ms. Sonja Liu MS, Computer Engineering
S 7
Santa Clara University
Mr. James Lord MS, Civil Engineering
S 5
Carnegie Mellon university
Ms. Reenal Mahajan MS, Computer Science
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State S 5
University, Blacksburg, VA
Mr. Rohit Mehta MS, Statistics,
S 12
Mr. Bruce Miller BS, Engineering Physics
S 17
University of Colorado
Ms. Nayna Mistry MS, Computer Science,
S 3
California State University Hayward
Mr. Venkat Morampudi MS, Computer Science
S 6
University of Alabama
Ms. Roopa Nair MS, Statistics
S 4
Delhi University, India
Mr. Hans Nelsen BA, Philosophy
S 3
Creighton University
Mr. Geoffrey Overton BS, Geography
S 6
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Mr. Narvdeshwar Pandey MS, Future Studies and Planning, Dev
Ahilya University, Indore, India
S 8.5
MS, Mathematics,
Gorakhpur University, India
Mr. Ghanshyam Parasram BA, Mechanical Engineering
Jawahar Lal Nehru Technological S 13
University, India
®
50
Staff (S)/
Consultant (C)
Mr. Rupesh Parikh BS, Engineering Sciences-Chemical
S 7
University of California, San Diego
Mr. Rahul Patasariya BS, Civil Engineering,
S 4.5
Indian Institute of Technology, India
Ms. Chris Perianayagam MS, Information Technology &
Management S 4
Ms. Lekshmi Prakash MS, Computer Engineering
S 5.5
Ms. Sudha Raghavan Masters in Computer Applications,
S 4
Mother Teresa University
Mr. Pranav Raval MS, Computer Science
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, S 7
IL
Mr. Venkata (Subba) Ravilisetty MS, Computer Information Sciences,
S 10
University of South Alabama
Mr. Rhoderick Rivera BS, Computer Engineering
S 7
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Mr. Ricardo Ruiz BS, Computer Science
S 5
De La Salle University, Manila
Ms. Shraddha Sahay BS, Electrical Engineering
Visvesvaraya Technological University, S 5
Karnataka, India
Mr. Majid Sameni MSc, Mechanical Engineering
S 3
University of Waterloo, Canada
Mr. Chris Sams BA Geography
S 9.5
University of Kansas
Ms. Pooja Sayal BS, Civil Engineering,
Delhi College of Engineering, New Delhi, S 10
India
Ms. Debjani Sen MS, Liberal Arts
S 5
Southern Methodist University
Ms. Neha Shah BS, Applied Mathematics
S 5.5
University of California, Los Angeles
Mr. Maulik Shukla MS, Computer Science
S 5.5
Dr. Rajesh Singh PhD, Civil Engineering
Stanford University
S 19
Registered Professional Engineer, State
of California
Dr. Ajay Singhal PhD, Civil Engineering
S 10.5
Stanford University
Mr. Puja Sinha BS, Electrical Engineering
S 5.5
Nagpur University, India
Mr. Jayant Srivastava MS, Computer Science,
Institute of Management and S 11.5
Technology, India
Mr. Philippe Stephan MS, Computer Science, Ingenieur civil
des Mines
S 3.5
French Ecole Nationale Superieure des
Mines de St Etienne
Mr. Cody Stumpo MS, Engineering
S 5
Purdue University
Dr. Shengjun (John) Su PhD, Computational Analysis and
Modeling S 6.5
Louisiana Tech University
®
51
Staff (S)/
Consultant (C)
Mr. William Suchland BA, Geography, Computer Assisted
S 16
Cartography, University of Washington
Mr. Avinash Takale MS, Computer Application
S 4
Shivaji University, Maharashtra, India
Ms. Monika Tomar MS, Computer Applications (MCA)
S 9.5
Bundelkhand University, Jhasi, India
Ms. Yen-Tin Yang MS, Management Science &
Engineering
Stanford University S 7.5
MS, Structural Engineering
National Taiwan University
Mr. Yogesh Vani MS, Computing Technologies,
Telecommunication Systems, S 7
Ms. Mimi von Kugelgen BS, Genetics
S 9.5
Ms. Ji Zhang MS, Computer Science
S 6.5
California State University, East Bay
G-2.2.B Identify any new employees or consultants (since the previous submission)
working on the model or the acceptability process.
This submission includes six new individuals: Mark Dixon, Shree Khare, Punit Kumar,
Thomas Loridan, Joss Matthewman and Michael Smith. Their education, employment
status, tenure, and relevant experience are included in Disclosure G-2.2A and
Appendix B.
G-2.2.C Provide visual business workflow documentation connecting all personnel

related to model design, testing, execution, maintenance, and decision-making.
Figure 7 illustrates a typical workflow used at RMS.
®
52
Model Development
Develops Model
Requirements
Model Dev and

Software Dev
Model & Software
Specs
QA & Model Dev Software Dev Model Dev
QA and Model Dev Write Software Development Model Dev Creates

Test Plan and Test Cases Writes Code Data Files
Model Dev
Technical review
(internal/external) of model
methodologies and results Review
Fails
Testing Maintenance
Software Dev, Model User
Dev, QA
Software and Data Test Problem Reported
are Tested Using Plan Fails
QA QA & Model Dev
QA Executes Final
Test Problem Verified
Certification Plan Fails
Software Dev &

Model Dev
Software / Files Released
Solution Identified
Figure 7: RMS Model Development, Testing, and Maintenance Business Workflow Diagram
In Figure 7, Model Development includes all individuals listed in Table 2 to Table 5. Software
Development and QA includes the individuals listed in Table 6. Users are RMS clients (internal and
external).
®
53
G-2.2.D Indicate specifically whether individuals listed in A. and B. are associated with
the insurance industry, a consumer advocacy group, or a government entity,
as well as their involvement in consulting activities.
Table 7: Individuals who are not Full-Time Employees
Name Position/Credentials Development Role Association

Dr. Michael Drayton Director, Three Letters Ltd. Meteorology Private consulting firm;
consults full time
Dr. Charles Menun Consulting Engineer Vulnerability Private consulting firm,
consults full time
Dr. Timothy Hall Senior Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute Meteorology Consults part time
for Space Studies in New York
G-2.3 Independent Peer Review

G-2.3.A Provide dates of external independent peer reviews that have been performed
on the following components as currently functioning in the model:
1. Meteorology
2. Vulnerability
3. Actuarial Science
4. Statistics
5. Computer Science
The methodology used in the current hurricane model has evolved over time. In addition
to the extensive testing that RMS has itself performed on its North Atlantic Hurricane
Model, contributions and model reviews performed by external experts whose names and
reputations rest upon the quality of their work, have contributed to model improvements.
When significant changes to a model component are made, RMS may retain the servic es
of an external expert to review the methodology, techniques, and other relevant changes
to the model. This submission involves significant changes to the hazard and vulnerability
modules and therefore RMS has engaged with experts for two external reviews.
Dr. Robert Hart is an Associate Profession of Meteorology at the Florida State University.
Dr. Hart received his PhD in Meteorology in 2001 from Pennsylvania State University. Dr.
Hart’s career has focused on hurricane modeling and track forecasting, and has been
doing periodic consulting with RMS since 2007. RMS has retained Dr. Hart’s services to
conduct a peer review of changes to the meteorological aspects of the North Atlantic
Hurricane model in RiskLink 11.0. His review was completed on Oct 29, 2010.
Mr. Thomas Smith is president of TLSmith Consulting, Inc. and is an internationally

recognized expert on wind performance of buildings. Mr. Smith has performed building
investigations after several tornados and 15 hurricanes – for eight of the hurricane
investigations he was a member of the FEMA research teams. Mr. Smith contributed to
several FEMA guides and documents including, FEMA’s residential Coastal Construction
Manual (FEMA 55), Home Builder’s Guide to Coastal Construction (FEMA 499), and
Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds (FEMA
543). He is also a contributing author of AIA’s Buildings at Risk: Wind Design Basics for
®
54
Practicing Architects (1997), and he authored Low Slope Roofing II (NCARB, 2003). Tom
Smith was retained by RMS to conduct an external review of the vulnerability model
changes being made in RiskLink 11.0 in September 2010.
G-2.3.B Provide documentation of independent peer reviews directly relevant to the

modeling organization’s responses to the current Standards, Disclosures, or
Forms. Identify any unresolved or outstanding issues as a result of these
reviews.
RMS engages with external consultants, researchers, or experts using one of two
methods; publication in a peer reviewed journal, or external expert reviews conducted
under the condition of non-disclosure agreements. The following peer reviews relevant to
this version of the model in each of these two categories are:
External Expert Reviews
Copies of Dr. Robert Hart’s and Mr. Tom Smith’s assessment reports as described under
Disclosure G-2.3.A are attached in Appendix C and Appendix D. There are no unresolved
or outstanding issues related to these reviews.
Peer Reviewed Journals
RMS has published details about the development of its statistical track module and wind
field module in the following papers listed below. Upon publication, no unresolved or
outstanding issues were identified.
 Hall, T.M. and S. Jewson (2007a) ―Statistical modeling of North Atlantic tropical
cyclone tracks.‖ Tellus 59A:486–498.
 Colette, A, Leith N., Daniel V., Bellone E., Nolan D.S. (2010): ―Using Mesoscale
Simulations to Train Statistical Models of Tropical Cyclone Intensity over Land.‖ Mon.
Weather. Review, 138, 2058–2073.
 Hall, T. and S. Jewson (2007 b): ―Comparison of Local and Basin-Wide Methods for
Risk Assessment of Tropical Cyclone Landfall.‖ Journal of Applied Meteorology and
Climatology, 47, 361–367.
G-2.3.C Describe the nature of any on-going or functional relationship the organization
has with any of the persons performing the independent peer reviews.
There currently is no on-going or functional relationship with the reviewers.
G-2.4 Provide a completed Form G-1, General Standards Expert Certification. Provide a link to
the location of the form here.
Form G-1: General Standards Expert Certification
G-2.5 Provide a completed Form G-2, Meteorological Standards Expert Certification. Provide a
link to the location of the form here.
Form G-2: Meteorological Standards Expert Certification
G-2.6 Provide a completed Form G-3, Vulnerability Standards Expert Certification. Provide a link
to the location of the form here.
Form G-3: Vulnerability Standards Expert Certification
®
55
G-2.7 Provide a completed Form G-4, Actuarial Standards Expert Certification. Provide a link to
Form G-4: Actuarial Standards Expert Certification
G-2.8 Provide a completed Form G-5, Statistical Standards Expert Certification. Provide a link to
Form G-5: Statistical Standards Expert Certification
G-2.9 Provide a completed Form G-6, Computer Standards Expert Certification. Provide a link to
Form G-6: Computer Standards Expert Certification
®
56
General Standards G-3 Risk Location
G-3 Risk Location

A. ZIP Codes used in the model shall not differ from the United States Postal Service
publication date by more than 24 months at the date of submission of the model. ZIP
Code information shall originate from the United States Postal Service.
RMS acquires its ZIP Code data primarily from a third-party developer, which bases its information on
the ZIP Code definitions issued by the United States Postal Service. It is RMS policy to update these
ZIP Codes at least every 24 months.
B. ZIP Code centroids, when used in the model, shall be based on population data.
The RMS model does not use ZIP Code centroids as proxies for exposure. If a building location is
entered as a ZIP Code, then the model uses wind speeds that are exposure weighted averages of wind
speeds across the ZIP Code extent. These exposure weighted averages are derived from residential
population data.
C. ZIP Code information purchased by the modeling organization shall be verified by the
modeling organization for accuracy and appropriateness
ZIP Code information is examined by RMS for consistency and is subject to standardized quality
control testing and checking by experts employed by RMS for that purpose.
G-3.1 List the current ZIP Code databases used by the model and the components of the model
to which they relate. Provide the effective (official United States Postal Service) date
corresponding to the ZIP Code databases.
A set of three internal databases is used: one for assigning a geographical coordinate to user -input ZIP
Codes; and another two for assigning exposure-weighted wind-speed averages to individual events
(stochastic and historical) in the model. The USPS vintage of the ZIP Code data used in the submitted
model is September 2011.
G-3.2 Describe in detail how invalid ZIP Codes are handled.
There are two reasons for a ZIP Code to be considered invalid by RiskLink. First, the ZIP Code in
question may not exist, either because of a typographical error or because of an expired ZIP Code.
Second, the ZIP Code may be more current than the ZIP Codes in the reference database in the
product.
In cases when a building cannot be geocoded, its vulnerability and financial characteristics are
excluded from consideration in the analysis. Locations that are not included in the analysis are easily
identified.
®
57
General Standards G-4 Independence of Model Components
G-4 Independence of Model Components

The meteorological, vulnerability, and actuarial components of the model shall each be
theoretically sound without compensation for potential bias from the other two
components.
In the RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model, vulnerability, meteorological, and actuarial functions are
theoretically sound and are developed independently without compensation for potential bia s from the
other two components. For example, vulnerability functions relating damage ratios to wind speeds are
fixed within the model and are not dependent on other aspects of the loss model. Relationships within
the model among the meteorological, vulnerability, and actuarial components are reasonable.
®
58
General Standards G-5 Editorial Compliance
G-5 Editorial Compliance
The submission and any revisions provided to the Commission throughout the review
process shall be reviewed and edited by a person or persons with experience in reviewing
technical documents who shall certify on Form G-7 that the submission has been
personally reviewed and is editorially correct.
The preparation of the submission follows a development and editorial review process that involves
multiple personnel who review and edit appropriate sections depending on areas of expertise. For
RMS’ 2012 Submission to the FCHLPM, Beth Stamann has coordinated the editorial process as
described in the disclosure below. Beth has reviewed and edited where necessary all documents for
accuracy and completeness.
Beth joined RMS in August of 1995. She worked within the client development organization until
October 2007 when she moved to the public policy group as senior documentation specialist. Her
responsibilities have included formatting, review of grammar, and contributing to verification of
accuracy, completeness and compliance of a wide-range of documents including but not limited to:
change impact reports, client requests for proposals, meeting documentation, contracts, affidavits,
analytical service reports, presentations, exhibits, client communications, marketing collateral,
correspondence, and client invoicing. She has been involved with the RMS submissions for the last five
years and development of other regulatory support documents.
Through her career at RMS, Beth has demonstrated proficiency in the use of Microsoft Word, Excel,
and PowerPoint applications.
G-5.1 Describe the process used for document control of the submission. Describe the process
used to ensure that the paper and electronic versions of specific files are identical in
content.
RMS uses source control software to control the document creation and editing process for the
submission document, form development, and related information. For the main submission document,
RMS maintains and tracks edits to the document using edit tracking features in Microsoft Word and the
source control system. Subject matter experts make edits on ―sub-documents‖ that are submitted to the
submission editor for inclusion into the main document, in accordance to a set of standard operating
procedures maintained by the regulatory practice. Incremental changes to the document are checked -
in by the submission editor, Beth Stamann. Form development is also tracked and edited within our
source control system.
RMS follows a review process with multiple reviewers to ensure that final subject matter content
reflects edits suggested by each subject matter expert. The submission editor maintains a list of review
responsibilities and review tasks. This review process also includes specific checks to ensure that the
paper and electronic version of specific files are identical in content.
G-5.2 Describe the process used by the signatories on Forms G-1 through G-6 to ensure that the
information contained under each set of standards is accurate and complete.
Each signatory is responsible for the content of their respective standards. Signatories, subject matter
experts, and forms analysts submit information to be included in the submission to the submission
®
59
General Standards G-5 Editorial Compliance
editor. Once incorporated, signatories must verify that all changes have been incorporated and approve
the final version of the document.
RMS also uses a two-person review process whereby the content of each section/form is reviewed by
someone other than the content provider. When appropriate, signatories may also review other
standard sections to ensure consistency between results and submission language .
G-5.3 Provide a completed Form G-7, Editorial Certification. Provide a link to the location of the
form here.
Form G-7: Editorial Certification
®
60
Meteorological Standards M-1 Base Hurricane Storm Set
METEOROLOGICAL STANDARDS
M-1 Base Hurricane Storm Set

A. Annual frequencies used in both model calibration and model validation shall be based
upon the National Hurricane Center HURDAT starting at 1900 as of August 15, 2011 (or
later). Complete additional season increments based on updates to HURDAT approved by
the Tropical Prediction Center/National Hurricane Center are acceptable modifications to
these storm sets. Peer reviewed atmospheric science literature can be used to justify
modifications to the Base Hurricane Storm Set.
The RMS hurricane model has been developed and validated using the official NHC HURDAT
database (as available in November 2011 with the addition of the 2011 season as available May 2012)
spanning the time frame from 1900 to 2011 inclusive. There has not been any modification to the
official HURDAT track set.
B. Any trends, weighting, or partitioning shall be justified and consistent with currently
accepted scientific literature and statistical techniques. Calibration and validation shall
encompass the complete Base Hurricane Storm Set as well as any partitions.
No trends, weighting or partitioning of the Base Hurricane Set are used in this model.
M-1.1 Identify the Base Hurricane Storm Set, the release date, and the time period included to
develop and implement landfall and by-passing storm frequencies into the model.
The Base Hurricane Storm Set is made of all hurricanes contained in the official HURDAT database (as
available in November 2011 with the addition of the 2011 season as available May 2012 ) spanning the
time frame from 1900 to 2011 inclusive. The HURDAT database is referenced in Jarvinen et al. (1984)
and Landsea et al. (2004).
M-1.2 If the modeling organization has made any modifications to the Base Hurricane Storm Set
related to landfall frequency and characteristics, provide justification for such
modifications.
There has not been any modification to the official HURDAT track set.
M-1.3 Where the model incorporates short-term or long-term modification of the historical data
leading to differences between modeled climatology and that in the entire Base Hurricane
Storm Set, describe how this is incorporated.
There has not been any modification to the official HURDAT track set.
M-1.4 Provide a completed Form M-1, Annual Occurrence Rates. Provide a link to the location of
the form here.
Form M-1: Annual Occurrence Rates
®
61
Meteorological Standards M-2 Hurricane Parameters and Characteristics
M-2 Hurricane Parameters and Characteristics

Methods for depicting all modeled hurricane parameters and characteristics, including but
not limited to windspeed, radial distributions of wind and pressure, minimum central
pressure, radius of maximum winds, landfall frequency, tracks, spatial and time variant
windfields, and conversion factors, shall be based on information documented in currently
accepted scientific literature.
Each component of the hazard model is based on information documented in cur rently accepted
scientific literature:
 The track path model is based on Hall and Jewson (2007)

 The over water intensity model is similar in concept to the track path model
 The inland filling model (modeling the central pressure time series when the storm m oves over
land) is described in Colette et al. (2010)
 The Vmax and Rmax models are regression models (e.g., Weisberg 1985) with autocorrelated errors
 The analytical wind profile is a modified version of the profile proposed in Willoughby et al. (2006)
 The wind profile parameters are modeled as generalized linear models (e.g. , McCullagh and
Nelder, 1989)
 The roughness and gust models are based on the methodologies proposed by Cook (1985) and
Cook (1997)
M-2.1 Identify the hurricane parameters (e.g., central pressure or radius of maximum winds) that
are used in the model.
The hurricane parameters used in the hazard model are:
 Translation speed and storm heading (also known as bearing)

 Central pressure
 Inland filling rate
 "Equivalent over water" maximum wind
 Radius of maximum winds
 Wind profile parameters
 Far field pressure
M-2.2 Describe the dependencies among variables in the wind field component and how they are
represented in the model, including the mathematical dependence of modeled windfield as
a function of distance and direction from the center position.
The variables defining the wind speed at a site are:
 Radial distance from the storm center to the site (dependent on site location)
 Angle between the translational speed and the site radial vector (dependent on site location)
 Translational speed of the storm (dependent on the storm center location)
 Equivalent over water 1-minute mean wind (dependent on central pressure and far field pressure)
 Radius of maximum winds (dependent on central pressure and latitude)
 Wind profile parameters (dependent on the radius of maximum wind and central pressure)
 Roughness and gust coefficients (dependent on site location)
®
62
M-2.3 Identify whether hurricane parameters are modeled as random variables, as functions, or
as fixed values for the stochastic storm set. Provide rationale for the choice of parameter
representations.
The hurricane parameters are modeled as described below:
Translational speed and heading
The track translational speed and heading are derived from the zonal and meridional track speeds. The
mean of the zonal and meridional components vary in space and are distance weighted functions of
zonal and meridional steps from HURDAT. Deviations from the zonal and meridional means are
modeled as Gaussian random variables that are both autocorrelated and cross-correlated. Variance
and correlation coefficients also vary in space and are estimated from HURDAT tracks using weights
that depend on the distance between site and HURDAT track points.
Central pressure
Central Pressure is the main intensity variable in the model. Central pressure time series are obtained
through the change in central pressure ( ). The model for is a linear regression with predictors
that include the previous change in pressure, the total pressure drop from genesis and the zonal and
meridional track steps. The coefficients of the model are estimated locally using HURDAT data
weighted according to the distance from site to HURDAT track point.
Inland filling rate
The inland filling rate is drawn from a normal distribution with a mean that depends on pressure
difference (FFP- ), translational speed and R max at the time of landfall, as well as two predictors that
describe the proportion of the storm over different terrain at and just after the time of landfall: the
proportion of the storm to the right of the track that is over water, and the proportion of the storm that is
over terrain classified as urban or forest.
―Equivalent over water‖ maximum wind
Vmax is modeled as a lognormal random variable, with a mean that depends on latitude and pressure
st
difference. Deviation from the mean exhibits 1 order autocorrelation. Central pressure, V max and
latitude data from HURDAT are used to estimate the coefficients of the model.
Radius of maximum winds
Rmax is modeled as a lognormal random variable, with a mean that depends on latitude and central
st
pressure. Deviation from the mean exhibits 1 order autocorrelation. Simulated R max values are
truncated on the right according to their category by pressure. The coefficients for the model are
estimated using the extended best track dataset as discussed in Demuth et al. (2006).
Wind profile parameters
The shape parameters X1 and N are modeled as Gamma random variables that depend on Rmax and
translational speed, as well as a lagged version of X1 and N respectively (lag 1). The position of Vmax
with respect to the track is described by the wind field parameter A max, which is assumed to follow a
truncated Gaussian distribution. The mean depends on translational speed, R max and previous values
of Amax. EOF coefficients are modeled as Gaussian random variables.
®
63
Far field pressure
Far field pressure is not modeled as a random variable, but it varies according to spatial position and
time of the year. The monthly climatology of sea level pressure over a grid covering the model domain
is used as a proxy for far field pressure.
M-2.4 Describe how any hurricane parameters are treated differently in the historical and
stochastic storm sets (e.g., has a fixed value in one set and not the other).
For historical storms, hurricane parameters are treated as in the stochastic set except that the
longitude, latitude, central pressure (when available) and over water V max are fixed and set to the
corresponding HURDAT values.
M-2.5 State whether the model simulates surface winds directly or requires conversion between
some other reference level or layer and the surface. Describe the source(s) of conversion
factors and the rationale for their use. Describe the process for converting the modeled
vortex winds to surface winds including the treatment of the inherent uncertainties in the
conversion factor with respect to location of the site compared to the radius of maximum
winds over time. Justify the variation in the surface winds conversion factor as a function
of hurricane intensity and distance from the hurricane center.
The wind field model directly simulates 1-minute mean winds equivalent over water.
M-2.6 Describe how the windspeeds generated in the windfield model are converted from
sustained to gust and identify the averaging time.
The wind field model first simulates 1-minute mean winds equivalent over water. These are converted
to local 3-second gust wind speeds in two stages: first, the 1-minute mean winds equivalent over water
are converted to 1-minute mean winds over local terrain by applying the local roughness coefficient.
Then, these 1-minute mean winds over local terrain are converted to 3-second gusts over local terrain
by applying the local gust coefficient. The RMS gust coefficients are a function of roughness lengths
and follow the ones published in the scientific literature: Deaves and Harris (1978), Harris and Deaves
(1980), Deaves (1981).
The table below lists the gust factor values for four different land use classes.
Table 8: Gust Factors for Typical Land Use Classes
Typical land use 1-minute to 3-second gust factor
Water 1.15
Open terrain 1.22
Suburban 1.39
City center 1.52
M-2.7 Describe the historical data used as the basis for the model’s hurricane tracks. Discuss
the appropriateness of the model stochastic hurricane tracks with reference to the
historical storm database.
Genesis and translational speeds are derived by smoothing the historical HURDAT records. Only post
1950 HURDAT tracks are used as historical data was less reliable before airplane reconnais sance.
®
64
The 6 hourly changes in central pressure are derived by smoothing the historical HURDAT records.
Only post 1979 pressure increments are considered as the central pressure HURDAT records are
complete only since the second half of the 1970’s when visi ble and infrared satellite imagery started to
be used.
Modeled V max are calibrated and validated using HURDAT and the landfall summaries
(http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html) for years within the 1900-2011 time
frame.
Modeled central pressures are derived from HURDAT records from the years 1900 -2008.
Stochastic tracks are simulated using the model described in Disclosure M-2.3, based on analysis of
historical storm tracks in the Atlantic basin taken from the HURDAT database. Tracks are simulated
from genesis to decay, and the central pressure is superimposed on the tracks by taking into account
interaction with land along the track. More details on stochastic hurricane tracks are given in
Disclosure G-1.2.
M-2.8 If the historical data are partitioned or modified, describe how the hurricane parameters
are affected.
The historical data has not been partitioned or modified.
M-2.9 Describe how the coastline is segmented (or partitioned) in determining the parameters for
hurricane frequency used in the model. Provide the hurricane frequency distribution by
intensity for each segment.
RMS makes use of the RMS landfall gates to validate landfall frequencies. These landfall gates are 50
mile long coastal segments as shown on Figure 8. Hurricane frequency distributions along the RMS
landfall gates are given on Figure 9 and Figure 10 for Category 1–2 and Category 3–5 hurricanes.
Saffir-Simpson category is based on one-minute wind speed at time of landfall.
®
65
Figure 8: RMS Landfall Gates
®
66
Figure 9: Historical Landfall Counts (1900-2011) by Landfall Gate for Category 1–2 Storms
Figure 10: Historical Landfall Counts (1900-2011) by Landfall Gate for Category 3–5 Storms
M-2.10 Describe any evolution of the functional representation of hurricane parameters during an
individual storm life cycle.
Hurricane parameters in the RMS model evolve with the changes that each storm experiences. As a
storm travels over water, the central pressure is simulated using the RMS over water intensity model
and as it moves over land it is modeled using the RMS inland filling model. For hurricanes that are
transitioning to extra-tropical storms, the calculations for the Vmax and Rmax time series gradually evolve
to represent the extra-tropical nature of the storm. The methodology used to calculate the roughness
factors, however, remain the same everywhere, even as the storm moves over water.
®
67
Meteorological Standards M-3 Hurricane Probabilities
M-3 Hurricane Probabilities

A. Modeled probability distributions of hurricane parameters and characteristics shall be
consistent with historical hurricanes in the Atlantic basin
Modeled distributions of hurricane parameters and characteristics are consistent with historical
hurricanes in the Atlantic basin:
 Forward speed—Modeled and historical distributions are compared in Disclosure S-1.6 for Florida
and adjacent states.
 Storm heading—Figure 11 shows the comparison between observed and modeled storm heading
distribution for the each of the four Florida regions and adjacent regions. There is generally a good
agreement between both distributions.
 Central pressure—modeled and historical distributions are compared in Disclosure S-1.6.
 Inland filling rate—The range of modeled filling rates is compared against historical central
pressure time series in Disclosure M-5.2.
 ―Equivalent over water‖ maximum wind (V max )—Modeled and historical landfall frequencies (by
intensity and by region) are compared in Form M-1. Modeled and historical V max distributions at
landfall are compared in Disclosure S-1.6.
 Radius of maximum winds—Modeled and historical distributions are compared in

Disclosure S-1.6.
 Wind profile parameters—As described in Disclosure M-4.1, the wind parameters have been
fitted using H*Wind snapshots. The range of modeled radii (>110mph, >74mph and >40mph) is
presented in Form M-3 and it compares well with historical observations available in the extended
best track dataset (Demuth et al. 2006) (Disclosure M-6.3).
®
68
Figure 11: Observed (black) and Modeled (red) Histograms of Storm Heading for Landfalls in each
Florida Region and Adjacent Regions. Storm Heading ―N‖ Stands for a Storm Heading North.
B. Modeled hurricane landfall frequency distributions shall reflect the Base Hurricane Storm
Set used for category 1 to 5 hurricanes and shall be consistent with those observed for
each coastal segment of Florida and neighboring states (Alabama, Georgia, and
Mississippi).
Modeled landfall frequencies are consistent with what has been observed historically for each
geographical area of Florida and neighboring states, as demonstrated in Form M-1. The model is
consistent both in terms of the total rate of hurricanes making landfall by region, and the rate of
hurricanes of various intensities by region.
®
69
C. Models shall use maximum one-minute sustained 10-meter windspeed when defining
hurricane landfall intensity. This applies both to the Base Hurricane Storm Set used to
develop landfall frequency distributions as a function of coastal location and to the
modeled winds in each hurricane which causes damage. The associated maximum one-
minute sustained 10-meter windspeed shall be within the range of windspeeds (in statute
miles per hour) categorized by the Saffir-Simpson Scale.
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale:
Category Winds (mph) Damage
1 74 – 95 Minimal
2 96 – 110 Moderate
3 111 – 130 Extensive
4 131 – 155 Extreme
5 Over 155 Catastrophic
Hurricane intensities are defined using the maximum one-minute sustained 10-meter wind speed. This
applies both to modeled hurricanes from the RMS stochastic set and historical hurricanes from the
base hurricane storm set.
M-3.1 List assumptions used in creating the hurricane characteristic databases.
No additional assumptions were made in creating any of these databases.
M-3.2 Provide a brief rationale for the probability distributions used for all hurricane parameters
and characteristics.
A description of the probability distributions used for all hurricane parameters is given in Form S-3.
®
70
Meteorological Standards M-4 Hurricane Wind Field Structure
M-4 Hurricane Wind Field Structure

A. Windfields generated by the model shall be consistent with observed historical storms
affecting Florida.
Wind fields generated by the RMS model are consistent with observed historical hurricanes in the
Atlantic basin. The basis for developing the wind field structure is the record of historical hurricanes.
The functions used to model the wind fields have been tested thoroughly against various historical
storms.
B. The translation of land use and land cover or other source information into a surface
roughness distribution shall be consistent with current state-of-the-science and shall be
implemented with appropriate geographic information system data.
The RMS database that describes the land use is derived from the 15-30m resolution ASTER satellite
imagery (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) with a 2001 -2007
vintage. It has been validated against Google Earth and NLCD 2001 (released in 2006/2007 by USGS).
It was shown that the ASTER data is more accurate than NLCD data, especially in urban areas where
ASTER imagery can lead to more than one urban land use class. The raw LU classes are merged into
10 typical LU classes grouping classes of similar roughness togeth er. Each class is assigned a
representative roughness length which is within the range of published mapping schemes from
scientific literature (e.g., Cook 1985; Wieringa, 1992, 1993; ASCE 7-98).
C. With respect to multi-story structures, the model windfield shall account for the effects of
the vertical variation of winds if not accounted for in the vulnerability functions.
The effects of the vertical variation of winds are accounted for in the vulnerability curves.
M-4.1 Provide a rotational windspeed (y-axis) versus radius (x-axis) plot of the average or default
symmetric wind profile used in the model and justify the choice of this wind profile.
The RMS model is based on an optimized version of the Willoughby profile (Willoughby et al. 2006).
Figure 12 shows the radially averaged profile for typical Florida values:
Translational velocity 5m/s (11.2 mph)

Latitude 27.5 N
Pressure difference 58.5 hPa
Given these parameters, the stochastic model yields the following mean values for the remaining wind
parameters used to generate the average wind profile:
Rmax 36 km (22 miles)

Vmax 49 m/s (110 mph)
X1 (decay length parameter) 107 km (66.5 miles)
N (power law parameter) 1.85
®
71
The wind profile models the 10m winds directly and has been derived using more than 600 over-water
H*Wind snapshots (e.g., Powell et al. 2010).
Figure 12: Radially Averaged Velocity Profile Based on the Parameters Given in the Text
Past modeling approaches at RMS have relied on the Holland profile (Holland 1980). Figure 13 and
Figure 14 show the comparison between H*Wind wind fields and modeled wind fields for Hurricane
Charley (August 13, 2004 – 16:30 UTC) and Hurricane Andrew (August 24, 1992 – 04:00 UTC) based
on the Holland and Willoughby models. In order to better assess the model skills across different
snapshots, we present ―composite wind fields‖ where both the size and the orientation have been
normalized. From the plots it is clearly seen that the optimized Willoughby model out performs the
Georgiou/Holland model.
®
72
a) b)
c) d)
Figure 13: Hurricane Charley on August 13th 2004 – 16:30 UTC. a) H*Wind Snapshot
(ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/pub/hwind/), b) H*Wind Composite, c) Best Fit for the Georgiou/Holland
Model, d) Best Fit for the RMS Wind Field Model. All wind speeds are 1-minute mean 10m winds in
mph.
a) b)
c) d)
Figure 14: As Figure 13, but for Hurricane Andrew on August 24th 1992–04:00 UTC
®
73
M-4.2 If the model windfield has been modified in any way from the previous submission,
provide a rotational windspeed (y-axis) versus radius (x-axis) plot of the average or default
symmetric wind profile for both the new and old functions. The choice of average or
default shall be consistent for the new and old functions.
The wind profile has not changed since the previous submission.
M-4.3 If the model windfield has been modified in any way from the previous submission,
describe variations between the new and old windfield functions with reference to
historical storms.
The model wind field has not changed in any way since the previous submission.
M-4.4 Describe how the vertical variation of winds is accounted for in the model where
applicable. Document and justify any difference in the methodology for treating historical
and stochastic storm sets.
The vertical variation of winds is accounted for in the vulnerability curves, where the curves depend on
the height of the building. Historical and stochastic storms are treated in the same way.
M-4.5 Describe the relevance of the formulation of gust factor(s) used in the model.
The model calculates the over land gust wind speeds by location via modeling the local surface
roughness as well as the change in the local roughness conditions upstream of a particul ar location.
The RMS gust model incorporates these roughness conditions into the computation of the peak gust
wind speed at the 10 m elevation. The gust factor methodology follows peer-reviewed wind engineering
literature (Deaves and Harris 1978; Harris and Deaves 1980; Deaves 1981; Cook 1985; Cook 1997;
Wieringa 1993 and 2001; Vickery and Skerj 2005).
M-4.6 Identify all non-meteorological variables that affect windspeed estimation (e.g., surface
roughness, topography, etc.).
Variables that affect the modeled wind speed are the surface roughness conditions, both at the site and
upstream to the site by direction. The effect of topography on wind speeds in Florida is negligible.
M-4.7 Provide the collection and publication dates of the land use and land cover data used in
the model and justify their timeliness for Florida.
The land use land cover data for Florida was developed from ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal
Emission and Reflection Radiometer, http://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/) satellite imagery collected between
2001 and 2007. For validation purposes, it was compared to the NLCD 2001 (National Land Cover
Data, released in 2006/2007, http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2001.html) data set, which is based on
satellite data collected around 2001 and released in 2006.
When comparing both data sets to Google Earth imagery, the ASTER LU data was shown to be
superior, especially in urban areas, showing more detail and better differentiation of rough and smooth
urban land cover.
M-4.8 Describe the methodology used to convert land use and land cover information into a
spatial distribution of roughness coefficients in Florida and adjacent states.
The land use is available at 15-30 m resolution. The raw land use classes are merged into 10 typical
land use classes grouping classes of similar roughness together. Each class is assigned a
representative roughness length which is within the range of published mapping schemes from
74
scientific literature (e.g., Cook 1985; Wieringa1992, 1993; ASCE 7-98). Aggregate roughness maps are
generated on a 200 m resolution grid, and are used by the roughness model to calculate roughness
coefficients (roughness and gust factors) on the same grid. The roughness and gust model is based on
Cook (1985, 1997) modified by a local correction factor. The correction factor was derived from station
data of actual hurricanes. The 200 m roughness factors on the 200 m grid are aggregated to the RMS
Variable Resolution Grid (1-10 km) using weights that depend on insured exposure.
M-4.9 Demonstrate the consistency of the spatial distribution of model-generated winds with
observed windfields for hurricanes affecting Florida.
For the generation of historical footprints, the HURDAT and extended best track dataset are
insufficient, since the wind model requires additional parameters. For this reason the stochastic model
is used to generate various versions of the historic storms all having a different time series of the wind
model parameters. The realization (time series of track parameters) is chosen, that yields the best
agreement with the station observations. Therefore the historic reconstructions agree well with the
observed spatial patterns as can be seen when comparing to wind station data. Figure 15 to Figure 20
show footprints and time series at two example stations for hurricanes Charley (2004), Jeanne (2004)
and Wilma (2005).
®
75
Figure 15: Footprint of Hurricane Charley (2004). Shown is the maximum 3-sec peak gust (in mph).
The triangles are stations and are colored according to the observed maximum peak gust. Grey
triangles indicate stations that failed and did not record the maximum 3-sec gust. The pink markers
indicate the stations for which a time series is shown in Figure 16.
Observations for Hurricane Charley (2004)
®
76
Figure 17: As Figure 15 but for Hurricane Jeanne (2004)
Observations for Hurricane Jeanne (2004)
®
77
Figure 19: As Figure 15 but for Hurricane Wilma (2005)
Observations for Hurricane Wilma (2005)
®
78
M-4.10 Describe how the model’s windfield is consistent with the inherent differences in
windfields for such diverse hurricanes as Hurricane Charley (2004), Hurricane Jeanne
(2004), and Hurricane Wilma (2005).
Charley (2004), Jeanne (2004) and Wilma (2005) vary substantially from each other. Charley was an
intense storm (Category 4) with a small R max and a fast filling rate, while Wilma was weaker (Category
3) but affecting a larger area (large R max) with a slow filling rate. Jeanne was a category 3 at landfall,
but differed from both Wilma and Charley in that it made landfall on the southeastern coast of Florida,
the first major hurricane to hit in that area since 1899. This variability is taken into consideration by
assigning a set of realistic track parameters (V max, Rmax, etc.) to each of these storms. As demonstrated
in Disclosure M-4.9, modeled wind fields are in agreement with observations for these three hurricanes.
M-4.11 Describe any variations in the treatment of the model windfield for stochastic versus
historical storms and justify this variation.
Stochastic and historic storms are modeled with the same wind field model.
M-4.12 Provide a completed Form M-2, Maps of Maximum Winds. Explain the differences between
the spatial distributions of maximum winds for open terrain and actual terrain for historical
storms. Provide a link to the location of the form here.
Form M-2: Maps of Maximum Winds
The open terrain land use type is the smoothest land surface in the model. This is why the wind fields
assuming open terrain have generally higher wind speeds than the wind fields assuming real terrain (as
the roughness length over land are generally larger).
®
79
Meteorological Standards M-5 Landfall and Over-Land Weakening Methodologies
M-5 Landfall and Over-Land Weakening Methodologies

A. The hurricane overland weakening rate methodology used by the model shall be
consistent with historical records and with current state-of-the-science.
The RMS inland filling model simulates central pressure decay rates that are consistent with historical
records as demonstrated in Disclosures M-5.1 and S-1.6. The model follows a methodology similar to
the one proposed in Vickery (2005) and is described in detail in Colette et al. (2010).
B. The transition of winds from over-water to over-land within the model shall be consistent
with current state-of-the-science.
The transition of winds from over water to over land is modeled using well accepted wind engineering
methods following Cook (1985, 1997), Land use land cover data is sampled upstream of each site
along eight different directional sectors. The methodology has been validated against the most recent
measurements (e.g., Zhu et al. 2010, Masters 2004) from Hurricanes Rita and Ike.
M-5.1 Describe and justify the functional form of hurricane decay rates used by the model.
Hurricane decay rates are modeled through the RMS over land intensity model, also called ―inland
filling model.‖ This filling process happens shortly after landfall as storms are removed from their
primary energy source, namely the heat fluxes from the warm oceanic tropical waters. The formulation
of the model follows the one proposed by Vickery (2005):
where:
 Pc is the storm central pressure,
 t0 is the time of landfall
 FFP is the far field pressure
  is the inland filling rate
In Florida, the inland filling rate is drawn from a normal distribution with a mean that depends on
pressure difference (FFP-Pc(t0)), translational speed and R max at the time of landfall, as well as two
predictors that describe the proportion of the storm over different terrain at and just after the time of
landfall: the proportion of the storm to the right of the track that is over water, and the proportion of the
storm that is over terrain classified as urban or forest.
On average, small storms fill faster than large storms, intense storms fill faster than weak storms and
fast moving storms fill faster than slow moving storms. Also, storms hitting the South tip of Florida and
keeping a large area of their circulation over water will fill more slowly than more generic landfalling
storms.
M-5.2 Provide a graphical representation of the modeled decay rates for Florida hurricanes over
time compared to wind observations.
Figure 21 illustrates a comparison of the normalized central pressure time series for key historical
st
Florida land-falling storms compared with the RMS stochastic set’s fastest (1 percentile) and slowest
®
80
th
(99 percentile) filling rates. This figure demonstrates that the RMS inland filling model is able to
capture the full population of observed decay rates ranging from fast decay (Andrew 1992, Charley
2004) to slow decay (Erin 1995, Jeanne 2004) or even weak intensification for low intensity storms
hitting the South tip of Florida (Irene 1999).
Figure 21: Normalized central pressure time series as a function of time from landfall. The dashed
st th
black lines give the stochastic model envelope (1 and 99 percentiles). Colored time series
correspond to historical central pressure time series.
To perform a comparison between observed and modeled wind speeds, RMS scientists have
reconstructed historical events starting from the modeled central pressure time series and not the
historical HURDAT central pressure time series. The modeled pressure time series has been
calculated using the RMS inland filling model (given the storm characteristics). This pressure time
series is used to develop a wind footprint which is compared to station observations. Figure 22
presents one of these comparisons for Hurricane Frances 2004. This figure shows the model -derived
peak gust footprint (in mph) for Hurricane Frances 2004 with wind stations used for comparison. Figure
23 is a scatter plot of modeled 3-second gusts compared against observed hourly maximum 3-second
gusts from the stations. Table 9 presents the maximum gusts recorded and modeled at both inland and
coastal stations. There is no systematic bias between modeled and observed gusts (both for coastal
and inland stations).
®
81
Figure 22: 3-second Gust Wind footprint (in mph) for Hurricane Frances (2004). Triangles locate a
subset of stations used for the reconstruction. As mentioned in the text, the central pressure time
series is given by the RMS inland filling model and not by the HURDAT time series.
®
82
Figure 23: Scatter Plot of Modeled versus Observed 3-second Gusts (mph) for Hurricane Frances
Table 9: Observed and Modeled Maximum Peak Gusts at the Stations with
Locations given on Figure 22
Observed Peak Modeled Peak

Code Station_name
Gust (mph) Gust(mph)
FWY FWYF1 65.8 64.1
SET SETTLEMENT POINT 91.4 106.8
SPG SPGF1 111 106.0
TEX TexasTech Frances 04 SBCCOM_Cl 95.3 91.6
MIA MIAMI/OPA LOCKA 55.8 54.3
LAK LAKE WORTH 75.1 90.1
TEX TexasTech Frances 04 WEMITE 1 85.7 104.7
FOW FOWEY ROCKS 65.7 64.1
ORL ORLANDO INTL ARPT 71.2 73.8
FOR FORT LAUDERDALE HOLLYWOOD INT 56.9 56.7
MAY MAYPORT NS 60.4 59.9
LEE LEESBURG MUNI ARPT 61.8 70.3
GAI GAINESVILLE REGIONAL AP 66.4 55.4
®
83
M-5.3 Describe the transition from over-water to over-land boundary layer simulated in the
model.
RMS models the transition from over-water to over-land boundary layer using the roughness and gust
factors described in Standard M-4. Over-water roughness lengths have been derived from GPS sonde
observations (Powell et al. 2003).
The water to land transition occurs over a finite fetch and the model accounts for the surface
roughness upwind of each site of interest and along eight directional sectors. Figure 24 illustrates the
dependency of the ZIP Code roughness factors with distance to coast. Roughness coefficients of
coastal ZIP Codes are close to 1 and the drop in the roughness coefficient is localized within the first
couple of miles from the coast. The spread around the mean is an outcome of the different roughness
environments of each ZIP Code, with more built-up ZIP Codes having lower roughness factors.
Figure 24: Roughness Coefficient as a Function of Distance to Coast (in miles). Each Point
Corresponds to a Florida ZIP Code.
M-5.4 Describe any changes in hurricane parameters, other than intensity, resulting from the
transition from over-water to over-land.
Except for central pressure, all other hurricane parameters have a single model that is applied both
over-water and over-land. As a reminder, because the R max model is dependent on central pressure,
storms have a tendency to increase in size after landfall.
M-5.5 Describe the representation in the model of passage over non-continental U.S. land
masses on hurricanes affecting Florida.
Hurricanes affecting Florida are part of the RMS North Atlantic hurricane track set. If a storm hits Cuba
or Hispaniola, the inland filling model is triggered causing a weakening in storm intensity before it goes
back over water. In the vicinity of Puerto Rico, storms have also a tendency to decay rather than
intensify (as can be demonstrated from the HURDAT records).
®
84
M-5.6 Document any differences in the treatment of decay rates in the model for stochastic
hurricanes compared to historical hurricanes affecting Florida.
When modeling historical events, RMS uses observed central pressure time series as available in
HURDAT. Nevertheless, Disclosure M-5.2 has demonstrated that historical reconstructions using
modeled central pressure time series can accurately simulate station wind observations.
®
85
Meteorological Standards M-6 Logical Relationships of Hurricane Characteristics
M-6 Logical Relationships of Hurricane Characteristics

A. The magnitude of asymmetry shall increase as the translation speed increases, all other
factors held constant.
The magnitude of the asymmetry increases with increasing translational speeds, all other factors being
held constant.
B. The mean wind speed shall decrease with increasing surface roughness (friction), all other
factors held constant.
The mean wind speeds decrease with increasing surface roughness, all other factors being held
constant.
M-6.1 Describe how the asymmetric structure of hurricanes is represented in the model.
At each time step, the wind field is first computed relative to the moving frame. At this stage, the wind
field is symmetric and is given by the vector field: . The absolute wind field is obtained by
performing the following vector sum:
where: is the translational speed of the storm and is a scalar lower than 1.
M-6.2 Provide a completed Form M-3, Radius of Maximum Winds and Radii of Standard Wind
Thresholds. Provide a link to the location of the form here.
Form M-3: Radius of Maximum Winds and Radii of Standard Wind Thresholds
M-6.3 Discuss the radii values for each wind threshold in Form M-3 with reference to available
hurricane observations.
Modeled radii of maximum winds (R max), hurricane force winds and gale force winds have been
compared to historical values available in the extended best track dataset (Demuth et al. 2006). The
comparison has been made using all tropical hurricanes in the basin, and not only storms hitting
Florida. The comparison is generally very good, with the stochastic model spanning the range of
observed values.
As an example, Figure 25 shows the comparison between historical and modeled radii of hurricane
force winds for a hurricane having a central pressure between 930 and 970hPa. We can see that the
two distributions are close and that the model is capturing small storms like Charley 2004 and large
storms like Isabel 2003 or Ike 2008.
For the radius of gale force winds, it should be noted that the model has a tendency to simulate slightly
smaller radii than the values available in the extended best track dataset, especially on the low side of
the distribution.
®
86
Figure 25: Radius of Hurricane Force Wind Histograms Comparing Observed Radii Extended Best
Track dataset (EBT) (in black) with Simulated Radii (in red) for Hurricanes Having a Central Pressure
between 930 and 970hPa
®
87
®
88
Vulnerability Standards V-1 Derivation of Vulnerability Functions
VULNERABILITY STANDARDS
V-1 Derivation of Vulnerability Functions

A. Development of the vulnerability functions shall be based on any or a combination of the
following: (1) historical data, (2) tests, (3) structural calculations, (4) expert opinion, or (5)
site inspections. However, any development of the vulnerability functions based on
structural calculations or expert opinion shall be supported by tests, site inspections, and
historical data.
The development of vulnerability functions for residential classes of construction in Florida (including
mobile homes) for structure, contents, and Additional Living Expenses (ALE) coverages, is primarily
based upon well-supported structural and wind engineering principles and detailed analyses of
historical claims data. This has been supplemented by expert input, post-storm site inspections and an
extensive review of published literature on building damage assessment.
As outlined in Disclosure G-2.2 the individuals within RMS involved in the development of vulnerability
functions have extensive experience in the field of structural and wind engineering and data analysis.
B. The method of derivation of the vulnerability functions and their associated uncertainties
shall be theoretically sound and consistent with fundamental engineering principles.
The methods used by RMS to derive the vulnerability functions and associated uncertainties are
theoretically sound and consistent with fundamental engineering principles. Details of the methodology
are provided in Disclosure V-1.3.
C. Residential building stock classification shall be representative of Florida construction for

personal and commercial residential properties.
The schema used to classify buildings and assign appropriate vulnerability curves to each risk is able
to representative all typical types of Florida construction for personal and commercial residential
properties.
D. Building height/number of stories, primary construction material, year of construction,

location, and other construction characteristics, as applicable, shall be used in the
derivation and application of vulnerability functions.
Unique vulnerability functions are defined based on a combination of the construction material, building
occupancy, building height, year built and location as explained in Disclosure V-1.6. Floor area can
also have an impact for single-family construction.
E. Vulnerability functions shall be separately derived for commercial residential building

structures, personal residential structures, mobile homes, appurtenant structures,
contents, and additional living expense time element coverages.
Damage curves for all classes of construction, including mobile homes, are developed separately.
Separate vulnerability functions have been derived for damage to building contents for each of the
hurricane building classes. RMS has derived separate functions to explicitly deal with residential and
commercial appurtenant structures, such as fences, carports, and screen enclosures.
®
89
Time element vulnerability functions were derived separately and exist for each occupancy class
supported by the model. Time element vulnerability is related to the building damage state. Time
element losses consider only direct losses (i.e., expense paid to a policy holder while the house is
being repaired). RMS has used historical loss data to calibrate time element vulnerability functions.
F. The minimum wind speed that generates damage shall be consistent with fundamental
engineering principles.
Damage associated with a declared hurricane includes damage incurred for wind speeds above and
below the hurricane threshold of 74 mph (one minute sustained). The minimum peak gust wind speed
that generates damage is consistent with fundamental engineering principles.
G. Vulnerability functions shall include damage as attributable to windspeed and wind

pressure, water infiltration, and missile impact associated with hurricanes. Vulnerability
functions shall not include explicit damage to the structure due to flood, storm surge, or
wave action.
The wind vulnerability functions include damage caused by wind speed and pressure, water infiltration
(from rain water entering through breaches in the building envelope) and missile impact. The wind
vulnerability functions exclude damages due to flooding, storm surge and wave action. Damage caused
by storm surge and wave action can be modeled, if desired; however, to do so, the model uses a
separate set of storm surge and wave vulnerability functions that are not applied for wind -only
analyses.
V-1.1 Provide a flow chart documenting the process by which the vulnerability functions are
derived and implemented.
The general procedure used to process such data is diagrammed in Figure 26.
®
90
INPUT - DATA COLLECTION

 Claims data from historical hurricanes
 Associated exposure data at the time of the
hurricane
 Best estimate of the wind field from each
historical hurricane
DATA PROCESS
 Develop Loss Ratios
 by company
 by ZIP Code/ Peak Gust
 by construction class
 by coverage type
 Regression analysis of loss ratios and wind field
estimates to calibrate the basic vulnerability
functions
VULNERABILITY DEVELOPMENT
 Use basic vulnerability curves to calibrate
the Component Vulnerability Model (CVM)
 Use CVM to develop vulnerability curves for
classes and mitigation techniques not well
represented in the claims data
VALIDATION
 Validate against loss experience from various
insurance portfolios
 Validate against industry loss across a large set
of events
IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 26: Process for Deriving and Implementing Vulnerability Functions
The implementation of vulnerability functions is described in the response to Disclosure V-1.6.
V-1.2 Describe the nature and extent of actual insurance claims data used to develop the
model’s vulnerability functions. Describe in detail what is included, such as, number of
policies, number of insurers, date of loss, and number of units of dollar exposure,
separated into personal residential, commercial residential, and mobile home.
RMS has collected loss data from its clients for the purpose of developing and calibrating the model’s
vulnerability functions. Construction characteristics and insured value information of the associated
exposure is supplied directly to us by our clients. This information is assumed to be correct, but is also
®
91
subjected to checks by RMS. Summaries of exposure and loss data sets and their use in the
development of vulnerability functions will be available for on-site review by the Professional Team.
The data sets vary in resolution and are used for different validation purposes. Data containing detailed
information on damage, loss by construction class and exposure by ZIP Code or street address is used
for calibration of vulnerability functions. Aggregated data is used primarily for sensitivity analysis. To
adequately use loss data for development of vulnerability functions, the data must contain several
types of information including: loss per coverage (A, B, C, and D), line of business, exposure value per
coverage, description of structures (construction type, etc.), and actual location of struc tures.
Overall, RMS has used over $11 billion of hurricane loss data from the U.S. and over $1.4 trillion in
corresponding exposure data in the development and calibration of damage functions. This includes
the following amounts of loss data by line of business: $10.4 billion for residential, $430 million for
mobile home, $20 million for condo unit owners, $161 million for homeowners association, and $61
million for multi-family dwelling. A sample of the datasets is shown in the following table.
®
92
Table 10: Sample of Residential Datasets Used for Development and Calibration of Vulnerability
Functions
LOB* Storm Company Data Resolution

RES Andrew A ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Andrew B ZIP/Coverage
RES Andrew C ZIP/Construction Class
RES Bob A ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Erin A ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Fran A ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Fran B ZIP/Coverage
RES Hugo A ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Hugo B ZIP/Coverage
RES Opal A ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Georges D ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
MH Fran E ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
MH Hugo F ZIP/Coverage/Construction Class
MH Charley/ Frances/ Jeanne 2004 H Location/Construction Class
MH Charley/ Frances/ Jeanne 2004 I Location/Construction Class
RES Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 J Location/Coverage/Construction Class
MH Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 J Location/Coverage/Construction Class
MFD Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 J Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 K Location/Construction Class
RES Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 L Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 M Location/Coverage/Construction Class
MH Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 M Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 N Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 O Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 P Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Charley/Frances/Jeanne/Ivan 2004 Q Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Wilma 2005 J Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Wilma 2005 K Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Wilma 2005 R Location/Coverage/Construction Class
HOA Wilma 2005 J Location/Coverage/Construction Class
CO Wilma 2005 J Location/Coverage/Construction Class
MH Wilma 2005 K Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Ike 2008 B Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Ike 2008 L Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Ike 2008 S Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Ike 2008 T Location/Coverage/Construction Class
RES Ike 2008 U Location/Coverage/Construction Class
MH Ike 2008 B Location/Coverage/Construction Class
*RES – Residential; MH – Mobile Homes; MFD–Multi-Family; CO – Condo Owners; HOA – Condo Association
®
93
V-1.3 Provide support for the development of the vulnerability functions.
The vulnerability functions are based on analyses of historical building loss data (see Disclosure V-1.5)
and engineering principles using the component vulnerability model (CVM). The CVM enables an
engineering-based approach to assess the reasonableness of the vulnerability functions derived from
the analysis of historical building loss data, especially for higher wind speed ranges or building classes
for which historical loss data is sparse or incomplete. Additionally, the CVM is used to gain insights into
the potential reduction of losses associated with building features and hurricane mitigation measures.
The vulnerability of each component in the CVM is defined by its failure load, which is informed by
building code provisions, results of wind tunnel experiments, field observations, and technical reports.
These include building codes and standards such as ASCE-7 (1994, 1998, 2010), FBC (2001),
SBC (1997) and SFBC (1994). The reports and studies include those by FEMA (FEMA 1992, FEMA
2005), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD 1993), Natural Hazards
Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado (Ayscue 1996), and Florida
International University (Mitrani et al. 1995 and Peacock et al. 1998). Component vulnerabilities are
combined to obtain the overall vulnerability function of buildings with unique building characteristics
simulating a range of mitigated, un-mitigated, and average buildings.
The uncertainties associated with the vulnerability functions are derived from statistical analyses of
historical building loss data for different building classes and coverage types. These statist ical analyses
indicate that the uncertainty, as measured by the coefficient of variation (CV), is a function of the MDR.
The MDR-CV relationship derived for a vulnerability function is used to compute the uncertainty to
associate with the computed MDR.
V-1.4 Summarize site inspections, including the source, and a brief description of the resulting
use of these data in development, validation, or verification of vulnerability functions.
RMS has conducted post-event reconnaissance missions for the hurricanes listed in Table 11.
Typically, immediately after a hurricane makes landfall, teams of two or three wind and/or structural
engineers are deployed to areas affected by the storm to collect information necessary to a ssess the
extent and nature of the damage and to provide qualitative insights into the overall performance of the
building stock.
The primary objective of the reconnaissance teams deployed immediately after a storm makes landfall
is to provide a real-time, first-hand assessment of the severity of the damage in different areas and to
different building types, and to identify the primary causes of the damage. It is critical that the
reconnaissance teams conduct these initial field inspections quickly and tho roughly immediately after
the storm makes landfall in order to document the damage before it is cleaned up or concealed. For
example, building owners typically start cleaning up their properties within days of an event and once
the debris is removed, any evidence of poor construction practices is lost. Similarly, once tarps are
placed on leaking roofs, it is difficult to assess the true extent of the roof damage caused by a storm.
The data collected during these reconnaissance missions is used by RMS in two ways. First, it is
provided to RMS’ catastrophe response team, who uses this information, in conjunction with modeled
loss estimates based on reported wind speeds for the storm, to develop an estimate of the overall
industry loss and its geographic extent. This estimate is then provided to RMS’ clients to help them
better manage their response to the event (e.g., to help them set appropriate reserve amounts and
®
94
manage the deployment of their claims adjusters). The second use of the data collected during th ese
reconnaissance missions is to suggest and guide any modifications to the vulnerability functions for the
affected region. For example, the severity of the roof damage caused by Hurricane Ike noted by RMS’
reconnaissance teams was greater than expected for the wind speeds recorded during the storm. In
response to this observation, RMS convened a workshop of roof engineers to better understand the
reasons for the poor performance of the roofs in Texas and whether or not similar problems exist
elsewhere in the U.S. The conclusions drawn from this workshop were incorporated into the
2011 U.S. Hurricane Model.
Table 11: Post-Storm Reconnaissance Missions Conducted by RMS
Hurricane/Typhoon Year Region

Opal 1995 Florida
Erin 1995 Florida
Marilyn 1995 Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico
Fran 1996 North Carolina
Bonnie 1998 North Carolina
Georges 1998 U.S. Gulf Coast, Puerto Rico
Floyd 1999 North Carolina
T. Paka 1997 Guam
Fabian 2003 Bermuda
Isabel 2003 North Carolina, Virginia
Charley 2004 Florida
Frances 2004 Florida
Ivan 2004 Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana
Jeanne 2004 Florida
Dennis 2005 Florida
Katrina 2005 Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana
Rita 2005 Texas
Wilma 2005 Florida
Gustav 2008 Louisiana
Ike 2008 Texas
V-1.5 Describe the research used in the development of the model’s vulnerability functions,
including any unknown construction classification utilized.
The vulnerability functions are developed on the basis of structural and wind engineering prin ciples
coupled with analyses of historical storm loss data, building codes and published studies.
The RMS Component Vulnerability Model is based on the methodology outlined by Professors Dale
Perry and Norris Stubbs of Texas A&M University (Stubbs et al. 1995). This methodology has been
augmented by internal research by RMS staff, and has been published by RMS staff (Khanduri 2003).
References used by RMS for developing the vulnerability functions include references listed in
Disclosure G-1.4 including: Davenport et al. (1989), Hart (1976), Liu et al. (1989), McDonald (1986,
®
95
1990), Mehta (1983, 1992), Minor (1979), Cook (1985), Sparks (1988, 1990, 1993), Stubbs (1993),
Zollo (1993), Skerlj (2004), FEMA (2005a, 2005b, 2006a, 2006b, 2009) , IBHS (2007, 2009, 2010), and
Gurley (2006).
RMS has used historical storm loss data and research from the 2004/2005 storm seasons as well as
the work from Sparks and Bhinderwal (1993) from Clemson University, in calibration of the vulnerability
functions, as well as other loss data obtained from RMS clients.
When construction class is unknown, as described in Disclosure V-1.10, the model creates a composite
curve based on a building inventory distribution. The Florida inventory dis tributions are based on an
extensive building specific attribute database compiled by RMS from third party data sources and RMS
in-house research.
V-1.6 Describe the categories of the different vulnerability functions. Specifically, include
descriptions of the structure types and characteristics, building height, year of
construction, and coverages in which a unique vulnerability function is used. Provide the
total number of vulnerability functions available for use in the model for personal and
commercial residential classifications.
There are a total of 605 building vulnerability classes per vulnerability region. Each class has both
building and contents damage functions. The vulnerability classes depend on a combination of:
 Construction Material
 Building Height (number of stories)
 Building Occupancy
 Year Built
 Floor Area (single-family residential only)
 Region of State (vulnerability region)
Many of these functions are applicable to commercial building classes. Of the 605 per region, there are
256 that are applicable to the residential lines (including multi-family and manufactured homes). The
state of Florida is divided into four vulnerability regions that have their own unique set of functions. The
possible classifications for each of the six primary characteristics are listed in the following table.
®
96
Table 12: RMS Hurricane Primary Building Classification Options
Construction Class # of Stories Occupancy Year Band (FL)
Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Wood Frame 1 Single Family Pre 1995
Masonry 2-3 Multiple Family 1995-2001
Reinforced Concrete 4-7 Condo Unit Owner 2002 +later
Steel Frame 8-14 Condo Association (For MH only)
1 Pre 1976
Light Metal Frame 15+ Non-Residential
Mobile Home w/o Tie-Downs 1976-1994
Mobile Home with Tie-Downs 1995 + later
Floor Area Region

2
≤ 1,500 sq.ft. (≤139 m ) South FL inland (≥0.5 miles from coast)
2
1,500-2,500 sq.ft. (140 – 232 m ) South FL coastal (<0.5 miles from coast)
2
2,500-5,000 sq.ft. (233-464 m ) Central FL coastal (<0.5 miles from coast)
2
5,000 – 10,000 sq.ft. (465-929 m ) Rest of state
2
≥ 10,000 sq.ft (≥930 m )
1
There are multiple sub-categories of Non-Residential occupancy in the model that are not listed in detail here.
The various vulnerability classes were defined to allow for the grouping together of structures with
similar performance under wind loads.
V-1.7 Describe the process by which local construction and building code criteria are
considered in the model.
The model represents local construction and building code criteria via two mechanisms—vulnerability
regions and vulnerability functions for specific year bands. The changes in building codes and building
construction practices are modeled through vulnerability functions that vary by year of construction of
the building, and also region of the state (vulnerability regions). The vulnerability functions for different
year bands and different regions are reasonable and theoretically sound based on RMS research on
the changes of building code provisions and construction practices in Florida and across the U.S., as
well as the region’s experience with natural catastrophes.
V-1.8 Describe the development of the vulnerability functions for appurtenant structures,
contents, and time element.
Appurtenant structures are modeled separately using the same vulnerability functions as buildings.
The damage to contents is a function of the amount of damage to the building structure and in
particular damage to the roof, openings (i.e., windows and doors) and envelope (i.e., cladding). This
function depends on the building class and establishes the rate at which damage to contents
accumulates as a function of damage to the building structure. The hurricane model has separate
vulnerability functions for damage to contents associated with each of the hurricane building classes.
RMS has used actual loss data to calibrate the contents vulnerability functions.
®
97
The hurricane model has separate time element vulnerability functions. There is a time e lement
function for each occupancy class supported by the model. Time element vulnerability is related to the
building damage state. Time element losses consider only direct losses (i.e., expense paid to a policy
holder while the house is being repaired). RMS has used actual loss data to calibrate time element
vulnerability functions. Indirect losses are not separated from the actual loss data and therefore the
modeled functions include both direct and indirect loss to the building.
V-1.9 Describe the relationship between building structure and appurtenant structure
vulnerability functions.
Appurtenant structures are modeled separately using the same vulnerability functions as buildings.
V-1.10 Identify the assumptions used to develop vulnerability functions for unknown residential
construction types.
For a specified occupancy type (e.g., single-family dwelling or commercial residential), the loss cost for
an unknown residential construction type is computed using a composite vulnerability function that is a
weighted average of the vulnerability functions corresponding to unique combinations of height, year
built, and construction class for the specified occupancy type. The weight applied to each vulnerability
function included in the composite curve is specified by the inventory distribution for the location of the
building and is dependent on the occupancy type. The Florida inventory distributions implemented in
RiskLink are specified by ZIP Code and are based on an extensive industry database compiled by RMS
within the last few years by reviewing insurance exposure data and studying aerial and satellite
imagery.
V-1.11 Identify the assumptions used to develop vulnerability functions for commercial
residential construction types.
1. It is assumed that two unrelated entities have insurable interests in commercial residential
properties. The nature of the insured interests held by these entities depends on the type of
commercial residential property as follows:
a. For condominium or townhouse complexes in which the units are owned by different
individuals, the home owner’s association holds title to the building envelope and common
areas and contents while the unit owners hold title to the interior space of their units and any
personal belongings.
b. For apartment buildings in which the units are rented from the building owner, the building
owner holds title to the structure and any contents in the common areas of the building, while
the renters hold title to their personal belongings.
2. The building and contents vulnerability functions for the insured interests of the entities identified
above are derived under the assumption that the building envelope must be breached before the
interior spaces or contents contained within are damaged.
3. It is assumed that the contents vulnerability functions for all entities identified above are the same,
reflecting the fact that the contents held by these different entities are similar in nature.
®
98
V-1.12 Describe any assumptions included in vulnerability function development and validation
concerning insurance company claim payment practices including the effects of
contractual obligations on the claim payment process.
The underlying assumption is that future claims practices will be the same as the claims practices that
were in effect at the time that the historical losses used in the model development and validation were
paid.
V-1.13 Demonstrate that vulnerability function relationships by type of coverage (structures,

appurtenant structures, contents, time element) are consistent with actual insurance data.
RMS has used actual insurance data to validate the vulnerability functions used to represent structure,
contents, time element and appurtenant structure losses.
Comparisons of structure vulnerability functions with actual insurance data are shown in
Disclosure V-1.14. Figure 27 shows representative comparisons of contents and time element
vulnerability functions with samples of contents and time element insurance claims, respectively.
Figure 28 shows a representative comparison for appurtenant structure insurance claims.
Contents Time Element

100 100
10 10
1 1
MDR (%)
MDR (%)
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
Company 1 Company 1
Company 2 Company 2
0.001 0.001
0.0001 0.0001
Peak Gust (mph) Peak Gust (mph)
(solid line) versus Peak Gust Wind Speed for Contents and Time Element Losses
100
10
MDR (%)
0.1
Company 2
Company 1
0.01
Peak Gust (mph)
(solid line) versus Peak Gust Wind Speed for Appurtenant Structure Losses
99
V-1.14 Demonstrate that vulnerability function relationships by construction type are consistent
with actual insurance data.
Frame, masonry, and mobile home vulnerability curves reflect the actual hurricane loss data upon
which the curves are largely based. The following figure illustrates the relationship between ob served
losses and the model’s damage functions.
®
100
(a) Wood Frame
(b) Masonry
(c) Mobile Homes
Figure 29: Observed Damage Ratio (dots and triangles) and Modeled Mean Damage Ratio (MDR)
(solid line) versus Peak Gust Wind Speed
®
101
V-1.15 Identify the one-minute average sustained windspeed at which the model begins to
estimate damage.
The model begins to estimate losses at one-minute sustained wind speeds above 42 mph.
V-1.16 Describe how the duration of wind speeds at a particular location over the life of a
hurricane is considered.
The model does not explicitly consider the duration of wind speed at a particular location over the life of
a hurricane. There is a general consensus among experts that for extreme wind co nditions generated
by hurricanes, damage should be correlated to peak gust. However, RMS vulnerability functions are
based on observed losses during hurricanes. These observed losses include a variety of factors,
including duration of wind speeds above a certain threshold at which damage occurs due to fatigue
under repeated loading, and thus implicitly include wind duration effects.
V-1.17 Provide a completed Form V-1, One Hypothetical Event. Provide a link to the location of
the form here.
Form V-1: One Hypothetical Event
®
102
Vulnerability Standards V-2 Derivation of Contents and Time Element Vulnerability Functions
V-2 Derivation of Contents and Time Element Vulnerability

Functions
A. The relationship between the modeled building and contents vulnerability functions and
historical structure and contents losses shall be reasonable.
RMS develops and calibrates relationships between modeled building and content vulnerability
functions from actual loss data and as such the relationship between functions and historical losses is
reasonable.
B. Time element vulnerability function derivations shall consider the estimated time required
to repair or replace the property.
The time required to repair or replace a property used in the derivation of the time element vulnerability
functions is inferred from the ratio of the time element claims and exposure values reported by
insurance companies.
C. The relationship between the modeled building and time element vulnerability functions
and historical structure and time element losses shall be reasonable.
In a manner similar to contents, losses to time element coverages are dependent on the damage to the
structure. Time element loss ratios will be relatively small compared to structure loss ratios up to the
point where the structure is severely damaged resulting in the building being uninhabitable. In the RMS
Hurricane model, the time element vulnerability functions have been validated against actual coverage
specific loss data ensuring that the relationships between these vulnerability functions is consistent
with loss data.
D. Time element vulnerability functions used by the model shall include time element
coverage claims associated with wind, flood, and storm surge damage to the
infrastructure caused by a hurricane.
Since the time element model is calibrated with actual historic loss data, it implicitly includes claims
arising from damage to the infrastructure, to the degree to which they are included in the hist oric loss
data.
Direct flood damage to infrastructure is not calculated in the model; however, the impact on time
element losses due to storm surge damage to infrastructure was not excluded in calibrating time
element loss functions.
V-2.1 Describe the methods used in the model to develop vulnerability functions for contents
coverage associated with personal and commercial residential structures.
accumulates as a function of damage to the building structure. Content curves are derived from
structure curves for each of the hurricane building classes and are stored as separate vulnerability
functions. The development of stand-alone contents damage curves as described above provides a
separate mathematical representation of damage to contents in order to provide reasonable
representations of contents only policies and policies without contents coverage.
®
103
V-2.2 Describe the methods used to develop vulnerability functions for time element coverage
associated with personal and commercial residential structures. State whether the model
considers both direct and indirect loss to the insured property. For example, direct loss
could be for expenses paid to house policyholders in an apartment while their home is
being repaired. Indirect loss could be for expenses incurred for loss of power (e.g., food
spoilage).
The hurricane model has separate time element vulnerability functions. There is a time element
function for each occupancy class supported by the model. Time element vulnerabil ity is related to the
V-2.3 State the minimum threshold at which time element loss is calculated (e.g., loss is
estimated for structure damage greater than 20% or only for category 3, 4, 5 events).
Provide documentation of validation test results to verify the approach used.
Calculated time element losses are dependent on the structure damage, starting at the same threshold
as building damage. The minimum threshold of time element loss is based upon an analysis of
coverage specific claims data as explained in response to Disclosure V-2.2. Validation tests on claims
data has been used to verify the approach of starting time element loss at the threshold of building
damage. From claims data reviewed from Hurricane Andrew less than 0.1% of ALE claims were
associated with no structure coverage claim.
ALE Damage Ratio
Structure Damage Ratio
Figure 30: Relative Structure and Additional Living Expense (ALE) Damage Ratios:
Actual Claims Data
®
104
V-2.4 Describe how modeled time element loss costs take into consideration the damage
(including damage due to storm surge, flood, and wind) to local and regional
infrastructure.
Modeled time element loss costs include direct losses only—expense paid to a policyholder while the
house is being repaired. However, the impact of storm surge damage to infrastructure on time element
losses was not excluded in calibrating wind-based time element loss functions. Local and regional
infrastructure damage is also considered in RMS’ PLA methodology (see Standard A-3).
V-2.5 Describe the relationship between building structure and contents vulnerability functions.
Losses to contents are dependent on the damage to the structure. From an engineering standpoint,
losses to contents will be relatively small in comparison to structure losses until the envelope of the
structure is breached. At that point, both structure and contents damage will quickl y escalate with
increasing wind speeds with the contents damage curve approaching that of the structure as wind
speeds increase.
V-2.6 Describe the relationship between building structure and time element vulnerability
functions.
Time element functions are proportional to the effective down time (EDT) of a structure, which is
computed as a function the physical damage state of the structure. The ratio of time element mean
damage ratios to structure mean damage ratios is small at low building damage ratios and increases
with increasing building damage ratio.
®
105
Vulnerability Standards V-3 Mitigation Measures
V-3 Mitigation Measures

A. Modeling of mitigation measures to improve a structure’s wind resistance and the
corresponding effects on vulnerability shall be theoretically sound and consistent with
fundamental engineering principles. These measures shall include fixtures or
construction techniques that enhance the performance of the structure and its contents
and shall consider:
 Roof strength
 Roof covering performance
 Roof-to-wall strength
 Wall-to-floor-to-foundation strength
 Opening protection
 Window, door, and skylight strength
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model supports modification of the base vulnerability functions
through the application of secondary modifiers developed using the component vulnerability model. The
modifiers can be building-characteristic specific (e.g., improved roof sheathing or anchors) or external
(e.g., storm shutters). These characteristics must be specifically selected by the user. The default case
is to not include any modifiers. If modifiers are selected they are clearly identified in the input files and
output reports. The secondary modifiers available in the model include the fixtures or construction
techniques required in the standard and are listed in Table 13.
B. Application of mitigation measures that enhance the performance of the structure and its
contents shall be justified as to the impact on reducing damage whether done individually
or in combination.
Mitigation measures impact both the mean damage ratio (MDR) and the coefficient of variation (CV) of
the damage ratio. The application of mitigation measures is reasonable when applied both individually
and in combination.
V-3.1 Provide a completed Form V-2, Mitigation Measures – Range of Changes in Damage.
Provide a link to the location of the form here.
Form V-2: Mitigation Measures – Range of Changes in Damage
Form V-2 has been calculated using zero deductible structural losses only on $100,000 base structure
wood frame and masonry buildings as described in Form V-1.
V-3.2 Provide a description of the mitigation measures used by the model that are not listed in
Form V-2.
RMS has added two additional mitigation options to Form V-2.
 Using 10d nails at a high wind schedule (HWS) to tie the wood deck down at spacing of 6‖ edge
and 6‖ field nailing on a typical piece of plywood.
 Using 8d nails at a high wind schedule (HWS), which is using a spacing of 6‖ edge and 6‖ field
nailing on a typical piece of plywood. (Note: we have assumed that the given 8d nails option
corresponds to 8d nails at the standard 6‖/12‖ pattern.)
®
106
In addition to the mitigation measures listed in Form V-2, the RMS model also provides other mitigation
measures which have not been included in Form V-2:
 Options for the Fortified for Safer Living Program, and the Fortified for Existing Homes program as
defined by the Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS)
 Options for retrofitting flashing and coping
The following table lists all the secondary modifier options available in the model. Only modifiers
relevant to wind hazard for residential occupancy are presented here; option numbers within a modifier
are not necessarily consecutive as a result.
®
107
Table 13: RMS Secondary Characteristic Options in North Atlantic Hurricane Model
Characteristic Options Notes

2–Construction Quality 0-Unknown Buildings with poor
1-Obvious signs of duress or distress construction quality will suffer
more losses than buildings
2-Fortified for Existing Homes, Bronze, Option 1
with certified design and
(US Only)
construction.
3-Fortified for Existing Homes, Bronze, Option 2 New options are introduced to
(US Only) account for the Institute for
4-Fortified for Existing Homes, Silver, Option 1 Business and Home Safety
(US Only) (IBHS) hurricane risk
5-Fortified for Existing Homes, Silver, Option 2 mitigation programs.
(US Only)
6-Fortified for Existing Homes, Gold , Option 1
(US Only)
7-Fortified for Existing Homes, Gold , Option 2
(US Only)
8-Fortified for Safer Buildings – [Post 2001] (US
Only)
9-Certified design & construction
4–Roof Covering 0-Unknown Damage is directly correlated
1-Metal sheathing with exposed fasteners to the type of roof covering
material used on the building.
2-Metal sheathing with concealed fasteners
3-Built-up roof or single-ply membrane roof with
the presence of gutters
4-Built-up roof or single-ply membrane roof
without the presence of gutters
5-Concrete/clay tiles
6-Wood shakes
7-Normal shingle (55 mph)
8-Normal shingle (55 mph) with Secondary Water
Resistance (SWR)
9-Shingle rated for high wind speeds (110 mph)
10-Shingle rated for high wind speeds (110 mph)
with SWR
6–Roof Age / Condition 0- Unknown Older roofs will suffer more
1- 0-5 years loss than newer roofs.
2- 6-10 years
3- 11 years or more
4- Obvious signs of duress and distress
7–Roof Geometry 0-Unknown Roof geometry directly impacts
1-Flat roof with parapets the type of wind forces a roof
is likely to experience. Flat
2-Flat roof without parapets
roofs are more likely to
3-Hip roof with slope less than or equal to 6:12 experience more loading than
(26.5 degrees)
®
108

4-Hip roof with slope greater than 6:12 (26.5 hipped or high-pitched roofs.
degrees)
5-Gable roof with slope less than or equal to 6:12
(26.5 degrees)
6-Gable roof with slope greater than 6:12 (26.5
degrees)
7-Braced gable roof with slope less than or equal
to 6:12 (26.5 degrees)
8-Braced gable roof with slope greater than 6:12
(26.5 degrees)
9–Roof Anchor 0-Unknown The strength of roof anchorage
1-Toe nailing / No anchorage has a direct impact on the
damageability of the building
2-Clips
envelope. Stronger roof
3-Single wraps anchors provide more
4-Double wraps resistance against wind forces.
5-Structural
10–Roof Equipment 0-Unknown If the equipment anchorage is
Hurricane Bracing 1-Properly installed with adequate anchorage not adequate it can
compromise the roof’s
2-Obvious signs of deficiencies in the installation
integrity.
12–Commercial 0-Unknown Commercial appurtenant
Appurtenant Structures 1-Large signs structures include large signs
and extensive ornamentation
2-Extensive ornamentation
that can shake loose from
either the roof or structural
elements of the building.
13–Cladding Type 0-Unknown Various types of claddings
1-Brick veneer provide various degrees of
resistance against wind loads.
2-Metal sheathing
If there is a combination of two
3-Wood or more cladding types used
4-EIFS / Stucco on the structure, select the one
of dominant use.
5-Designed for impact
6-Not designed for impact with gravel rooftop on
building or adjacent buildings within 1000 ft
7-Not designed for impact without gravel rooftop
on building or adjacent buildings within 1000 ft
8-Vinyl siding / Hardboard
14–Roof Sheathing 0-Unknown Roof sheathing is one of the
Attachment 1-Batten decking / Skipped sheathing main components of a
building. It helps keep the
2-6d nails – Any nail schedule
integrity of the building and is a
3-8d Nails – Minimum nail schedule major line of defense against
4-8d Nails – High wind nail schedule losses to building and contents
due to both wind and rain. The
5-10d Nails – High wind nail schedule
strength of sheathing depends
6-Dimensional lumber / Tongue & groove decking on the way it is attached to the
®
109

with a minimum of 2 nails per board roof rafters. This option
accounts for nail size and
spacing.
15–Frame-Foundation 0-Unknown A building properly connected
Connection 1-Bolted to its foundation can resist
wind loads more effectively,
2-Unbolted
especially at high wind speeds.
16–Residential Appurtenant 0-Unknown The presence of appurtenant
Structures 1-None structures, such as carports
and screen enclosures may
2-Fences / Carport
cause increased wind damage
3-Screen enclosure / Lanai (more than 15% of to the structure.
Bldg. value)
4-Screen enclosure / Lanai (less than 15% of
Bldg. value)
19–Opening Protection 0-Unknown Openings with poor wind
1-All openings designed for large missiles resistance can expose interior
building components and
2-All openings designed for medium missiles
contents to more wind and
3-All openings designed for small missiles water hazards than those with
4-All glazed openings designed for large missiles good wind resistance. In
general, ―glazed openings‖
5-All glazed openings designed for medium
refers to windows, and ―all
missiles
openings‖ refers to both doors
6-All glazed openings designed for small missiles and windows.
7-All glazed openings covered with
plywood/oriented strand board (OSB)
8-At least one glazed exterior opening does not
have wind-borne debris protection
9-No glazed exterior openings have wind-borne
debris protection
26–Flashing and Coping 0-Unknown Roof covering failures are
Quality 1-Compliant with ES1 often attributed to initial failure
of roof flashing and coping.
2-Not compliant with ES1
Note that modifiers related to surge are not shown in this list.
V-3.3 Describe how mitigation is implemented in the model. Identify any assumptions.
A series of modifiers and options for each modifier are available for the user to select. The base
(unmodified) vulnerability curves are adjusted based on modifier selections chosen by the user. The
modifier values vary by base vulnerability curve, modifier option, and wind speed. The modifier values
can decrease or increase the base vulnerability curves, depending on the modifier. The default setting
for each of the modifiers is ―unknown.‖ Therefore, if no modifier options are chosen the base (average)
vulnerability curve is utilized.
®
110
V-3.4 Describe the process used to ensure that multiple mitigation factors are correctly
combined in the model.
Users may change one or more mitigation factors from the unknown state based on specific attributes
for the modeled structure. The individual impact of single mitigation factors are combined together with
a multiplicative methodology to reflect the combined effect of different attributes which may increase or
decrease the loss. In addition, caps are placed on the maximum change evoked through the application
of many modifiers to prevent unrealistic values from being returned from the model. RMS has validated
the impact of multiple features through a variety of tests and comparisons to external publications ( i.e.,
FEMA 2009b, ARA 2008). RMS also considers how additional information changes the CV of the loss
estimates, and uses a probabilistic methodology to quantify the contribution of each of the mitigation
measures to the CV.
®
111
®
112
Actuarial Standards A-1 Modeling Input Data
ACTUARIAL STANDARDS
A-1 Modeling Input Data

A. When used in the modeling process or for verification purposes, adjustments, edits,
inclusions, or deletions to insurance company input data used by the modeling
organization shall be based upon accepted actuarial, underwriting, and statistical
procedures.
Any adjustments, edits, inclusions, or deletions to insurance company input used for model verification
are based upon accepted actuarial, underwriting, and statistical procedures and are documented in
writing.
Insurance company input data used in the modeling process contains information provided by the
company and RMS does not make any adjustments, edits, inclusions or deletions to the input data.
B. All modifications, adjustments, assumptions, inputs and/or input file identification, and
defaults necessary to use the model shall be actuarially sound and shall be included with
the model output report. Treatment of missing values for user inputs required to run the
model shall be actuarially sound and described with the model output report.
Input data to the RMS Hurricane model is explicitly provided by the user for each particular analysis.
The model assumes that inputs provided by the user reflect actual exposures. Specifically:
Insurance to Value
The model does not make any assumptions regarding insurance to value. The location value and
insurance limits are provided as separate input. No adjustments are made to these values within the
model.
Primary Characteristics
The model itself does not make adjustments for exposure characteristics unless the user is unable to
specify any of the primary characteristics or the specific location of the policy. If any of the primary
characteristics are unknown, the model defaults to a county level average mix of the unknown
characteristic(s).
Appurtenant Structures
Values of appurtenant structures for each location are a user input. The model does not make
assumptions regarding the value of appurtenant structures.
Contents
Contents limits and values are part of the user input. No assumptions are made within the model.
Additional Living Expenses (ALE)
ALE limits and values are part of the user input. The model assumes that the value represents one
year of ALE.
®
113
Insurer Exposures by ZIP Code
As part of the analysis process, each location analyzed is ―geocoded‖ (i.e., geographically positioned).
If the location does not geocode (for example, if a ZIP Code is invalid), the location is excluded from
the analysis. All locations that are not included in the analysis are easily identified. If the analysis is run
at ZIP Code level, the exposure is assumed to be distributed across the ZIP Code. Given that all
exposure information is provided as part of the user analysis input, this information can be summarized
and clearly identified as part of any rate filing submission. See the Analysis Summary Report in
Appendix F.
A-1.1 Identify depreciation assumptions and describe the methods and assumptions used to
reduce insured losses on account of depreciation. Provide a sample calculation for
determining the amount of depreciation and the actual cash value (ACV) losses.
RiskLink contains no assumptions regarding depreciation. To model actual cash value provisions, the
user must input the actual cash values instead of the replacement cost values into RiskLink.
Depreciation assumptions are made by the user prior to running Risk Link.
A-1.2 Identify insurance-to-value assumptions and describe the methods and assumptions used
to determine the true property value and associated losses. Provide a sample calculation
for determining the property value and guaranteed replacement cost losses.
RiskLink assumes that the value input into it is the true property value. Any assumptions regarding
insurance to value must be made by the user prior to running RiskLink.
RiskLink has separate inputs for values and limits. This provides the flexib ility to estimate policies with
or without guaranteed replacement cost coverage. For example, assume an insurer has a policy on its
books for a building with an insured value of $100,000. If the insurer assumes that this building is 10%
underinsured, the value input is $100,000 / (1-0.1) = $111,111. If the policy has guaranteed
replacement cost coverage, the limit input will also be $111,111. If the policy does not have guaranteed
replacement cost coverage, the limit input will be $100,000.
A-1.3 Describe the methods used to distinguish among policy form types (e.g., homeowners,
dwelling property, mobile home, tenants, condo unit owners).
Policy forms vary in their terms and conditions, and RiskLink can model these variable terms. The
modeling capabilities include variability in construction (several types of construction classes including
mobile homes), occupancy, coverages for building, contents and time element, or A, B, C, and D.
Given these variables as input, any combination or policy form can be mode led for either commercial or
personal lines.
A-1.4 Disclose, in a model output report, the specific type of input that is required to use the
model or model output in a residential property insurance rate filing. Such input includes,
but is not limited to, optional features of the model, type of data to be supplied by the
model user and needed to derive loss projections from the model, and any variables that a
model user is authorized to set in using the model. Include the model name and version
number on the model output report. All items included in the output form submitted to the
Commission shall be clearly labeled and defined.
All required input needed to derive loss projections from the model are clearly labeled and defined in
the Post Import Summary. All variables that a model user is authorized to set are clearly labeled and
defined in the Analysis Summary Report. See Appendix F for an example of both output reports.
®
114
The RiskLink model contains several optional features that are not part of the FCHLPM approval, such
as alternative rate sets reflecting ‖medium term‖ versus ‖historical‖ perspectives, and settings related to
storm surge modeling. All user modifiable model options are described in sets of model option profiles
called "DLM profiles"—to ensure that results from the certified version of the model are clearly labeled,
RMS provides a specified DLM profile, with approved settings, labeled "FCHLPM Certified Hurricane
Losses." Regulators may audit that FCHLPM approved model settings were used by verifying that the
field "DLM Profile Name" is set to "FCHLPM Certified Hurricane Losses" in the Analysis Summary
Report (Appendix F). The model settings corresponding to this certified profile are shown in Table 14
below:
Table 14: Model Settings Corresponding to the DLM Profile called "FCHLPM Certified Hurricane Losses"
Analysis Option Approved Setting Notes

Peril Windstorm
Region North Atlantic (including Hawaii) Florida is included in this region.
Analysis Mode / Type Distributed / Exceedance Probability
Event Rate Set RMS 2013 Historical Event Rates
Vulnerability Curves Vulnerability - Default Alternate vulnerability curves should
be used only for sensitivity analyses
only.
Assume 2% Deductible when Selected This option will cause any residential
UNKNOWN locations within the state of Florida,
with an unknown deductible, to
default to 2% of the structure value.
Calculate Losses from: Wind The storm surge option should NOT
be selected for ratemaking purposes
in the state of Florida.
Calculated loss amplification factors Building and Appurtenant Structures,
for: Contents, and Business Interruption /
Time Element
Scale Exposure Factors: Equal to 1.0 No exposure modification
Post analysis, users must apply Annual Deductible Factors to model output in order to convert average
annual loss and return period loss using occurrence-deductibles to average annual and return period
loss using annual-deductibles, as required by Florida Statute 627.701. The table of relevant Annual
Deductible Factors is provided with each software version. In order to demonstrate these factors have
been applied post analysis, users should complete a copy of the form included in Table 52 of Appendix
F.
A-1.5 Provide a copy of the input form used by a model user to provide input criteria to be used
in the model. Describe the process followed by the user to generate the model output
produced from the input form. Include the model name and version number on the input
form. All items included in the input form submitted to the Commission shall be clearly
labeled and defined.
Appendix E includes screen shots of the RiskLink user interface showing the location level user inputs.
All valid data input in this form is directly used in generating model output. The model name and
®
115
version number are accessible in the RiskLink user interface via the About RiskLink option under the
Help menu. The screen shot of this is also available in the Appendix E. All items in the RiskLink model
input forms are clearly labeled and defined.
A-1.6 Describe actions performed to ensure the validity of insurer data used for model inputs or
validation/verification.
The following validations are done during the import or while entering the data:
 Any location that does not geocode to a county level or more geographically detailed resolution will
not have any expected loss associated with it. If the user is unable to specify the ZIP Code, but is
able to specify the county, the model allocates the exposure to ZIP Codes within the county in
proportion to the appropriate exposure for the line of business under consideration. RMS does not
perform loss costs analyses for ratemaking purposes at the county level, and strong ly advises its
clients not to do so. Limits and deductibles must be greater than or equal to 0. The limits are
defaulted to the total value and deductibles default to 2% of Coverage A, respectively, if they are
not specified.
 The construction and occupancy classes default to unknown if the data is not present or is invalid
or if the scheme is not present or are invalid
 A location must have a building, appurtenant structure, contents, or ALE coverage specified or the
location will be excluded from the analysis.
 The percentage completion for all the locations must be between 0 and 100. The default value for
percentage completion is 100%.
 A location can have only one combined coverage (building plus contents).
 The value of the insured asset defaults to zero if not specified. If the currency type is not specified,
all monetary units are defaulted to the RiskLink system currency.
 All primary characteristics must be coded in order for secondary modifiers to be invoked.
 All hurricane secondary modifiers are defaulted to unknown if not specified.
 All policies must have a valid peril specified.
 All percentage entries in the user interface must be between 0 and 100.
 The number of buildings at a location defaults to 1.
 The square-footage of a building is defaulted to a weighted average of the four square-foot bands
when specified as unknown, based on an average square footage of 1,950 sq. ft. for single -family
residential structures.
The following additional validations are done to user-input addresses during geocoding:
 Street-level addresses are compared to a complete USPS database, weighing combinations of all
address elements (street name and number, city, ZIP Code, and state) to minimize incorrect
matches.
 ZIP Code level addresses are validated against a database that is organized by county and state,
to insure that matches are constrained to the proper geographic region.
®
116
Actuarial Standards A-2 Event Definition
A-2 Event Definition

A. Modeled loss costs and probable maximum loss levels shall reflect all insured wind
related damages from storms that reach hurricane strength and produce minimum
damaging wind speeds or greater on land in Florida.
The track and pressure of each tropical cyclone are modeled throughout its lifetime in the Atlantic basin
from genesis to decay. For the purposes of calculating losses, a storm is first considered when
maximum winds reach hurricane strength and damage is caused in Florida. From that point on, wind
speeds and losses are calculated regardless of whether maximum winds are greater than or less than
hurricane strength.
B. Time element loss costs shall reflect losses due to infrastructure damage caused by a
hurricane.
Time element loss costs reflect losses due to infrastructure damage caused by a hurricane.
A-2.1 Describe how damage from model generated storms (landfalling and by-passing) is
excluded or included in the calculation of loss costs and probable maximum loss levels
for the state of Florida.
The stochastic database contains events making landfall in the U.S. and by-passing storms. Losses
from by-passing storms are considered only once the storm reaches hurricane strength wind speeds
and causes loss in Florida. The wind speeds causing damage for that hurricane could be greater than
or less than hurricane strength, but the hurricane’s maximum winds must correspon d to at least
hurricane strength for the storm to be considered.
A-2.2 Describe how damage resulting from concurrent or preceding flood or hurricane storm
surge is treated in the calculation of loss costs and probable maximum loss levels for the
state of Florida.
Loss due to coastal flood or storm surge is not included in the calculations of loss costs or probable
maximum loss levels for structure or contents coverages.
®
117
Actuarial Standards A-3 Modeled Loss Cost and Probable Maximum Loss Considerations
A-3 Modeled Loss Cost and Probable Maximum Loss Considerations

A. Loss cost projections and probable maximum loss levels shall not include expenses, risk
load, investment income, premium reserves, taxes, assessments, or profit margin.
Neither loss cost projections nor probable maximum loss levels include expenses, risk load, investment
income, premium reserves, taxes, assessments or profit margin.
B. Loss cost projections and probable maximum loss levels shall not make a prospective
provision for economic inflation.
Neither loss cost projections nor probable maximum loss levels include any prospective provision for
economic inflation. Vulnerability functions project losses as a percentage of coverage values. Coverage
values are input by the user and no modifications are made within the program to account for economic
inflation.
C. Loss Cost Projections and probable maximum loss levels shall not include any provision
for direct hurricane storm surge losses.
Loss Cost Projections and probable maximum loss levels do not include any provision for direct
hurricane storm surge losses.
D. Loss cost projections and probable maximum loss levels shall be capable of being
calculated from exposures at a geocode (latitude-longitude) level of resolution.
RiskLink is capable of calculating loss cost projections and probable maximum loss le vels at a geocode
(latitude-longitude) level of resolution.
E. Demand surge shall be included in the model’s calculation of loss costs and probable
maximum loss levels using relevant data.
Following a major catastrophic event, claims costs can exceed the normal cost of settlement due to a
unique set of economic, social, and operational factors. Commonly called demand surge, these factors
are quantified using a methodology that RMS calls Post-event Loss Amplification (PLA). These factors
are included in the software, its loss costs, and its probable maximum loss levels.
F. The methods, data, and assumptions used in the estimation of demand surge shall be
actuarially sound.
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model’s treatment of demand surge is based on data, methods and
assumptions that are actuarially sound.
A-3.1 Describe the method or methods used to estimate annual loss costs and probable
maximum loss levels. Identify any source documents used and research performed.
Expected losses associated with each stochastic storm are multiplied by the annual rate of occurrence
for the corresponding storm. These are summed over all storms to determine the average annual loss.
Probable maximum loss levels are associated with exceedance probability (EP) curves. Occurrence
exceedance probability (OEP) curves provide information on the largest loss from a single occurrence
in a year and are generated from the event frequency distribution and the event severity distribution.
Aggregate exceedance probability (AEP) curves provide information on losses from the accumulation
®
118
of all events in a year and are generated using the Fast Fourier Transform methodology described in
Robertson (Proceedings of the Casualty Actuarial Society, Vol. LXXIX, 1992 ).
As explained in the response to Disclosure G-1.2, beta distributions are fitted to each stochastic event
which are used to obtain the severity distribution that describes the distribution of the size of losses,
given that an event has occurred. A Poisson distribution is used for event frequency with the mean
frequency obtained as the sum of all the event rates. The OEP curve is calculated on an occurrence
basis and is obtained from the severity distribution along with the overall mean frequency. The AEP
curve is calculated on an aggregate basis, showing the probability that aggregate losses in a year (the
sum of losses from all occurrences in a year) will be greater than a given loss threshold. Thus, multiple
occurrences in a year are considered for which the severity distribution is convolved as many times as
occurrences may happen in a year. Model output statistics are provided for various financial
perspectives. Gross losses are net of primary company deductibles, as demonstrated in the response
to Disclosure A-4.1. In addition to these perspectives, the model includes the capability for the model
user to include reinsurance terms that form the basis of information such as pure premium and
variability for treaty layers, which can be seen from either the ceding or assuming company
perspective.
A-3.2 Identify the highest level of resolution for which loss costs and probable maximum loss
levels can be provided. Identify all possible resolutions available for the reported output
ranges.
The table below shows RiskLink’s available resolutions.
Table 15: Geocoding Match Levels
Name Description
Coordinate Geocodes to the exact position of the property or structure. Requires prior
knowledge of the latitude/longitude coordinate pair.
Building Geocodes to the exact center of the building footprint.
Parcel Geocodes to the exact center of the Parcel boundaries for street-address
match.
Street The geocoder achieves a fine level of positional accuracy by interpolating the
location of the property along a street segment.
Postcode The geocoder places the location on the centroid of the postal code (e.g.,
U.S. ZIP Code) in which it falls. In the U.S., postal code centroids are
population weighted to provide a better representation of exposure.
Populated-weighted centroids and geographic centroids are not usually the
same place.
County The geocoder validates the name of the county/state and sets both latitude
and longitude to zero.
®
119
A-3.3 Describe how the model incorporates demand surge in the calculation of loss costs and
probable maximum loss levels.
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model component that quantifies demand surge is called post-event
loss amplification (PLA). The PLA model has three major components that escalate loss following
major catastrophic events:
 ―Economic‖ demand surge (EDS)—Increase in the costs of building materials and labor costs as
demand exceeds supply. This factor has the biggest overall impact.
 Claims Inflation (CI)—Cost inflation due to the difficulties in fully adjusting claims following a
catastrophic event. For example, shortcuts such as setting a threshold loss amount under which
claims are simply paid with little to no investigation is a practice histori cally taken by insurers that
are overloaded with claims following a catastrophic event. Intuitively, the impact of this factor
varies with the estimated number of claims occurring for an event. Overall CI has a minor impact
compared to the other two PLA components.
 Super Catastrophe Scenarios—Coverage and loss expansion due to a complex collection of
factors such as containment failures, evacuation effects, and systemic economic downturns in
selected urban areas. This factor has an impact for high return period events striking earthquake
and hurricane exposed metropolitan areas. Primary escalation for super catastrophe events occurs
with respect to BI losses.
Each of these PLA components has a different type of trigger and a unique loss escalation function that
quantifies actual aspects of loss amplification noted in historical catastrophe events. PLA factors are
quantified uniquely by coverage (building, contents, and BI/ALE) and are applied uniformly to all
ground up loss estimates on a per-storm basis before the application of any financial structures such
as deductibles, or limits.
A-3.4 Provide citations to published papers, if any, that were used to develop how the model
estimates demand surge.
There are references that address in very general terms economic theories of demand and supply with
applications to demand surge (for example, Dacy and Kunreuther, 1969). However, because of the lack
of research specific to this area, RMS is not aware of publicly published papers that specifically
address the topic of quantification of demand surge following natural disasters and therefore none have
been referenced.
®
120
Actuarial Standards A-4 Policy Conditions
A-4 Policy Conditions

A. The methods used in the development of mathematical distributions to reflect the effects
of deductibles and policy limits shall be actuarially sound.
The methods used in the development of mathematical distributions to reflect the effects of
deductibles, policy limits, and coinsurance are actuarially sound.
B. The relationship among the modeled deductible loss costs shall be reasonable.
The relationship among the modeled deductible loss costs is reasonable.
C. Deductible loss costs shall be calculated in accordance with s. 627.701(5)(a), F.S.
Deductible loss costs are calculated in accordance with s. 627.701(5)(a), F.S.
A-4.1 Describe the methods used in the model to treat deductibles (both flat and percentage),
policy limits, replacement costs, and insurance-to-value when estimating projecting loss
costs.
RiskLink uses a distributed approach for estimating losses net of deductibles and limits for each event.
When projecting losses, RiskLink considers not only the mean damage ratio, but also the loss
distribution around the mean. It does this by fitting a beta distribution by way of matching the first two
moments of the distribution. The loss net of deductible and limit is calculated considering the pdf of the
loss distribution between these two quantities as indicated in the example below.
D L
Loss net of deductible and limit =  x  D f ( x)dx  L1  F ( D  L)
D
where x = ground-up loss
D = deductible
L = limit
f(x) = pdf of the ground-up loss
F(x) = cdf of the ground-up loss
RiskLink computes the loss as a percentage of the property values, which are input parameters. The
insured value is assumed to be the same as the property value unless a different insured value is input.
If the insured value is lower than the property value, the insured value is treated as a limit to the
insurer’s liability.
RiskLink assumes that the property value input into it is the true property value. Any ass umptions
regarding insurance to value must be made by the user prior to running RiskLink.
RiskLink has separate inputs for values and limits. This gives it the flexibility to estimate policies with or
without guaranteed replacement cost coverage. For example, assume an insurer has a policy on its
books with an insured value of $100,000. If the insurer assumes that this policy is 10% underinsured,
®
121
Actuarial Standards A-4 Policy Conditions
the value input is $100,000 / (1 – 0.1) = $111,111. If the policy has guaranteed replacement cost
coverage, the limit input will also be $111,111. If the policy does not have guaranteed replacement cost
coverage, the limit input will be $100,000.
A-4.2 Provide an example of how insurer loss (loss net of deductibles) is calculated. Discuss
data or documentation used to confirm or validate the method used by the model.
Table 16: Example of Insurer Loss Calculation
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)=(A)*(D) (I)

Mean Loss Net of
Building Policy Coefficient of Ground Up
Deductible Damage α β Deductible
Value Limit Variation Loss
Ratio and Limit
100,000 90,000 2% 1.5% 4.184 0.041 2.716 $1,497.57 $1,224.68
In Table 16  and  are the parameters of a beta distribution with a mean of 1.5% and a co efficient of
variation of 4.184.
The calculation of the loss net of deductibles as shown in the formula in Disclosure A-4.1 is based on
actuarial theory of deductibles and limits. See Hogg and Klugman, 1984. The distributions of the lo sses
given that an event has occurred are validated using engineering studies and claims data.
Additional refinements to insurer gross loss due to deductibles and/or limits may be effective when
more than one limit and/or deductible is applicable, such as when there are limits on individual
locations as well as a policy limit in a multi-location policy.
A-4.3 Describe how the model calculates annual deductibles.
The approach is to estimate the loss net of the deductible for each event in the year times the
probability that there are that many occurrences.
th
Let Nk = loss net of the deductible for the k event in the year.
And let p(k) = probability that there are exactly k events in the year.
Then the projected loss cost net of the deductible is  Nk p(k).

k1
The values of the Nk’s depend on k. For example, if k = 1, then Nk is calculated using the full deductible
amount. If k = 2, then Nk is calculated using the amount of the deductible left over after the first
occurrence.
®
122
Actuarial Standards A-5 Coverages
A-5 Coverages
A. The methods used in the development of contents loss costs shall be actuarially sound.
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model’s treatment of contents damage is derived from and reflects
the relationships apparent in the data and is actuarially sound.
B. The methods used in the development of time element coverage loss costs shall be
actuarially sound.
In the RMS Hurricane model, time element losses include only factors that are hurricane related, are
theoretically sound, and consider the time to repair the structure. Time element losses are determined
based upon the estimated damage to the structure. Additionally, time element loss functions have been
calibrated/validated with actual hurricane event ALE/BI coverage losses.
A-5.1 Describe the methods used in the model to calculate loss costs for contents coverage
associated with personal and commercial residential structures.
accumulates as a function of damage to the building structure.
The hurricane model has separate vulnerability functions for damage to contents associated with each
of the hurricane building classes.
A-5.2 Describe the methods used to develop loss costs for time element coverage associated
with personal and commercial residential structures. State whether the model considers
both direct and indirect loss to the insured property. For example, direct loss could be for
expenses paid to house policyholders in an apartment while their home is being repaired.
Indirect loss could be for expenses incurred for loss of power (e.g., food spoilage).
The hurricane model has separate time element vulnerability functions. There is a time element
function for each occupancy class supported by the model. Time element vulnerability is related to the
®
123
Actuarial Standards A-6 Loss Output
A-6 Loss Output

A. The methods, data, and assumptions used in the estimation of probable maximum loss
levels shall be actuarially sound.
The methods, data, and assumptions used in the estimation of probable maximum loss levels are
actuarially sound.
B. Loss costs shall not exhibit an illogical relation to risk, nor shall loss costs exhibit a
significant change when the underlying risk does not change significantly.
Loss costs generated by RMS do not show an illogical relation to risk nor do they exhibit a significant
change when the underlying risk does not change significantly.
C. Loss costs produced by the model shall be positive and non-zero for all valid Florida ZIP
Codes.
Loss costs produced by the model are positive and non-zero for all ZIP Codes.
D. Loss costs cannot increase as the quality of construction type, materials and
workmanship increases, all other factors held constant.
Loss costs do not increase as the quality of construction type, materials and workmanship increases,
all other factors held constant.
E. Loss costs cannot increase as the presence of fixtures or construction techniques

designed for hazard mitigation increases, all other factors held constant.
Loss costs do not increase as the presence of fixtures or construction techniques designed for hazard
mitigation increases, all other factors held constant. The model incorporates information related to
fixtures and construction techniques designed for hazard mitigation as secondary modifiers as
explained in Standard V-3. Details regarding these fixtures and construction techniques are input by
the user.
F. Loss costs cannot increase as the quality of building codes and enforcement increases,
all other factors held constant.
The model addresses building code quality and enforcement implicitly through vulnerability functions
that vary with different year bands and vulnerability regions of the state. L oss costs do not increase as
quality increases.
G. Loss costs shall decrease as deductibles increase, all other factors held constant.
Loss costs decrease as deductibles increase, all other factors held constant.
H. The relationship of loss costs for individual coverages, (e.g., structures and appurtenant
structures, contents, and time element) shall be consistent with the coverages provided.
The relationship of loss costs for individual coverages is consistent with the coverages provided.
I. Output ranges shall be logical for the type of risk being modeled and deviations
supported.
Output ranges provided by RMS are logical.
®
124
J. All other factors held constant, output ranges produced by the model shall in general
reflect lower loss costs for:
a. masonry construction versus frame construction,
Output ranges derived from RMS’ model reflect lower loss costs for masonry construction as compared
to frame construction, all other factors held constant.
b. personal residential risk exposure versus mobile home risk exposure,
Output ranges derived from RMS’ model reflect lower loss costs for the residential risk exposure as
compared to mobile home risk exposure, all other factors held constant.
c. inland counties versus coastal counties, and
Output ranges derived from RMS’ model reflect lower loss costs for inland counties as compared to
coastal counties in general, all other factors held constant.
d. northern counties versus southern counties.
Output ranges derived from RMS’ model reflect lower loss costs for northern counties as compared to
southern counties in general, all other factors held constant.
K. For loss cost and probable maximum loss level estimates derived from or validated with
historical insured hurricane losses, the assumptions in the derivations concerning (1)
construction characteristics, (2) policy provisions, (3) coinsurance, (4) contractual
provisions, and (5) relevant underwriting practices underlying those losses, as well as any
actuarial modifications, shall be appropriate based on the type of risk being modeled.
As noted in Disclosure V-1.2, historical loss information is used in the development of the RMS
vulnerability functions. This information, including construction type, line of business, policy structure,
insured value, coinsurance and certain contractual provisions, is supplied directly to us by our clients
as part of the exposure information provided with claim information. The information is reviewed by
RMS and any peculiarities are clarified directly with the client. Underwr iting practices, and contractual
provisions not explicitly described in the exposure data are assumed to be representative of residential
insurance underwriting in general; that is, the vulnerability of property observed in historical events is
assumed to be indicative of vulnerability of such property types in future events where the property is
subjected to similar wind loads.
A-6.1 Provide a completed Form A-1, Zero Deductible Personal Residential Loss Costs by ZIP
Code. Provide a link to the location of the form here.
Form A-1: Zero Deductible Personal Residential Loss Costs by ZIP Code
A-6.2 Provide a completed Form A-2, Base Hurricane Storm Set Statewide Loss Costs. Provide a
link to the location of the form here.
Form A-2: Base Hurricane Set Statewide Loss Costs
A-6.3 Provide a completed Form A-3, Cumulative Losses from the 2004 Hurricane Season.
Form A-3: Cumulative Losses from the 2004 Hurricane Season
®
125
A-6.4 Provide a completed Form A-4, Output Ranges. Provide a link to the location of the form
here.
Form A-4: Output Ranges
A-6.5 Provide a completed Form A-5, Percentage Change in Output Ranges. Provide a link to the
location of the form here.
Form A-5: Percentage Change in Output Ranges
A-6.6 A completed Form A-6, Logical Relationship to Risk (Trade Secret item) shall be provided
during the closed meeting portion of the commission meeting to review the model for
acceptability.
The required form will be provided to the professional team during the on -site audit as well as the
closed portion of the commission meeting.
A-6.7 Provide a completed Form A-7, Percentage Change in Logical Relationship to Risk.
Form A-7: Percentage Change in Logical Relationship to Risk
A-6.8 Provide a completed Form A-8, Probable Maximum Loss for Florida. Provide a link to the
Form A-8: Probable Maximum Loss for Florida
A-6.9 Describe how the model produces probable maximum loss levels.
See the response to Disclosure A-3.1.
A-6.10 Provide citations to published papers, if any that were used to estimate probable
maximum loss levels.
See the response to Disclosure A-3.1.
A-6.11 Describe how the probable maximum loss levels produced by the model include the
effects of personal and commercial residential insurance coverage.
Probable maximum loss levels produced by the model are based on exposure and coverage
information that is input by the user. This input includes identification of personal or commercial
residential coverage.
A-6.12 Explain any differences between the values provided on Form A-8 and those provided on
Form S-2.
Form A-8 shows ground-up expected losses while Form S-2 shows gross expected losses.
A-6.13 Demonstrate that loss cost relationships among coverages, territories, and regions are
consistent and reasonable.
Loss costs relationships between coverages, territories, and regions genera ted by the hurricane model
are consistent and reasonable. The figures in Form A-1 show the variation in loss costs by ZIP Code.
See the response to Disclosure V-1.13 for a discussion of the relationship among coverages.
®
126
A-6.14 Provide an explanation for all anomalies in the loss costs that are not consistent with the
requirements of this Standard.
Loss costs are consistent with the requirements of this Standard with no anomalies.
A-6.15 Provide an explanation of the differences in output ranges between the previously
accepted submission and the current submission.
The differences are due to the following factors:
 The rates associated with the stochastic event set have been revised.
 Updates to the postal codes have been incorporated.
A-6.16 Identify the assumptions used to account for the effects of coinsurance on commercial
residential construction loss costs.
The underlying assumption is that the exposure information received with claims data accurately
represents the coinsurance provisions. The RiskLink financial model has specific logic to calculate
coinsurance provisions.
A-6.17 Describe how loss adjustment expenses are considered within the loss cost and probable
maximum loss level estimates.
RiskLink loss results do not include any loss adjustment expenses.
®
127
®
128
Statistical Standards S-1 Modeled Results and Goodness-of-Fit
STATISTICAL STANDARDS
S-1 Modeled Results and Goodness-of-Fit

A. The use of historical data in developing the model shall be supported by rigorous methods
published in currently accepted scientific literature.
RMS uses empirical methods in model development and implementation to match stochastic storm
generation to historical data. These methods are supported by those described in currently accepted
scientific literature and are outlined in Standards M-2 and M-3.
B. Modeled and historical results shall reflect statistical agreement using currently accepted
scientific and statistical methods for the academic disciplines appropriate for the various
model components or characteristics.
The results of the RMS model are checked at all stages of development to ensure that the stochastic
storm set includes physically realistic hurricanes and preserves the statistical characteristics of
historical data. In addition, vulnerability curves have been developed based largely on actual event
insured loss data.
Extensive comparisons using accepted scientific and statistical methods reflect good agreement
between modeled and historical data. The checks performed by RMS include goodness of fit test s for
the following:
 Central Pressure (CP)

 Maximum 1-minute sustained wind (V max)
 Translational Speed (also known as Forward Speed)
 Radius-to-maximum Winds (R max)
 Landfall Frequency
 Track crossing frequencies over a grid covering Florida
S-1.1 Identify the form of the probability distributions used for each function or variable, if
applicable. Identify statistical techniques used for the estimates and the specific
goodness-of-fit tests applied. Describe whether the p-values associated with the fitted
distributions provide a reasonable agreement with the historical data. Provide a
completed Form S-3, Distributions of Stochastic Hurricane Parameters. Provide a link to
Form S-3: Distributions of Stochastic Hurricane Parameters
A list of variables and the distributions RMS uses for each follows.
Central Pressure
Central pressure is modeled through the change in pressure along the tracks. The mean pressure
change varies in space and depends on several predictors. Deviations from the mean are assumed to
be Gaussian. Central pressure is re-calibrated at landfall to match the distribution of historical values
from HURDAT (Jarvinen et al. 1984.) RMS performed Kolmogorov-Smirnov and chi-square goodness-
of-fit tests for the cumulative distribution function of pressure at landfall. The corresponding p -values
show a reasonable agreement with the historical data.
®
129
Inland Filling Rate
The filling rate as hurricanes hit land follows a Gaussian distribution. The mean depends on several
predictors which describe the intensity, size and speed of the storm at landfall and other characteristics
such as the area of the storm over different types of terrain. The coefficients of the relationship are
estimated using least squares from synthetic storms created using the bogusing technique (Kurihara et
al. 1993). The model fitting, selection and validation are described in Colette et al. (2010). The
predictive power of the filling model is assessed using pressure time series over land from the
HURDAT dataset. Histograms of observed and simulated filling rates in Florida, as well as plots of
predicted pressure series over land for several historical hurricanes, show good agreement between
model and data.
Maximum 1-Minute Sustained Winds (equivalent over water)
RMS uses a lognormal distribution for V max. The mean of V max depends on pressure difference (FFP-
CP) and latitude, with the coefficients of the relationship estimated using HURDAT over -water data. A
further calibration step ensures that the V max distributions by landfall region reproduce well the
historical distributions from HURDAT (1900-2011). RMS performed Kolmogorov-Smirnov and chi-
square goodness-of-fit tests for the cumulative distribution function of V max at landfall. The
corresponding p-values show a reasonable agreement with the historical data.
Track Translational Speed and Heading
Translational speed and storm heading are derived from the zonal and meridional track steps. The
mean steps in both directions are location dependent and estimated from historical tracks in HURDAT.
Deviations from the mean are assumed to be Gaussian with variances, autocorrelations and cross -
correlations that are also location dependent and estimated by smoothing historical d ata. All length-
scales involved in the smoothing weights are estimated using leave -one-out cross-validation (Hall and
Jewson, 2007). RMS performed Kolmogorov-Smirnov and chi-square goodness-of-fit tests for the
cumulative distribution function of translational speed at landfall. The corresponding p-values show a
reasonable agreement with the historical data. The storm heading is validated using histograms by
landfall segment.
Radius to Maximum Winds
RMS uses a lognormal distribution, truncated on the right side according to the storm category by
pressure. The mean is a function of central pressure and latitude, the coefficients of the relationship
being estimated using the extended best track dataset (Demuth et al. 2006). RMS performed
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and chi-square goodness-of-fit tests for the cumulative distribution function of
Rmax at landfall. The p-values for these tests showed a reasonable agreement with the historical data.
Wind Profile Parameters
The parameters X1 and N, which govern the shape of the wind field inside and outside the eye, are
modeled as Gamma random variables. The means depend on previous values of X1 and N
respectively, and on R max and translational speed. The coefficients of the model are estimated via
iteratively reweighted least squares using H*Wind data (Powell et al. 2010). The modeled distributions
for these parameters are validated by comparing histograms of various wind radii to the observed
equivalents.
®
130
The position of V max with respect to the track is described by the wind profile parameter A max, which is
assumed to follow a truncated Gaussian distribution. The mean depends on translational speed, R max
and previous values of A max. The standard deviation depends on translational speed. A histogram of
observed and stochastic Amax values is shown in Figure 39.
The coefficients corresponding to the 4 EOFs described in Disclosure G-2.1 are assumed to follow an
autoregressive model of order 1.
Storm Frequency
RMS uses a Poisson frequency distribution with storm specific mean. The means of these distributions
are calibrated towards the smoothed numbers of landfalls by coastal segment in the full historical set.
RMS has performed the conditional chi-square and Neyman-Scott tests. RMS also performed a chi-
square goodness-of-fit test to compare the modeled and historical landfall distributions over different
sub-regions and intensities. The p-values show overall reasonable agreement.
Completed Form S-3 is provided at Form S-3: Distributions of Stochastic Hurricane Parameters.
S-1.2 Describe the nature and results of the tests performed to validate the wind speeds
generated.
Wind speeds have been extensively validated against station data (from NOAA, Flo rida Coastal
Monitoring Program, and Texas Tech University) over land, and H*Wind and buoy data (from the
National Data Buoy Center) over water. The modeled wind speeds are compared to observed data both
at specific time steps (snapshot comparisons) and in terms of the maximum achieved at each location
(footprint comparisons).
The example validations presented in this Section compare model and station data for several storms,
including Andrew (1992) and all the historical events from 2004 onward , at locations in Florida and a
buffer surrounding it. Observed and modeled wind speeds are 3-second peak gusts.
We tested for overall bias in the estimates by comparing the average modeled wind speed to the
average observed wind speed. This comparison shows a negligible over-estimate of less than 1 mph
over all footprints. The comparison gives similar results over all snapshots, indicating a very slight
over-estimate of less than 2 mph. The proportion of data points for which the modeled values are within
10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% of the observed wind speeds are shown in Table 17, for all footprints and all
snapshots.
Table 17: Portion of Modeled Wind Speeds within 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% of the Observed Value
Proportion of Data Points

Difference Range
Footprints Snapshots
± 10% 55% 58%

± 20% 81% 85%
± 30% 93% 95%
± 40% 99% 98%
®
131
Several graphical validations of observed versus modeled wind speeds are shown in Standard M-4,
including footprints with overlaid observations, as well as example modeled and observed time series
at several stations.
Additional graphical comparisons are shown in Figure 31. Figure 31(a) is a scatterplot of modeled
versus observed wind speeds for the footprints of Charley (2004), Katrina (2005) and Wilma (2005).
Observed and modeled snapshot data are compared in Figure 31(b) for Hurricane Wilma (2005). Both
scatterplots demonstrate a reasonable agreement between modeled and observed wind speeds.
(a) (b)
Figure 31: Modeled versus Observed Wind speeds (3-second Peak Gust)
S-1.3 Provide the date of loss of the insurance company data available for validation and
verification of the model.
The year of the loss is given below:
Hugo–1989
Bob–1991
Andrew–1992
Erin–1995
Opal–1995
Fran–1996
Georges–1998
Charley–2004
Frances–2004
Ivan–2004
Jeanne–2004
Wilma–2005
Ike–2008
®
132
S-1.4 Provide an assessment of uncertainty in loss costs for output ranges using confidence
intervals or other accepted scientific characterizations of uncertainty.
The uncertainty analysis presented in the previous submission in Form S -6 identified far field pressure
(FFP) and central pressure (CP) as the main contributors to the uncertainty in loss costs, followed by
the radius to maximum winds (R max). Further analysis of the uncertainty in loss cost for output ranges
focuses on intensity and size, as previous submissions have shown the other parameters to contribute
considerably less to the total uncertainty. Since the maximum sustained wind (V max) depends on both
FFP and CP, this one parameter is used in this disclosure to assess the uncertainty in loss cost due to
uncertainty in intensity.
Figure 32 shows the uncertainty in loss costs for output ranges due to the uncertainty in V max. In the
figure, each point represents the average annual loss per $1,000 of exposure for a ZIP Code. V max is
set to ―Low‖ and ―High‖ values to obtain alternate loss costs, which are compared to the original loss es.
The 5% and 95% confidence bounds on the V max CDF are used to set the ―Low‖ and ―High‖ limits (the
99% confidence bounds are shown in Figure 35). The blue (purple) points show the ratio of alternate to
original loss costs when V max is set to ―Low‖ (―High‖) versus the loss cost resulting from the original
modeled V max.
Alternate Loss Cost/Modeled Loss Cost
Figure 32: Uncertainty in Loss Costs due to Vmax
The uncertainty in the loss costs for output ranges due to the uncer tainty in the R max cumulative
distribution function is shown in Figure 33. Each point represents the average annual loss per $1,000
of exposure for a ZIP Code. Rmax is set to ―Low‖ and ―High‖ values to obtain alternate loss costs for
®
133
comparison with the original losses. The 5% and 95% confidence bounds on the R max CDF are used to
set the ―Low‖ and ―High‖ limits (the 99% confidence bounds are shown in Figure 38). The blue (purple)
points show the ratio of alternate to original loss costs when R max is set to ―Low‖ (―High‖) versus the
loss costs corresponding to the original modeled R max.
Figure 33: Uncertainty in Loss Costs Due to Rmax
S-1.5 Justify any differences between the historical and modeled results using current accepted
scientific and statistical methods in the appropriate disciplines.
Historical and modeled results are in agreement according to currently accepted statistical methods.
®
134
S-1.6 Provide graphical comparisons of modeled and historical data and goodness-of-fit tests.
Examples include hurricane frequencies, tracks, intensities, and physical damage.
Intensity—Central Pressure, Vmax and Inland Filling Rate
Figure 34 shows a comparison of stochastic and observed central pressure distributions in Florida and
neighboring states. The observed and modeled cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) are shown in
black and red respectively. The gray area represents a pointwise 99% band around the modeled CDF.
Figure 34: Central Pressure Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF)
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test corresponding to the CDFs in the figure above produces a p -value of
94%. A chi-square test with eight cells produces a p-value of 83%. The historical data used for
comparison is from the HURDAT database landfall summary, as of November, 2011.
®
135
Figure 35 shows a similar comparison for V max.
Figure 35: Vmax Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF)
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test corresponding to the CDFs in the figure above produces a p -value of
70%. A chi-square test with eight cells produces a p-value of 57%. The historical data used for
comparison is from the HURDAT 6-hourly database as of November, 2011.
®
136
A graphical comparison for the inland filling rate is shown in Standard M-5, where the central pressure
series over land, normalized by the corresponding landfall pressures, are plotted for fast and slow
modeled filling in Florida, together with several historical cases. In addition, Figure 36 shows the
historical pressure series over Florida for Charley (2004; black line), together with the pressures
corresponding to the predicted filling rate (red), and the middle 50% (dark blue) and 90% (light blue)
simulated filling rates for this storm.
Figure 36: Pressure Time Series Over Land with Observed (black), Predicted (red) and Simulated
(dark blue for 50% and light blue for 90% bands) Filling Rate
®
137
Translational Speed and Heading
Figure 37 compares historical and modeled distributions of translational speed.
Figure 37: Translational Speed (Forward Speed) Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF)
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the translational speed produces a p-value of 23%, and a chi-square
test with eight equal cells produces a p-value of 48%. The historical data used for comparison is from
the HURDAT 6-hourly database as of November, 2011.
Histograms of historical and modeled storm heading for different coastal segments in Florida and
neighboring states are shown in Standard M-3.
®
138
Radius to Maximum Winds
Figure 38 shows a comparison of the observed and modeled R max distributions in Florida and
neighboring states.
Figure 38: Rmax Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF)
The reasonable agreement suggested by the figure above is confirmed by the goodness of fit test
results. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the radius of maximum winds produces a p-value of 87%, and
a chi-square test with eight equal cells produces a p-value of 83%. The historical data used for the
comparison covers the 1900 to 2011 period.
®
139
Wind Profile Parameters
The optimized Willoughby profile (see Disclosure M-4.1) prescribes the shape of the windfield outside
and inside the eye of the hurricane through parameters X1 (decay length parameter) and N (power law
parameter), respectively. X1 and N determine the modeled wind radii, which are validated against the
historical values from the extended best track dataset. Standard M-6 contains a graphical comparison
of observed and modeled histograms for radii of hurricane force winds. Figure 39 compares observed
(black) and modeled (red) distributions of A max, the wind profile parameter that describes the angle
between track and location of V max. The comparison is shown for the whole basin, rather than Florida
only, and uses H*Wind snapshots to derive the historical values.
Figure 39: Angle to Maximum Winds Histogram
The figure above shows the histograms of observed (black) and modeled (red) A max. A value of
0 radians corresponds to the location of V max being 90 degrees clockwise from the direction of storm
movement.
S-1.7 Provide a completed Form S-1, Probability and Frequency of Florida Landfalling
Hurricanes per Year. Provide a link to the location of the form here.
Form S-1: Probability and Frequency of Florida Landfalling Hurricanes per Year
S-1.8 Provide a completed Form S-2, Examples of Loss Exceedance Estimates. Provide a link to
Form S-2: Examples of Loss Exceedance Estimates
®
140
Statistical Standards S-2 Sensitivity Analysis for Model Output
S-2 Sensitivity Analysis for Model Output

The modeling organization shall have assessed the sensitivity of temporal and spatial
outputs with respect to the simultaneous variation of input variables using currently
accepted scientific and statistical methods in the appropriate disciplines and have taken
appropriate action.
RMS has assessed the sensitivity of temporal and spatial outputs with respect to the simultaneous
variation of input variables using currently accepted scientific and statistical methods and has taken
appropriate action.
S-2.1 Identify the most sensitive aspect of the model and the basis for making this
determination. Provide a full discussion of the degree to which these sensitivities affect
output results and illustrate with an example.
The most sensitive aspects of the model are the intensity and size of the hurricane at landfall,
specifically the far field pressure (FFP), central pressure (CP) and radius to maximum winds (R max) at
landfall. This determination was based on the results of the sensitivity analyses described in the
previous submission, in Form S-6. The standardized regression coefficients showed that for category 1
and 3 storms, losses are most sensitive to variations in FFP and CP. For category 5 hurricanes, losses
are mostly affected by changes in R max.
S-2.2 Describe how other aspects of the model may have a significant impact on the
sensitivities in output results and the basis for making this determination.
The filling rate (Alpha) has a significant impact on the sensitivities in output results, especially for more
intense storms. Translational speed and wind profile parameters have a lesser impact on the output.
This determination is based on the standardized regression coefficients pre sented in the previous
submission.
S-2.3 Describe and justify action or inaction as a result of the sensitivity analyses performed.
The results of the sensitivity analyses confirmed previous RMS research. Additionally, the sensitivity
study highlighted the importance of the filling rate, which is a model component that has been
extensively researched and revised prior to the last submission. No action was necessary after review
of the sensitivity results.
S-2.4 Provide a completed Form S-6, Hypothetical Events for Sensitivity and Uncertainty
Analysis. (Requirement for models submitted by modeling organizations which have not
previously provided the Commission with this analysis. For models previously found
acceptable, the Commission will determine, at the meeting to review modeling
organization submissions, if an existing modeling organization will be required to provide
Form S-6 prior to the Professional Team on-site review). If applicable, provide a link to the
Standards. No aspect of the model that would affect the results in Form S-6 has been changed.
®
141
Statistical Standards S-3 Uncertainty Analysis for Model Output
S-3 Uncertainty Analysis for Model Output

The modeling organization shall have performed an uncertainty analysis on the temporal
and spatial outputs of the model using currently accepted scientific and statistical
methods in the appropriate disciplines and have taken appropriate action. The analysis
shall identify and quantify the extent that input variables impact the uncertainty in model
output as the input variables are simultaneously varied.
RMS has performed an uncertainty analysis on the temporal and spatial outputs of the model using
currently accepted scientific and statistical methods and has taken appropriate action.
S-3.1 Identify the major contributors to the uncertainty in model outputs and the basis for
making this determination. Provide a full discussion of the degree to which these
uncertainties affect output results and illustrate with an example.
The major contributors to the uncertainty in model outputs are the intensity and size of the hurricane at
landfall, specifically far field pressure (FFP), central pressure (CP) and radius to maximum winds
(Rmax). FFP and CP are the main contributors to the uncertainty in loss costs for category 1 and
category 3 storms. For category 5 hurricanes, the input with the most impact on the uncertainty in the
model outputs is R max. This determination is based on the analyses described in the previous
submission, in Form S-6.
The large contributions of intensity and size of the storms at landfall on the uncertainty in the loss costs
is confirmed by Figure 32 and Figure 33. These figures summarize the changes in the loss costs by ZIP
that result from setting the maximum 1-minute sustained winds (V max) and R max to the 5% and 95%
limits on the respective cumulative distribution functions .
S-3.2 Describe how other aspects of the model that may have a significant impact on the
uncertainties in output results and the basis for making this determination.
The filling rate (Alpha) has a significant impact on the uncertainties in the output results, especially for
intense hurricanes, The basis for this determination are the expected percentage reductions (EPRs)
presented in the previous submission. Translational speed and wind profile parameters have a much
smaller impact on the uncertainties.
S-3.3 Describe and justify action or inaction as a result of the uncertainty analyses performed.
No action was necessary after reviewing the results of the uncertainty analyses. The results of these
analyses confirmed results described in previous submissions. Additionally, the un certainty analyses
highlighted the importance of the filling rate, which is a model component that has been extensively
researched and revised prior to the last submission.
S-3.4 Form S-6, if disclosed under Standard S-2, will be used in the verification of Standard S-3.
Standards. No aspect of the model that would affect the results in Form S-6 has been changed. .
®
142
Statistical Standards S-4 County Level Aggregation
S-4 County Level Aggregation

At the county level of aggregation, the contribution to the error in loss costs estimates
induced by the sampling process shall be negligible.
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane stochastic track set is based on approximately 100,000 years of
simulated time. The track paths and associated parameters are simulated and calibrated according to
the methods described in Standards M-2 and S-1. The number of storms is then reduced to a
representative sub-sample through a selection process described below. Loss convergence testing
verified that the county level error in loss cost estimates induced by the sampling process is negligible.
S-4.1 Describe the sampling plan used to obtain the average annual loss costs and output
ranges. For a direct Monte Carlo simulation, indicate steps taken to determine sample size.
For an importance sampling design, describe the underpinnings of the design.
The target for the storm selection process is the county level average annual loss, with additional
constraints to ensure that other loss criteria are met and the landfall distributions of the main physical
parameters are preserved. The procedure is iterative and can be described by the following steps:
1. Group storms according to their loss in different regions and their landfall parameters
2. Eliminate each storm in turn
a. Redistribute rate within appropriate bin
b. Calculate maximum percentage change in average annual loss over all counties
3. Choose storm that minimizes the cost function in 2b for deletion
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 as long as the target remains in a satisfactory range
®
143
Statistical Standards S-5 Replication of Known Hurricane Losses
S-5 Replication of Known Hurricane Losses

The model shall estimate incurred losses in an unbiased manner on a sufficient body of
past hurricane events from more than one company, including the most current data
available to the modeling organization. This Standard applies separately to personal
residential and, to the extent data are available, to commercial residential. Personal
residential experience may be used to replicate structure-only and contents-only losses.
The replications shall be produced on an objective body of loss data by county or an
appropriate level of geographic detail and shall include loss data from both 2004 and 2005.
The RMS model is able to reliably and without significant bias reproduce incurred losses on a large
body of past hurricanes, both for personal residential and commercial residential. Validations of known
storm losses have been performed in several ways, including:
For recent events, on an industry basis. The RMS model is able to reasonably reproduce aggregate
incurred industry losses in recent events.
For recent events, on a company-specific basis. The RMS model is able to reasonably reproduce
aggregate incurred losses for a diverse set of insurers.
For recent events, on a geographic and demographic basis. The RMS model is able to reasonably
reproduce the geographic spread of company specific losses, and the spread of losses between
various lines of business and between various types of coverages.
For less recent events, on an industry basis. The RMS model is able to reasonably reproduce
industry losses for less recent hurricanes, both in aggregate and on a broad geographic basis, for
3
which some level of industry loss data is available . 9F
S-5.1 Describe the nature and results of the analyses performed to validate the loss projections
generated by the model for personal and commercial residential separately. Include
analyses for the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons.
RMS has compiled reported loss information from industry sources at the time of key historical events.
The reported losses are normalized to the year 2011 with a methodology that accounts for increases in
cost of construction, growth of the building population, the change in building quality over time, and the
change in average living area per house from the time of the event until 2011. Comparisons are made
to modeled losses based on the RMS Industry Exposure Model.
In addition, insurance companies have supplied RMS with datasets containing the locations a nd
building types associated with coverage and loss amounts. These datasets have been run against
historical storms and the computed losses have been compared to the actual losses.
Figure 40 and Figure 41 show the results of representative samples of the comparative analyses that
have been performed.
3
From 1950 onwards, Property Claims Services (PCS) has tracked the aggregate industry losses from hurricanes. While these
estimates, particularly the older ones, are potentially unreliable and must be adjusted to reflect current demographic and economic
conditions, these older events do provide a means for checking potential bias in the model.
®
144
$50
Billions
$45 FL-OIR Estimate (1)
PCS Estimate (2)
$40
RMS Estimate (3)
$35
Gross Industry Loss ($) in 2011
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$-
4
Figure 40: Florida Industry Loss Estimates (Residential) for Recent Storms 10F
Table 18: Comparison of Actual and Estimated Industry Loss ($ million)
Storm Year PCS Estimate (2) FL-OIR Estimate (1) RMS Estimate (3)
Andrew 1992 38,883 - 38,175

Erin 1995 815 - 603
Opal 1995 3,168 - 1,343
Georges 1998 570 - 180
Charley 2004 7,646 10,238 8,602
Ivan 2004 5,039 2,659 1,355
Jeanne+Frances 2004 8,688 13,780 11,583
Wilma 2005 10,908 7,703 11,548
Katrina 2005 594 564 783
Dennis 2005 794 241 554
*See notes for Figure 40
4 Notes on Figure and Table:

(1) Estimates from Florida Office of Insurance Regulation report, ―Hurricane Summary Data: CY 2004 and CY 2005‖ from August
2006. Losses are normalized to 2011 values, represent residential lines, include demand surge and underreporting estimates, and
exclude loss adjustment expense.
(2) Property Claims Services estimate of losses. Losses for Florida are normalized to 2011 values, represent residential lines and
includes demand surge and excludes loss adjustment expense.
(3) RMS estimates for residential lines and are based on RMS Industry Exposure for 2011. Losses include demand surge and
exclude loss adjustment expenses.
Industry feedback indicates that Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne have been treated as one event from a claims and adjusting
standpoint due to the inability of claims and adjusters to differentiate loss between the two events
®
145
$1,000,000
Losses indexed such that Observed Loss*
$1M = maximum
company loss RMS Estimate*
Loss (Normalized to $1M)

$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
Company/Storm
*Loss includes demand surge but does not include loss adjustment expense.
Figure 41: Company Specific Loss Comparisons for Residential (RES) Structure Types
The following table shows a sampling of aggregated loss comparisons by company.
Table 19: Sample Client Loss Data Comparison

(Losses normalized such that maximum actual loss = $1,000,000)
Comparison Storm TIV* Actual Loss** Predicted Loss ** Ratio
A Andrew 17,496,000 1,000,000 908,796 0.91
B Charley 7,962,000 131,670 121,349 0.92
B Frances+Jeanne 68,468,000 180,632 142,107 0.79
C Charley 347,000 5,948 5,537 0.93
C Frances+Jeanne 2,352,000 5,896 5,080 0.86
D Charley 928,000 24,050 20,683 0.86
D Frances+Jeanne 7,451,000 27,321 20,646 0.76
E Charley 1,693,000 54,949 51,147 0.93
E Frances+Jeanne 48,269,000 140,340 101,361 0.72
F1 Charley 1,749,000 17,114 18,316 1.07
F1 Frances+Jeanne 16,097,000 64,280 54,230 0.84
F2 Charley 3,108,000 23,769 28,953 1.22
F2 Frances+Jeanne 21,448,000 31,030 42,432 1.37
G Wilma 9,491,000 97,056 162,659 1.68
H Wilma 22,652,000 219,822 213,071 0.97
*Abbreviation: Total Insured Value (TIV) **Includes demand surge
®
146
S-5.2 Provide a completed Form S-4, Validation Comparisons. Provide a link to the location of
the form here.
Form S-4: Validation Comparisons
®
147
Statistical Standards S-6 Comparison of Projected Hurricane Loss Costs
S-6 Comparison of Projected Hurricane Loss Costs

The difference, due to uncertainty, between historical and modeled annual average
statewide loss costs shall be reasonable, given the body of data, by established statistical
expectations and norms.
The difference between historical and modeled annual average statewide loss costs provided in this
year’s submission is statistically reasonable, given the bod y of data, by established statistical
expectations and norms.
S-6.1 Describe the nature and results of the tests performed to validate the expected loss
projections generated. If a set of simulated hurricanes or simulation trials was used to
determine these loss projections, specify the convergence tests that were used and the
results. Specify the number of hurricanes or trials that were used.
The losses produced by the set of stochastic storms have been compared to losses produced by
historical storms impacting Florida.
RMS has validated estimates by first comparing the modeled frequency of various storm characteristics
with the historic record. The number of modeled storms of various intensities making landfall in each of
the segments was compared to the historical record. For most region/category combinations, we found
a reasonable agreement.
The losses produced by the set of stochastic storms have been compared to losses produced by
historical storms impacting Florida. For example, historical and stoc hastic storm sets were compared in
terms of exceedance probability curves for industry level losses. In addition, the geographic
progression of loss costs by ZIP Code was reviewed for smoothness, consistency, and logical relation
to risk.
The RMS model contains 20,247 hurricanes that cause damaging winds in Florida. In order to ensure
that the set of stochastic storms is sufficient and converges, the county level standard errors for the
average annual loss have been checked to verify that the error in loss costs estimates induced by the
sampling process is negligible.
S-6.2 Identify and justify differences, if any, in how the model produces loss costs for specific
historical events versus loss costs for events in the stochastic hurricane set.
Available observed track paths, central pressure series, and over-water V max values are used to model
historical events. Other storm parameters are realizations of the same model used for the stochastic
set, with additional constraints derived from added wind field data, if available. Vulnerability and
financial modeling functions are identical for both stochastic and historic storms.
S-6.3 Provide a completed Form S-5, Average Annual Zero Deductible Statewide Loss Costs –
Historical versus Modeled. Provide a link to the location of the form here.
Form S-5: Average Annual Zero Deductible Statewide Loss Costs – Historical versus Modeled
®
148
Computer Standards C-1 Documentation
COMPUTER STANDARDS
C-1 Documentation
A. Model functionality and technical descriptions shall be documented formally in an archival
format separate from the use of letters, slides, and unformatted text files.
Model functionality and technical descriptions are documented for our users through a series of user
guides, reference manuals, and white papers available from a limited-access portion of a website
maintained by RMS.
B. The modeling organization modeler shall maintain a primary document binder, containing
or referencing a complete set of documentation specifying the model structure, detailed
software description, and functionality. Development of the documentation shall be
indicative of accepted software engineering practices.
A Computer Standards primary document binder in electronic form has been prepared by RMS and is
available for on-site review by the Professional Team. The primary document binder contains an index
that links each subsequent Computer Standard to one or more sections within the binder and, where
appropriate, to other more detailed documents such as the RiskLink System Adminis tration Guide. All
documentation is easily accessible from a central location. This collection of material specifies the
model structure, detailed software description, and functionality. This material is indicative of the
accepted software engineering practices that are followed by the RiskLink development team.
C. All computer software (i.e., user interface, scientific, engineering, actuarial, data
preparation and validation) relevant to the submission shall be consistently documented
and dated.
Through the use of various techniques such as documentation templates and development standards,
the RiskLink software and model development tools are documented and dated in a consistent manner.
Appropriate personnel for software, data preparation and validation, as well as internal users of the
software, will be available to the Professional Team when the Computer Standards are being audited.
D. The modeling organization shall maintain (1) a table of all changes in the model from the
previously accepted submission to the initial submission this year and (2) a table of all
substantive changes since this year’s initial submission.
A table containing items listed in Standard G-1, Disclosure 5 has been prepared. The table contains an
item number in the first column, and the remaining columns contain specific document or file
references for affected components or data relating to Computer Standards C -2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and
C-6.
E. Documentation shall be created separately from the source code.
Modeling and software documentation has been created separately from and is maintained consistently
with the source code. This external documentation is augmented by detailed technical documentation
that is integrated with the source code.
®
149
Computer Standards C-2 Requirements
C-2 Requirements
The modeling organization shall maintain a complete set of requirements for each
software component as well as for each database or data file accessed by a component.
Requirements shall be updated whenever changes are made to the model.
RMS maintains a complete set of requirements for each component, database, and data file accessed
by a component that is relevant to this submission. These requirements are updated whenever
changes are to be made to the model. This documentation, which is described in the response to
Standard C-2, is available for on-site review by the Professional Team.
C-2.1 Provide a description of the documentation for interface, human factors, functionality,
documentation, data, human and material resources, security, and quality assurance.
RMS maintains documentation of user interface/human factors requirements, functional specifications,

documentation requirements, data specifications, human resource requirements, security measures,
and quality assurance requirements.
Requirements documentation available for on-site review by the Professional Team includes:
 RiskLink System Administration Guide—detailed user-level documentation of product configuration

and platform considerations, setup and installation, database maintenance, and advance d
configuration settings
 RiskLink System Recommendations—computer system recommendations, certified platforms, and
possible deployment configurations for RiskLink
 Database Schema Guide—database schema changes summary, and documentation of database
schema tables
 RiskLink DLM User Guide—product reference guide that describes detailed steps on getting
started with RiskLink DLM, importing data, managing exposure data, running analyses, viewing
results, administering databases, and understanding the financial model
 RiskLink DLM Reference Guide—reference material necessary to use RiskLink effectively,
including import file structures, construction classes and occupancy types, country -specific
information, and a glossary
 Coding Standards—a collection of documents listing standards for software coding, database
development, development environment setup, component design, file versioning, and source
control system usage
 Market Requirements Documents—a collection of documents, typically generated by the RMS
Model Management or Product Management groups, describing the business need for major
feature or product changes, along with a summary of what the feature/change is intended to do
(versus how it is to be implemented)
 Functional Specifications—a collection of documents, typically generated by RMS Product
Management or senior modeling personnel, describing how a feature or product change is to be
implemented, covering all aspects that have impact on the product end user (for example, user
interface, loss calculations, database schema, data validity checking, documentation, and testing
recommendations)
 Project Management Documents—a collection of Microsoft Project files, Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets, and Microsoft Word documents that track the human resource requireme nts of
project tasks
 Microsoft Team Foundation Server (TFS) and Visual SourceSafe 6.0—documentation of the
version control management systems used by RMS to provide secure access, auditing, and
backup facilities for source code
®
150
Computer Standards C-2 Requirements
 Information Technology Security Documents—a collection of documents explaining RMS

requirements related to password protection, data backup, and other security policies and
procedures
 Quality Assurance Test Plans—documents that outline testing requirements for product
components, and are used to guide test case development
®
151
Computer Standards C-3 Model Architecture and Component Design
C-3 Model Architecture and Component Design

The modeling organization shall maintain and document (1) detailed control and data flow
diagrams, and interface specifications for each software component, and (2) schema
definitions for each database and data file. Documentation shall be to the level of
components that make significant contributions to the model output.
RMS maintains documentation of detailed control and data flow, interface specifications, and the
schema definitions for all data files and database tables. Data flow diagrams are used to illustrate the
relationship between software components and data using a network representation consisting of
labeled component processes connected by data arcs, with components expanded into more detailed
sub-component diagrams where appropriate. The top-level data flow diagram for the RMS RiskLink
software is shown in the following figure.
The architecture for the hurricane model involves breaking the basic components into smaller modules
and sub-modules, such as the wind hazard module and the vulnerability module. This structure is
carried over into the software architecture. This internal model architecture and component design
documentation, as well as the developers or modelers responsible for each component, are available
for on-site review by the Professional Team.
®
152
Computer Standards C-3 Model Architecture and Component Design
Data
Import Data Exposure Data Entry Entry
Sources User
Exposure Import Data
1. Input
System Exposure Exposure From Import
System Data (1)
Database Data Exposure From User
Exposure
Partial Address Data
Database
Geocoding
Database Geocoding Data 2. Prepare Geotechnical Hazard Results
Exposure Complete Address Data
Data
Geotechnical
Hazard Geotech Hazard Data
Database
3. Analyze
Analysis User
Analysis Setup User Input Exposure Analysis Exposure Data
Data
Hazard Data
Hazard
DLM Profiles For Analysis Database
DLM Profile
Database DLM Profile Edits
Vulnerability Data
Vulnerability
Event Loss Results Database
Event Event
Information
Information Results
Database Viewable Results Data
Post-processing Results Input Database
5. Process 4. Display
Post-Analysis Post-processing Results Output Results
Data
Viewable Results Display

Results Reports
Computer
Report Output
Display
RiskLink Top Level Data Flow
Figure 42: RiskLink Top Level Data Flow
®
153
Computer Standards C-4 Implementation
C-4 Implementation
A. The modeling organization shall maintain a complete procedure of coding guidelines
consistent with accepted software engineering practices.
RMS has developed and maintained a set of coding guideline documents, consistent with accepted
software engineering practices. These documents contain standards for software coding, database
development, development environment setup, component design, file versioning, and source control
system usage. Compliance with these standards are monitored through peer and management review.
B. The modeling organization shall maintain a complete procedure used in creating, deriving,
or procuring and verifying databases or data files accessed by components.
RMS maintains a complete procedure used in creating, deriving, or procuring and verifying databases
or data files accessed by components. This procedure includes extensive validation procedures
designed to guarantee that data integrity is maintained throughout the product development process.
C. All components shall be traceable, through explicit component identification in the flow
diagrams, down to the code level.
The software is fully traceable from the flow diagrams to the code level. Detailed data flow diagrams of
the model components will be available for review by the Professional Team. The data flow diagrams
are organized hierarchically, with highest design level components incrementally translated into a
larger number of subcomponents. A data dictionary provides a textual description of each data flow
component in addition to documenting the linkage of those components to the source code.
D. The modeling organization shall maintain a table of all software components affecting loss
costs, with the following table columns: (1) Component name, (2) Number of lines of code,
minus blank and comment lines; and (3) Number of explanatory comment lines.
RMS maintains a table of all software components affecting loss costs, with the table columns
providing the information required by this standard.
E. Each component shall be sufficiently and consistently commented so that a software

engineer unfamiliar with the code shall be able to comprehend the component logic at a
reasonable level of abstraction.
As outlined in the RMS coding guidelines, software components are commented with a statement of
purpose (requirements summary), input and output description (interface specification), summary of
important changes, and ―tactical comments‖ explaining any potentially confusing software code. These
comments allow a software engineer unfamiliar with the code to comprehend the c omponent logic at a
reasonable level of abstraction.
®
154
F. The modeling organization shall maintain the following documentation for all components
or data modified by items identified in Standard G-1, Disclosure 5:
1. A list of all equations and formulas used in documentation of the model with
definitions of all terms and variables.
2. A cross-referenced list of implementation source code terms and variable names
corresponding to items within F.1.
For all components and data modified by items identified in Standard G-1, Disclosure 5, RMS maintains
a list of all equations and formulas used in documentation of the model modifications, with definitions of
all terms and variables, along with a cross-referenced list of implementation source code terms and
variable names corresponding to those equations and formulas.
C-4.1 Specify the hardware, operating system, other software, and all computer languages
required to use the model.
The following are required to use the RMS model:
 Operating system options:

 Microsoft Windows XP Professional, Windows Vista Enterprise, Windows Server 2003, or
Windows Server 2003 R2 32 bit operating system for desktop installations and client (remote
database) installations
 Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise, Windows Server 2008 Standard or Enterprise, or Windows
Server 2008 R2 Enterprise or Standard 64 bit operating system for desktop installations and
client installations
 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server 2003 R2 32 bit operating system for
analysis and job server
analysis and job server
database server installations
 Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 64 bit
operating system for database server installations
 Microsoft Windows HPC Server 2008 or Windows HPC Server 2008 R2 for Enterprise Grid
Computing (EGC) 64 bit compute nodes (analysis servers)
 Microsoft Windows HPC Server 2008 R2 for EGC 64 bit head nodes (job servers)
 Microsoft Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2 for EGC database installations
 Any hardware capable of running one of the Microsoft operating systems listed above, with a
recommended minimum of 8 processor cores, 16 GB RAM, 1024 x 768 display, one available USB
connector, and at least 50 GB disk space
 Database options:
 Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Standard/Enterprise, or SQL Server 2008 Standard/Enterprise for
desktop installations
 Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Standard/Enterprise, SQL Server 2008 Standard/Enterprise, or
SQL Server 2008 R2 Standard/Enterprise for database server installations
 Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Standard/Enterprise or SQL Server 2008 R2 Standard/Enterprise
for EGC database server installations
 Microsoft .NET 3.5 or greater
 SQL Native Client 9.0
 SQL Server 2005 or 2008 Server Management Objects (SMO)
 Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable
 Microsoft XML Core Services (MSXML)
 Microsoft Enterprise Library
 Microsoft HPC Class Library (for EGC installations)
®
155
 Crystal Reports report display software

 Group 1 (Sagent) geocoding software
 ESRI ArcGIS software
 Objective Grid display software
 Objective Toolkit display software
 Olectra Chart display software
 Rogue Wave C++ class libraries
The primary language for the development of RiskLink is C#. C++ code is being incrementally replaced
by code written in the C# language.
®
156
Computer Standards C-5 Verification
C-5 Verification
A. General
For each component, the modeling organization shall maintain procedures for verification,
such as code inspections, reviews, calculation crosschecks, and walkthroughs, sufficient
to demonstrate code correctness. Verification procedures shall include tests performed
by modeling organization personnel other than the original component developers.
Modifications or additions to the model are typically designed and prototyped by engineers. Prototypes
are coded, for example, in spreadsheets or in programs written in C, C++ , C#, or FORTRAN. Once the
concept has been proven in the prototype, a written specification is prepared to describe the purpose of
the change and to provide a detailed description of the algorithm to be introduced to the production
software. This description typically takes the form of narrative, ―pseudo-code‖ (similar to computer code
but stripped of computer language details for the sake of readability), control flowcharts, or data flow
diagrams. This description is sometimes augmented by actual computer code from the prototype. The
specification is peer-reviewed by other engineers and by senior software developers. Once the
specification is approved, the changes are then made to the production software.
RMS model development and quality assurance (QA) departments rigorously check output generated
from the model. Calculations are performed outside the model and compared to the software-generated
results to ensure that they are correct. A series of test cases are run to ensure that the computer
program generates consistent and reasonable results on a wide variety of client data. Da ta sets include
end-condition test cases using very large and very small values, large-data-volume test datasets of
many locations spread across multiple ZIP Codes, and data sets focused on testing specific areas of
the model.
Code inspections, reviews, and walkthroughs are performed on a regular basis to verify code
correctness. Both software management and model development engineers participate in this process.
Reviewers check code both during and after initial development. Code changes are often isolat ed and
inspected using the features of our source code management system. Reviewers also use source -code
debugging tools to verify run time behavior.
The software source code contains numerous logical assertions, exception-handling mechanisms, and
flag-triggered output statements that are used to test the values of key variables for correctness.
Verification procedures for each component include tests performed by modeler personnel other than
the original component developers. The RMS QA department has primary responsibility for
independent verification. In addition, peer review of model changes typically includes testing by
development staff other than the original component developers.
®
157
B. Component Testing
1. The modeling organization shall use testing software to assist in documenting and
analyzing all components.
The IBM/Rational Enterprise Suite is the primary software development toolkit used at RMS for
analyzing and testing all components. This suite contains several tools that assist in component
testing. Both software developers and quality assurance personnel use Rational Robot , Rational
Functional Tester, and Rational Test Manager for test plan development, test case generation, and test
case execution.
The Compuware DevPartner toolkit is also used at RMS to supplement the capabilities of the
IBM/Rational Enterprise Suite. DevPartner Studio is primarily used to test software components for
memory corruption, memory leaks, or performance bottlenecks.
BMC’s AppSight tool is used to capture and replay application execution at multiple synchronized
levels. This tool is utilized primarily to help analyze unexpected program behavior.
Microsoft Visual Studio is the primary software development toolkit used at RMS. It contains an
extensive collection of debugging tools that allows developers to ―walk through‖ software components
on a line-by-line basis, and at any point, view the control stack, the value of all variables, debug trace
statement output, etc.
For key ―lower-level‖ components, a custom test driver is developed to execute the methods of the
components using a range of input values, and to test the resulting outputs of the methods. For
―higher-level‖ components that depend upon a large collection of other components or significant
amount of state information (for example, those that implement the RiskLink user interface) custom test
drivers are not practical. Instead, we develop automated test suites using IBM/Rational tools to check,
for example, for specific property values of user interface objects.
2. Unit tests shall be performed and documented for each component.
All software components are unit tested as they are developed or modified. The results of the unit tests
are summarized in technical specification documents that are written by sof tware developers while
implementing and testing software components, or in the Elsinore Visual Intercept problem report
database.
3. Regression tests shall be performed and documented on incremental builds.
A large suite of regression tests are performed and documented on incremental builds of the RiskLink
software. The majority of the regression tests are implemented using automated tools, including
Rational Robot and Rational Functional Tester test scripts, though some additional manual testing is
always performed. The automated regression tests are split into two sets. The first set is a broad but
shallow set of tests that are executed by the software development team before passing the build to the
quality assurance department. The QA department then executes an extensive, broad and deep set to
check for stability of results in all areas of the software.
®
158
4. Aggregation tests shall be performed and documented to ensure the correctness of all
model components. Sufficient testing shall be performed to ensure that all components
have been executed at least once.
Aggregation tests are performed and documented to ensure correctness of all components and data
defining the model. Most of the aggregation testing is done by executing the product as a complete
package, using a comprehensive suite of test scripts supplemented with additional manual tests, to
ensure that component interactions that would escape unit testing are checked. These tests cover the
complete start-to-finish workflow of the user of the software, and contain a wide range of possible
inputs, thus ensuring that all components relevant to this submission are executed at least once.
C. Data Testing
1. The modeling organization shall use testing software to assist in documenting and
analyzing all databases and data files accessed by components.
RMS uses a range of testing software to assist in documenting and analyzing all databases and data
files accessed by components. In many cases, this involves the use of Excel, Access, or other generic
data manipulation packages. Commercial mapping software (e.g., MapInfo or ArcInfo) is used to check
the spatial distribution of data. In some cases, special-purpose test programs are written to automate
data validation. In addition, database and data file values are validated indirectly via the regression test
scripts described above.
2. The modeling organization shall perform and document integrity, consistency, and
correctness checks on all databases and data files accessed by the components.
RMS performs and documents data integrity, consistency, and correctness checks on all databases
and data files accessed by components. Tools such as Excel and Access are used to perform cross
checks, run statistical tests, or generate data visualization output (e.g. , graphs and charts) from
datasets. Visual inspection of geographic data displayed as maps is another key testing methodology
used to check the spatial distribution of data. All data that is packaged as binary files are checked via
software that converts data from text to binary, binary to text, then performs a comparison of the input
and output text files.
C-5.1 State whether two executions of the model with no changes in input data, parameters,
code, and seeds of random number generators produce the same loss costs and probable
maximum loss levels.
The model produces the same loss costs and probable maximum loss levels if run with the same
information more than once. A random number generator is not used during model execution.
Repeatability of results is tested as part of our standard testing suite.
C-5.2 Provide an overview of the component testing procedures.
The component testing procedures can be grouped in the following categories:
®
159
Unit Tests
 Manual unit tests are run when components are created or changed. Actual results are compared
against expected results documented within specification documents or test cases
 Automated unit tests are written to test key components that are added or modified. These tests
are run periodically throughout the product development cycle
Aggregation Tests
 Manual aggregation tests are developed and run for features added with the current product
release cycle
 Automated aggregation tests are developed and run for each new feature once it has been
integrated into the product and manually tested. Each automated test script is added to the overall
product test suite
Performance Tests
 A suite of performance regression tests are run at specific time intervals within the product
development cycle
 Memory checking tools and code performance profilers are run periodically during the product
release cycle, either as a regression test or to diagnose known or suspected performance
problems
These testing procedures are described in more detail in the responses to Sections A, B, and C of this
standard.
®
160
Computer Standards C-6 Model Maintenance and Revision
C-6 Model Maintenance and Revision

A. The modeling organization shall maintain a clearly written policy for model revision
including verification and validation of revised components, databases, and data files.
The general policy of RMS has been to upgrade its North Atlantic Hurricane Model whenever new data
or research becomes available that results in a non-trivial improvement in the loss modeling
methodology. In the past, updates to accommodate new ZIP Codes were made at least every 24
months where possible. When ZIP Code files were updated, associated ZIP Code -related databases,
such as those containing distance-to-coast and surface roughness, were also updated.
The following figure illustrates, at a high level, the process for deciding on the content of model
revisions.
Internal &
Product Model
External
Feedback Management
Research
Business
Case
Approved
Other Projects RMS Release Model
& Constraints Planning Team Revisions
Figure 43: High-Level Description of Model-Revision Policy
The process of model revision and release is rigorous and well-documented. The figures in
Disclosure C-6.1 illustrate the model-revision process in more detail.
®
161
B. A revision to any portion of the model that results in a change in any Florida residential
hurricane loss cost shall result in a new model version number.
The RMS North Atlantic Hurricane Model is periodically enhanced to reflect advances in our knowledge
of hurricanes and the consequences of hurricanes. Whenever RMS releases a new model with a
revision to any portion of the model that results in a change in any Florida residential hurrican e loss
cost, a new model version number is used to designate that release.
C. The modeling organization shall use tracking software to identify all errors, as well as
modifications to code, data, and documentation.
Microsoft Team Foundation Server is used to track modifications to all source code. In past releases,
Microsoft Visual SourceSafe has been used for this purpose. These tools provide, for each file, the
date of each change, the author of the change, file version, and a detailed comparison of the f ile before
and after the change. In addition, documentation in our Elsinore Visual Intercept problem report
database summarizes changes made to the source code and data, and provides a list of the files
affected by the change.
D. The modeling organization shall maintain a list of all model versions since the initial
submission for this year. Each model description shall have a unique version
identification, and a list of additions, deletions, and changes that define that version.
RMS will maintain a list of all model versions since the initial submission for this year, with unique
version identification and a list of additions, deletions, and changes that define that version.
C-6.1 Identify procedures used to maintain code, data, and documentation.
The following two figures depict the process and procedures used to maintain code, data, and
documentation.
®
162
Product Delivery Overview

Client, Product
Marketing,
Technical Input
Source Data
Functional Technical
Requirements Feature
Specifications Specifications Bug Fixes
Implementation
Project Tracking
Test Plans Test Cases/ Procedures

Incremental Build Incremental
Incident
Build
Database
Incident Assignment / Requirement

Design Changes
Incident Review Ordering Changes
Product Documentation (Input from Specs, Incidents, Prod. Mgmt, Prod Dev)
N Certified?
System Admin Model
Installation Guide Release Notes)
Guide Methodology
Reports User Mapping User

User Guide Reference Guide
Guide Guide
Product Client
Knowledge Response
Base System
Product Release
Documents Product Release
Shipment Shipment Order Problems /

Approval Management Package/Ship Client Questions
Requests
Figure 44: Detailed Description of Model-Revision Policy
®
163
RMS Product Development Process

Release Team
Formed
Release
Prioritizing Planning Developing Integrating Packaging Supporting
3.1
2.1 2.4 Public 4.1 Test Execution 5.1
Change Mgt Plan 6.1
Create Release Roadmap Final
Development
Hot Fix Release
Candidate List Finalization Certification
1.1 3.2
Set Product Release Manage IPP 4.2 Model Validation 6.2
2.2
Strategy 2.5 Integrated and Optimization Service Pack
Release 5.2
Project Plan 3.3 Component Release
Candidate Sizing Media
Planning and Fulfillment
1.2 Development 4.3
6.3
Roadmap 2.3 Release Mid Point Review
QA Post Release
Workshop Definition 3.4 Preliminary 5.3 Activities
Internal 4.4 Develop and
Communication Bug Management Integrate 6.4
Ancillary Data Quality Post
1.3
Mortem
Forced Ranking Component: Feature, Model or Data
Planning and Developing 4.5 -4.5.4
Prod Mgmt
Documentation 5.4
6.6 A
3.3.11 3.3.21 Client Dev
Component Model
3.3.31 Functional 3.3.41 Support
Specs / Reqts Test Plan Training
MRD Methodology
4.6
3.3.12 RFC
3.3.22 Model SW 3.3.32 High Level 3.3.41.1 Create
Model Dev Plan Functional Spec Design Test Cases
3.3.13
5.5
3.3.23 3.3.42 6.5
Vendor Mgmt Model Build /
3.3.33
Development
Acceptance Test
SW Dev Plan Deployment
SW Test Validation Plan
4.7 Customer
3.3.14 Change
Client Dev
3.3.34 Sync Plans 3.3.43 6.6
Vendor Mgmt and Specs with Develop and Management
Data & Model Support
other components Validate
5.6
Go No Go
33.3.44 Create
and Validate Build Decision
TM
Figure 45: RMS Product Development Process Diagram
Input from clients, technical resources, product marketing, product management, and other internal and
external sources drives the creation of marketing requirements documents, which describ e the key
goals and constraints of planned upgrades. Those requirements are translated into functional
specifications, which map out how those requirements are to be met within the model implementation.
Software design specifications (technical specifications) are created to detail the planned
implementation.
As implementation proceeds, the need for design changes and, sometimes, requirement changes
becomes apparent. Once approved, these changes are reflected as updates to the documents
described in the previous paragraph.
The development process is carefully monitored by numerous individuals within RMS, using several
project tracking tools and procedures. For example, a problem report (―incident‖) record is created
using the Visual Intercept incident tracking system for each requested model change. This is done
whether the change is viewed as a new feature or a bug fix. Each incident record is maintained
throughout the life cycle of that incident, including resolution and re -testing.
®
164
Documentation is developed for proposed engineering enhancements to the model, and this
documentation, including the software specification, is used in the development of new or updated test
plans and test cases for that release.
When a release is certified by quality assurance management, a product release document, extensive
user-level product documentation, and the software and data that comprise the released product are
packaged and shipped to clients. Various cross-checks and tests in this final fulfillment step assure that
clients are provided a complete and correct package.
Standard test cases are shipped with the release, to allow post -installation verification. All post-
installation questions or problems are tracked within the RMS Client Response System. A product
Knowledge Base is being maintained and enhanced to assist RMS client development teams in
supporting RMS client needs.
C-6.2 Describe the rules underlying the model and code revision numbering systems.
RMS products that implement specific models are comprised of two parts:
 Model infrastructure, i.e. the software code and data that implements the generic processes that
underlie a model implementation. This includes not only the computational aspects of a model, but
also the features that are a part of model workflow, such as exposure data import, and results
viewing.
 Model data which, when used by the model infrastructure, generates modeled loss results.
RMS uses a four-part revision numbering system to precisely identify a model version in the format
[MajorRevision].[MinorRevision].[BuildNumber].[PatchRevision] where:
 MajorRevision signifies a significant revision to the infrastructure.

 MinorRevision indicates a smaller update, but one that still includes a change in product
functionality.
 BuildNumber identifies a particular snapshot or iteration of the model infrastructure and data during
a release development cycle.
 PatchRevision is an optional portion of the numbering scheme that signifies a revision that fixes
model infrastructure functionality or model data that has been previously released to RMS clients.
RMS typically bundles revisions to model data with revisions to model infrastructure; in other words,
infrastructure and data updates are released in one package with one revision number, reflected in the
MajorRevision number. For the sake of simplicity, revisions are typically communicated externally in a
simplified manner. For example, 11.0.1411.0 may simply be referred to externally with clients as
version 11.0, when the PatchRevision is zero. If, however, the model is updated and released outside
of the primary product release cycle, RMS will increment either the MinorRevision or the PatchRevision
depending on the type and magnitude of the change. The criteria regarding which part of the revision
numbering is incremented depends on whether the update can be distributed to clients by an
incremental software download (PatchRevision) or requires a new installation package (MinorRevision).
When the PatchRevision method is used, the notation used in the model identifier displayed to clients
in the ―Help | About‖ splash screen (Appendix E) follows the format
[ MajorRevision ]. [MinorRevision ].SP[PatchRevision]. Note the splash screen also lists the internal
BuildNumber in brackets after the model designation. Software component (DLL files or binaries files)
®
165
and analysis results are tagged with an identifier in the format

[MajorRevision].[MinorRevision]. [BuildNumber].[PatchRevision].
For this submission, the model designation is 13.0 (Build 1509), which has software components
identified as ―13.0.1509.0.‖ All analysis results generated by the software will contain a field called
EngineVersion which contains the identified ―13.0.1509.0.‖
®
166
Computer Standards C-7 Security
C-7 Security
The modeling organization shall have implemented and fully documented security
procedures for: (1) secure access to individual computers where the software components
or data can be created or modified, (2) secure operation of the model by clients, if relevant,
to ensure that the correct software operation cannot be compromised, (3) anti-virus
software installation on all machines where components and data are being accessed, and
(4) secure access to documentation, software, and data in the event of a catastrophe.
RMS has implemented security procedures for access to code, data, and documentation in accordance
with standard industry practices. These procedures are described in the disclosure for this standard.
C-7.1 Describe methods used to ensure the security and integrity of the code, data, and
documentation.
The following is a summary of key aspects of RMS security procedures:
 Security requirements are documented and enforced by the RMS Legal and Information
Technology Departments
 All company personnel are trained in security requirements and procedures
 All company personnel are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of their
employment
 Physical security is maintained using locked doors, key-card access, video cameras, and security
patrols
 The RMS network is protected via hardware firewalls
 All servers and desktops are protected with Norton Antivirus software
 All servers and desktops are remotely audited for security compliance
 Microsoft Visual Source Safe and Microsoft Team Foundation Server are used to track
modifications to all source code. These source control systems maintain source code in an
encrypted form. A login is required to access source code. The nature and author of all changes
are recorded
 All servers are backed up nightly. Off-site backups are maintained at a secure commercial facility.
Password and authorized personnel access provisions also apply for client data held on site at RMS for
processing and analysis.
Security for RMS software licensed for use at the customer premises is primarily controlled by the use
of compiled binary files, which are not readily modifiable without access to the original source code
(which is not available). An additional measure of protection is provided by our software licensing
provisions, which provide legal obstacles to manipulation or unauthorized use of RMS software.
®
167
Computer Standards C-7 Security
®
168
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms
APPENDIX A—FCHLPM FORMS
®
169
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form G-1: General Standards Expert Certification
Form G-1: General Standards Expert Certification
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the current submission of RiskLink Version 13.0 (Build 1509) for
compliance with the 2011 Standards adopted by the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection
Methodology and hereby certify that:
1) The model meets the General Standards (G1 – G5);

2) The Disclosures and Forms related to the General Standards section are editorially and
technically accurate, reliable, unbiased, and complete;
3) My review was completed in accordance with the professional standards and code of ethical
conduct for my profession;
4) My review involved ensuring the consistency of the content in all sections of the submission; and
5) In expressing my opinion I have not been influenced by any other party in order to bias or
prejudice my opinion.
Michael Young MSc, Engineering Science

Name Professional Credentials (Area of Expertise)
10/30/2012
Signature (original submission) Date
12/21/2012
Signature (response to deficiencies, if any) Date
3/11/2013
Signature (revisions to submission, if any) Date
5/14/2013
Signature (final submission) Date
An updated signature and form is required following any modification of the model and any revision of the
original submission. If a signatory differs from the original signatory, provide the printed name and
professional credentials for any new signatories. Additional signature lines shall be added as necessary
with the following format:
Signature (revisions to submission) Date
NOTE: A facsimile or any properly reproduced signature will be acceptable to meet this requirement.
®
170
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form G-2: Meteorological Standards Expert Certification
Form G-2: Meteorological Standards Expert Certification
compliance with the 2011Standards adopted by the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection
1) The model meets the Meteorological Standards (M1 – M6);

2) The Disclosures and Forms related to the Meteorological Standards section are editorially and
conduct for my profession; and
Shree Khare PhD, Atmospheric Science

10/30/2012
12/21/2012
3/11/2013
5/14/2013
®
171
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form G-3: Vulnerability Standards Expert Certification
Form G-3: Vulnerability Standards Expert Certification
1) The model meets the Vulnerability Standards (V1 – V3);

2) The Disclosures and Forms related to the Vulnerability Standards section are editorially and
Michael Young MSc, Engineering Science

10/30/2012
12/21/2012
3/11/2013
5/14/2013
professional credentials for any new signatories. . Additional signature lines shall be added as necessary
®
172
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form G-4: Actuarial Standards Expert Certification
Form G-4: Actuarial Standards Expert Certification
1) The model meets the Actuarial Standards (A1 – A6);

2) The Disclosures and Forms related to the Actuarial Standards section are editorially and
Kay Cleary FCAS, MAAA

10/30/2012
3/11/2013
5/14/2013
®
173
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form G-5: Statistical Standards Expert Certification
Form G-5: Statistical Standards Expert Certification
1) The model meets the Statistical Standards (S1 – S6);

2) The Disclosures and Forms related to the Statistical Standards section are editorially and
Enrica Bellone PhD, Statistics

10/30/2012
12/21/2012
3/11/2013
5/14/2013
®
174
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form G-6: Computer Standards Expert Certification
Form G-6: Computer Standards Expert Certification
1) The model meets the Computer Standards (C1 – C7),

2) The Disclosures and Forms related to the Computer Standards section are editorially and
technically accurate, reliable, unbiased, and complete,
conduct for my profession, and
Swaminathan Krishnamoorthy MS Computer Applications

10/30/2012
Signature (response to Deficiencies, if any) Date
3/11/2013
5/14/2013
®
175
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form G-7: Editorial Certification
Form G-7: Editorial Certification
compliance with the “Process for Determining the Acceptability of a Computer Simulation Model” adopted
by the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology in its Report of Activities as of
December 31, 2011, and hereby certify that:
1) The model submission is in compliance with the Commission’s Notification Requirements and
General Standard G-5;
2) The Disclosures and Forms related to each Standards section are editorially accurate and contain
complete information and any changes that have been made to the submission during the review
process have been reviewed for completeness, grammatical correctness, and typographical
errors;
3) There are no incomplete responses, inaccurate citations, charts or graphs, or extraneous text or
references;
4) The current version of the model submission has been reviewed for grammatical correctness,
typographical errors, completeness, the exclusion of extraneous data/ information and is
otherwise acceptable for publication; and
5) In expressing my/our opinion I/we have not been influenced by any other party in order to bias or
prejudice my/our opinion.
Beth Stamann Senior Documentation Specialist

10/30/2012
12/21/2012
Signature (response to Deficiencies, if any) Date
3/11/2013
5/14/2013
®
176
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form M-1: Annual Occurrence Rates
Form M-1: Annual Occurrence Rates

A. Provide annual occurrence rates for landfall from the data set defined by marine exposure that
the model generates by hurricane category (defined by maximum windspeed at landfall in the
Saffir-Simpson scale) for the entire state of Florida and selected regions as defined in Figure
3. List the annual occurrence rate per hurricane category. Annual occurrence rates shall be
rounded to two decimal places. The historical frequencies below have been derived from the
Base Hurricane Storm Set as defined in Standard M-1.
The historical rates have been changed to reflect an additional year (2011) with no landfal ls or
by-passes.
Table 20: Comparison of Modeled and Historical Annual Occurrence Rates
Entire State Region A – NW Florida

Historical Modeled Historical Modeled
Category Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate
1 25 0.22 25 0.22 13 0.12 16 0.14
2 12 0.11 9 0.08 4 0.04 3 0.02
3 17 0.15 16 0.14 6 0.05 5 0.05
4 8 0.07 8 0.07 0 0.00 1 0.00
5 2 0.02 2 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00
Region B – SW Florida Region C – SE Florida

1 7 0.06 7 0.06 6 0.05 7 0.06
2 1 0.01 2 0.01 5 0.04 6 0.05
3 4 0.04 8 0.07 7 0.06 5 0.04
4 3 0.03 1 0.01 5 0.04 7 0.06
5 1 0.01 0 0.00 1 0.01 1 0.01
Region D – NE Florida Florida By-Passing Hurricanes

1 1 0.01 1 0.01 4 0.04 9 0.08
2 3 0.03 1 0.01 5 0.04 2 0.02
3 0 0.00 1 0.01 3 0.03 2 0.02
4 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Region E – Georgia Region F – Alabama/Mississippi

1 4 0.04 2 0.01 7 0.06 6 0.05
2 0 0.00 1 0.01 4 0.04 2 0.02
3 0 0.00 1 0.01 5 0.04 3 0.03
4 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.01 1 0.01
5 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.01 0 0.00
*All values rounded to 2 decimal places
®
177
Note: Except where specified, Number of Hurricanes does not include By -Passing Hurricanes. Each
time a hurricane goes from water to land (once per region) it is counted as a landfall in that region.
However, each hurricane is counted only once in the Entire State totals. Hurricanes recorded for
adjacent states need not have reported damaging winds in Florida.
B. Describe model variations from the historical frequencies.
The agreement between modeled and observed frequencies—both by intensity and by region—is
reasonable given the limited historical record.
C. Provide vertical bar graphs depicting distributions of hurricane frequencies by category by

region of Florida (Figure 3) and for the neighboring states of Alabama/Mississippi and
Georgia. For the neighboring states, statistics based on the closest milepost to the state
boundaries used in the model are adequate.
Histograms comparing modeled and observed landfall frequencies by region are given on Figure 50.
D. If the data are partitioned or modified, provide the historical annual occurrence rates for the
applicable partition (and its complement) or modification as well as the modeled annual
occurrence rates in additional Form M-1.
The data has not been partitioned or modified.
E. List all hurricanes added, removed, or modified from the previously accepted submission
version of the Base Hurricane Storm Set.
In agreement with the HURDAT reanalysis as of November 2011, one storm has been removed and track
parameters of six hurricanes have been modified in the 1925-1930 timeframe (Figure 46 to Figure 49).
®
178
Figure 46: Change in Track Parameters for the 2 of 7 Modified Hurricanes. Part (a) Left: Previous
Submission, Right: Current Submission
®
179
Figure 47: Change in Track Parameters for 2 of the 7 Modified Hurricanes. Part (b) Left: Previous
®
180
Figure 48: Change in Track Parameters for 2 of the 7 Modified Hurricanes. Part (c) Left: Previous
®
181
Figure 49: Change in Track Parameters for 1 of the 7 Modified Hurricanes. Part (d) Left: Previous
Submission, Right: Current Submission.
F. Provide this form in Excel format. The file name shall include the abbreviated name of the
modeling organization, the standards year, and the form name. A hard copy of Form M-1 shall
be included in a submission appendix.
This information is provided in Excel format in the file RMS11FormM1.xlsx at the link provided.
®
182
Figure 3
State of Florida and Neighboring States

By Region
(Alabama/
Mississippi)
E
(Georgia)
)
81.45 W 30.71 N
87.55 W 30.27 N
®
183
The region of landfall is determined by RMS gates as follows:
Figure 50: Comparison of Historical and Modeled Multiple Landfall Occurrences by Region
184
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form M-2: Maps of Maximum Winds
Form M-2: Maps of Maximum Winds

A. Provide color maps of the maximum winds for the modeled version of the Base Hurricane
Storm Set for land use as set for open terrain and land use set for actual terrain as defined by
the modeling organization.
B. Provide color maps of the maximum winds for a 100-year and a 250-year return period from
the stochastic storm set for both open terrain and actual terrain.
C. Provide the maximum winds plotted on each contour map and plot their location.
Open terrain Real terrain
Max Historical 154mph 145mph
Max 100y Return Period 130mph 123mph
Max 250y Return Period 141mph 135mph
“Actual terrain” is the roughness distribution used in the standard version of the model. “Open terrain”
uses the same roughness value of 0.03 meters at all land points.
All maps shall be color coded at the ZIP Code level.
Maximum winds in these maps are defined as the maximum one-minute sustained winds over the terrain
as modeled and recorded at each location.
The same color scheme and increments shall be used for all maps.
Use the following seven isotach values and interval color coding:
(1) 50 mph Blue
(2) 65 mph Medium Blue
(3) 80 mph Light Blue
(4) 95 mph White
(5) 110 mph Light Red
(6) 125 mph Medium Red
(7) 140 mph Red
®
185
Figure 51: Maximum 1-minute Mean Wind Speed (mph) at ZIP Code level. Historical Set (1900-2011)—
Open Terrain
®
186
Figure 52: Maximum 1-minute Mean Wind Speed (mph) at ZIP Code level. Historical Set (1900-2011)—
Real Terrain
®
187
Set—Open Terrain
®
188
Set—Real Terrain
®
189
Set—Open Terrain
®
190
Set—Real Terrain
®
191
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form M-3: Radius of Maximum Winds and Radii of Standard Wind Thresholds
Form M-3: Radius of Maximum Winds and Radii of Standard Wind

Thresholds
A. For the central pressures in the table below, provide the minimum and maximum values for 1)
the radius of maximum winds (Rmax) used by the model to create the stochastic storm set,
and the minimum and maximum values for the outer radii (R) of 2) Category 3 winds (>110
mph), 3) Category 1 winds (>73 mph), and 4) gale force winds (>40 mph). This information
should be readily calculated from the windfield formula input to the model and does not
require running the stochastic storm set. Describe the procedure used to complete this form.
Table 21: Ranges of Rmax used in Model’s Stochastic Storm Set
Central Rmax Outer Radii Outer Radii Outer Radii

Pressure (mi) (>110 mph) (mi) (>73 mph) (mi) (>40 mph) (mi)
(mb)
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
990 16 78 NA NA 18 92 36 201
980 13 70 14 57 17 91 44 246
970 12 65 15 81 19 118 55 311
960 10 54 13 74 20 124 57 315

950 10 48 13 70 22 132 56 318
940 8 43 12 66 24 129 57 307
930 7 40 11 72 22 135 53 303
920 7 33 11 69 22 127 49 276
910 5 28 10 65 21 125 46 259
900 5 25 11 65 21 120 42 247
The radii provided on Table 21 are computed by running the stochastic model on 10 sets of 100 tracks.
Within each set, all tracks have the same length, the same central pressure (as given by the first
column), the same translational speed (15mph Westward) and the same latitude (28N). All other
parameters have their mean values (e.g., Penv=1,013hPa). The thresholds were applied to 1 -minute
mean wind speeds at the coast. Radii are defined as the maximum radius over the full azimuthal range.
The reported values correspond to the 5th and 95th percentiles of the simulated radii.
B. Identify the other variables that influence Rmax.
Rmax is a function of central pressure and latitude.
®
192
C. Provide a box plot and histogram of Central Pressure (x-axis) versus Rmax (y-axis) to
demonstrate relative populations and continuity of sampled hurricanes in the stochastic
storm set.
Figure 57: Box Plot of Rmax (miles) as a Function of Central Pressure (hPa) using a 10hPa Central
Pressure Increment
®
193
Figure 58: Frequency Histogram of the Radius of Maximum Winds (miles)
Figure 59: Frequency Histogram Central Pressure (hPa)
®
194
D. Provide this form in Excel format. The file name shall include the abbreviated name of the
modeling organization, the standards year, and the form name. A hard copy of Form M-3 shall
be included in a submission appendix.
This information is provided in Excel format in the file RMS11FormM3.xlsx at the link provided.
®
195
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form V-1: One Hypothetical Event
Form V-1: One Hypothetical Event

A. Windspeeds for 335 ZIP Codes and sample personal and commercial residential exposure
data are provided in the file named “FormV1Input11.xlsx.” The windspeeds and ZIP Codes
represent a hypothetical hurricane track. Model the sample personal and commercial
residential exposure data provided in the file against these windspeeds at the specified ZIP
Codes and provide the damage ratios summarized by windspeed (mph) and construction type.
The windspeeds provided are one-minute sustained 10-meter windspeeds. The sample personal
and commercial residential exposure data provided consists of four structures (one of each
construction type – wood frame, masonry, mobile home, and concrete) individually placed at the
population centroid of each of the ZIP Codes provided. Each ZIP Code is subjected to a specific
windspeed. For completing Part A, Estimated Damage for each individual windspeed range is the
sum of Ground Up Loss to all structures in the ZIP Codes subjected to that individual windspeed
range, excluding demand surge and storm surge. Subject Exposure is all exposures in the ZIP
Codes subjected to that individual windspeed range. For completing Part B, Estimated Damage is
the sum of the ground up loss to all structures of a specific type (wood frame, masonry, mobile
home, or concrete) in all of the windspeed ranges, excluding demand surge and storm surge.
Subject Exposure is all exposures of that specific type in all of the ZIP Codes.
One reference structure for each of the construction types shall be placed at the population
centroid of the ZIP Codes. Do not include contents, appurtenant structures, or time element
coverages.
Reference Frame Structure: Reference Masonry Structure:

One story One story
Unbraced gable end roof Unbraced gable end roof
Normal shingles (55mph) Normal shingles (55mph)
½” plywood deck ½” plywood deck
6d nails, deck to roof members 6d nails, deck to roof members
Toe nail truss to wall anchor Toe nail truss to wall anchor
Wood framed exterior walls Masonry exterior walls
5/8” diameter anchors at 48” centers for No vertical wall reinforcing
wall/floor/foundation connections No shutters
No shutters Standard glass windows
Standard glass windows No door covers
No door covers No skylight covers
No skylight covers Constructed in 1980
Constructed in 1980
Reference Mobile Home Structure: Reference Concrete Structure:
Tie downs Twenty story
Single unit Eight apartment units per story
Manufactured in 1980 No shutters
Standard glass windows
Constructed in 1980
B. Confirm that the structures used in completing the form are identical to those in the above
table for the reference structures. If additional assumptions are necessary to complete this
form (for example, regarding structural characteristics, duration, or surface roughness),
provide the reasons why the assumptions were necessary as well as a detailed description of
how they were included.
C. Provide a plot of the Form V-1, Part A data.
®
196
Part A
Estimated Damage/
Wind Speed (mph) Subject Exposure
41 – 50 0.2%
51 – 60 0.4%
61 – 70 1.8%
71 – 80 4.8%
81 – 90 10.6%
91 – 100 19.2%
101 – 110 28.6%
111 – 120 47.0%
121 – 130 59.3%
131 – 140 77.6%
141 – 150 86.1%
151 – 160 90.7%
161 – 170 94.5%
Part B
Estimated Damage/
Construction Type Subject Exposure
Wood Frame 11.1%
Masonry 10.9%
Mobile Home 10.1%
Concrete 5.9%
®
197
100%
Estimated Damage/Subject Exposure

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
111 - 120
101 – 110
121 – 130
131 – 140
141 – 150
151 – 160
161 – 170
91 – 100
41 – 50
51 – 60
61 – 70
71 – 80
81 – 90
Wind Speed Range (mph)
Figure 60: Ratio of Estimated Damage and Subject Exposure versus One-Minute Wind Speed
The structure used to complete this form is identical to the structure listed in the table presented on
page 111 in the 2011 Report of Activities.
®
198
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form V-2: Mitigation Measures – Range of Changes in Damage
Form V-2: Mitigation Measures – Range of Changes in Damage

A. Provide the change in the zero deductible personal residential reference structure damage
rate (not loss cost) for each individual mitigation measure listed in Form V-2 as well as for the
combination of the four mitigation measures provided for the Mitigated Frame Structure and
the Mitigated Masonry Structure below.
B. If additional assumptions are necessary to complete this Form (for example, regarding
duration or surface roughness), provide the rationale for the assumptions as well as a detailed
description of how they are included.
C. Provide this Form in Excel format without truncation. The file name shall include the
abbreviated name of the modeling organization, the Standards year, and the Form name. A
hard copy of Form V-2 shall be included in a submission appendix.
Reference Frame Structure: Reference Masonry Structure:

One story One story
Unbraced gable end roof Unbraced gable end roof
Normal shingles (55mph) Normal shingles (55mph)
½” plywood deck ½” plywood deck
Toe nail truss to wall anchor Toe nail truss to wall anchor
Wood framed exterior walls Masonry exterior walls
5/8” diameter anchors at 48” centers for No vertical wall reinforcing
wall/floor/foundation connections No shutters
No shutters Standard glass windows
Standard glass windows No door covers
No door covers No skylight covers
No skylight covers Constructed in 1980
Constructed in 1980
Mitigated Frame Structure: Mitigated Masonry Structure:

Rated shingles (110mph) Rated shingles (110mph)
Truss straps at roof Truss straps at roof
Plywood Shutters Plywood Shutters
Reference and mitigated structures are fully insured building structures with a zero deductible
building only policy.
Place the reference structure at the population centroid for ZIP Code 33921 located in Lee County.
Windspeeds used in the Form are one-minute sustained 10-meter windspeeds.
The required information is provided in the file RMS11FormV2.xlsx at the link provided and appears
below.
®
199
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form V-2: Mitigation Measures – Range of Changes in Damage
Figure 61: Percent Change in Damage for Various Mitigation Measures
®
200
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form V-3: Mitigation Measures – Mean Damage Ratio (Trade Secret Item)
Form V-3: Mitigation Measures – Mean Damage Ratio (Trade Secret

Item)
This form will be provided during the professional team on-site review as well as the closed meeting
portion of the commission meeting.
®
201
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form A-1: Zero Deductible Personal Residential Loss Costs by ZIP Code
Form A-1: Zero Deductible Personal Residential Loss Costs by ZIP

Code
A. Provide three maps color-coded by ZIP Code (with a minimum of 6 value ranges), displaying
zero deductible personal residential loss costs per $1,000 of exposure for frame, masonry,
and mobile home.
B. Create exposure sets for these exhibits by modeling all of the structures from Notional Set 3
described in the file “NotionalInput11.xlsx” geocoded to each ZIP Code centroid in the state,
as provided in the model. Refer to the Notional Policy Specification below for additional
modeling information. Explain any assumptions, deviations, and differences from the
prescribed exposure information.
C. Provide the underlying loss cost data rounded to 3 decimal places used for A. above in Excel
and PDF format. The file name shall include the abbreviated name of the modeling
organization, the standards year, and the form name.
This information is provided in Excel format in the file RMS11FormA1_20130514.xlsx and in PDF
format in the file RMS11FormA1_20130514.pdf at the link provided. The three maps color-coded by
ZIP Code appear below.
Notional Policy Specifications

Policy Type Assumptions
Owners Coverage A = Structure

 Replacement Cost included subject to Coverage A limit
 Ordinance or Law not included
Coverage B = Appurtenant Structures
 Replacement Cost included subject to Coverage B limit
Coverage C = Contents
 Replacement Cost included subject to Coverage C limit
Coverage D = Time Element
 Time Limit = 12 months
 Per Diem = $150.00/day per policy, if used
 Loss costs per $1,000 shall be related to the Coverage A limit.

 Loss costs for the various specified deductibles shall be determined based
on annual deductibles.
 All-other perils deductible shall be $500.
Mobile Home Coverage A = Structure
®
202

®
203
Figure 62: Zero Deductible Loss Costs by 5-Digit ZIP Code for Frame
®
204
Figure 63: Zero Deductible Loss Costs by 5-Digit ZIP Code for Masonry
®
205
Figure 64: Zero Deductible Loss Costs by 5-Digit ZIP Code for Mobile Home
®
206
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form A-2: Base Hurricane Set Statewide Loss Costs
Form A-2: Base Hurricane Set Statewide Loss Costs
A. Provide the total insured loss and the dollar contribution to the average annual loss
assuming zero deductible policies from each specific hurricane in the Base Hurricane
Storm Set, as defined in Standard M-1, for the 2007 Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund’s
aggregate personal and commercial residential exposure data found in the file named
“hlpm2007c.exe”.
The table below contains the minimum number of hurricanes from HURDAT to be included
in the Base Hurricane Storm Set. Each hurricane has been assigned an ID number.
Additional hurricanes included in the model’s Base Hurricane Storm Set shall be added to
the table below and assigned an ID number as the hurricane falls within the given ID
numbers.
B. Provide this Form in Excel format. The file name shall include the abbreviated name of the
modeling organization, the Standards year, and the Form name. A hard copy of Form A-2
shall be included in a submission appendix.
The total insured loss and dollar contribution to the average annual loss for each storm in the Bas e
Hurricane Storm Set is provided for personal residential and commercial residential policies from the
2007 FHCF aggregate exposure data in the file RMS11FormA2.xlsx at the link provided and appears
below.
Table 22: Base Hurricane Storm Set Average Annual Zero Deductible
Statewide Loss Costs
Personal and
Landfall/Closest Commercial Dollar
ID Year Name
Approach Date Residential Contribution
Insured Losses ($)
001 09/06/1900 1900 NOTNAMED-1900 67,238,918 600,347
002 08/15/1901 1901 NOTNAMED-1901 28,348,049 253,108
005 09/11/1903 1903 NoName3-1903 1,286,626,112 11,487,733
010 10/17/1904 1904 NoName3-1904 646,795,004 5,774,955
015 06/17/1906 1906 NoName2-1906 262,241,325 2,341,440
016 09/28/1906 1906 NOTNAMED-1906 2,109,623,221 18,835,922
020 10/17/1906 1906 NoName8-1906 6,904,676,977 61,648,902
025 10/11/1909 1909 NoName10-1909 136,450,114 1,218,305
030 10/18/1910 1910 NoName5-1910 13,350,760,637 119,203,220
031 08/13/1911 1911 NOTNAMED-1911 88,938,133 794,090
032 08/29/1911 1911 NOTNAMED-1911 24,449,419 218,298
033 09/15/1912 1912 NOTNAMED-1912 66,527,502 593,996
035 08/01/1915 1915 NoName1-1915 350,993,385 3,133,870
036 08/16/1915 1915 NOTNAMED-1915 24,034,845 214,597
040 09/04/1915 1915 NoName4-1915 81,608,899 728,651
041 07/07/1916 1916 NOTNAMED-1916 347,865,422 3,105,941
045 10/18/1916 1916 NoName14-1916 912,161,876 8,144,302
050 09/29/1917 1917 NoName4-1917 1,596,206,198 14,251,841
055 09/10/1919 1919 NoName2-1919 2,024,342 18,074
060 10/25/1921 1921 NoName6-1921 8,007,775,405 71,497,995
®
207
Personal and
ID Year Name
Insured Losses ($)
061 10/17/1923 1923 NOTNAMED-1923 23,528,924 210,080
065 09/15/1924 1924 NoName5-1924 61,128,192 545,787
070 10/21/1924 1924 NoName10-1924 806,649,720 7,202,230
075 12/01/1925 1925 NoName4-1925 0 0
080 07/28/1926 1926 NoName1-1926 2,377,461,895 21,227,338
085 09/18/1926 1926 NoName7-1926 62,142,371,043 554,842,599
086 10/22/1926 1926 NOTNAMED-1926 540,586,813 4,826,668
090 08/08/1928 1928 NoName1-1928 1,918,293,125 17,127,617
095 09/17/1928 1928 NoName4-1928 42,616,895,775 380,507,998
100 09/28/1929 1929 NoName2-1929 1,672,993,639 14,937,443
101 09/03/1932 1932 NOTNAMED-1932 210,923,151 1,883,242
105 07/30/1933 1933 NoName5-1933 585,852,639 5,230,827
106 09/02/1933 1933 NOTNAMED-1933 46,668,195 416,680
110 09/04/1933 1933 NoName12-1933 5,655,088,095 50,491,858
111 10/06/1933 1933 NOTNAMED-1933 165,449,399 1,477,227
115 09/02/1935 1935 NoName2-1935 7,273,610,796 64,942,954
116 09/29/1935 1935 NOTNAMED-1935 275,208,724 2,457,221
120 11/04/1935 1935 NoName6-1935 379,122,874 3,385,026
125 07/31/1936 1936 NoName5-1936 332,866,074 2,972,019
130 08/11/1939 1939 NoName2-1939 1,026,179,444 9,162,316
135 10/06/1941 1941 NoName5-1941 10,752,923,085 96,008,242
140 10/19/1944 1944 NoName11-1944 18,388,168,878 164,180,079
145 06/24/1945 1945 NoName1-1945 138,610,140 1,237,591
150 09/16/1945 1945 NoName9-1945 11,502,655,142 102,702,278
155 10/08/1946 1946 NoName5-1946 995,132,379 8,885,111
160 09/17/1947 1947 NoName4-1947 24,543,116,435 219,134,968
165 10/12/1947 1947 NoName8-1947 521,212,191 4,653,680
170 09/22/1948 1948 NoName7-1948 2,758,395,018 24,628,527
175 10/05/1948 1948 NoName8-1948 1,492,435,700 13,325,319
180 08/27/1949 1949 NoName2-1949 11,303,940,093 100,928,037
181 08/31/1950 1950 BAKER-1950 71,381,209 637,332
185 09/05/1950 1950 Easy-1950 6,487,094,744 57,920,489
190 10/18/1950 1950 King-1950 4,168,172,072 37,215,822
191 10/27/1952 1952 FOX-1952 3,577,522 31,942
195 09/26/1953 1953 Florence-1953 361,096,500 3,224,076
200 09/25/1956 1956 Flossy-1956 300,988,889 2,687,401
205 09/10/1960 1960 Donna-1960 7,133,085,954 63,688,267
210 08/27/1964 1964 Cleo-1964 3,595,902,644 32,106,274
215 09/10/1964 1964 Dora-1964 949,712,659 8,479,577
216 10/03/1964 1964 HILDA-1964 733,284 6,547
220 10/14/1964 1964 Isbell-1964 1,225,208,006 10,939,357
225 09/08/1965 1965 Betsy-1965 4,914,641,177 43,880,725
230 06/09/1966 1966 Alma-1966 754,178,784 6,733,739
235 10/04/1966 1966 Inez-1966 129,559,502 1,156,781
236 06/06/1968 1968 ABBY-1968 69,454,595 620,130
®
208
Personal and
ID Year Name
Insured Losses ($)
240 10/19/1968 1968 Gladys-1968 270,829,842 2,418,124
245 06/19/1972 1972 Agnes-1972 3,713,907 33,160
250 09/23/1975 1975 Eloise-1975 1,253,039,053 11,187,849
255 09/04/1979 1979 David-1979 509,484,082 4,548,965
256 09/13/1979 1979 FREDERIC-1979 278,885,847 2,490,052
257 09/02/1985 1985 ELENA-1985 460,121,142 4,108,224
260 11/21/1985 1985 Kate-1985 162,322,449 1,449,308
265 10/12/1987 1987 Floyd-1987 20,928,512 186,862
270 08/24/1992 1992 Andrew-1992 29,461,426,326 263,048,449
275 08/02/1995 1995 Erin-1995 604,499,365 5,397,316
280 10/04/1995 1995 Opal-1995 1,231,399,579 10,994,639
281 07/21/1997 1997 DANNY-1997 5,403,723 48,248
285 09/03/1998 1998 Earl-1998 148,862,822 1,329,132
286 09/25/1998 1998 GEORGES-1998 230,113,395 2,054,584
287 08/29/1999 1999 DENNIS-1999 1,302 12
288 09/17/1999 1999 FLOYD-1999 28,624,595 255,577
290 10/15/1999 1999 Irene-1999 582,867,030 5,204,170
291 09/19/2000 2000 GORDON-2000 6,019,274 53,744
292 11/05/2001 2001 MICHELLE-2001 3,557,173 31,760
295 08/13/2004 2004 Charley-2004 8,127,708,834 72,568,829
300 09/05/2004 2004 Frances-2004 3,718,224,032 33,198,429
305 09/16/2004 2004 Ivan-2004 1,251,962,714 11,178,239
310 09/26/2004 2004 Jeanne-2004 6,937,669,300 61,943,476
315 07/10/2005 2005 Dennis-2005 499,646,626 4,461,131
320 08/25/2005 2005 Katrina-2005 817,203,129 7,296,457
325 09/21/2005 2005 Rita-2005 21,031,453 187,781
330 10/24/2005 2005 Wilma-2005 11,488,602,692 102,576,810
331 09/11/2008 2008 IKE-2008 2,796,729 24,971
Total 345,094,545,829 3,081,201,302
Note: Total dollar contribution should agree with the total average annual zero deductible statewide
loss costs provided in Form S-5 for current year.
®
209
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form A-3: Cumulative Losses from the 2004 Hurricane Season
Form A-3: Cumulative Losses from the 2004 Hurricane Season
A. Provide the percentage of total residential zero deductible cumulative losses, rounded to
four decimal places, from Hurricane Charley (2004), Hurricane Frances (2004), Hurricane
Ivan (2004), and Hurricane Jeanne (2004) for each affected ZIP Code. Include all ZIP Codes
where losses are equal to or greater than $500,000.
Use the 2007 Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund’s aggregate personal and commercial
residential exposure data found in the file named “hlpm2007c.exe.”
Rather than using directly a specified published windfield, the winds underlying the loss
cost calculations must be produced by the model being evaluated and should be the same
hurricane parameters as used in completing Form A-2.
B. Provide maps color-coded by ZIP Code depicting the percentage of total residential losses
from each hurricane, Hurricane Charley (2004), Hurricane Frances (2004), Hurricane Ivan
(2004), and Hurricane Jeanne (2004) and for the cumulative losses using the following
interval coding:
Red Over 5%
Light Red 2% to 5%
Pink 1% to 2%
Light Pink 0.5% to 1%
Light Blue 0.2% to 0.5%
Medium Blue 0.1% to 0.2%
Blue Below 0.1%
C. Provide this Form in Excel format. The file name shall include the abbreviated name of the
modeling organization, the Standards year, and the Form name. A hard copy of Form A-3
shall be included in a submission appendix.
The contribution and percentage of losses from the 2004 Hurricane Season storms for each ZIP Code
where losses are equal to or greater than $500,000 for personal residential and commercial residential
policies from the 2007 FHCF aggregate exposure data are in RMS11FormA3.xlsx at the link provided
and appear below.
Table 23: Hurricane Charley (2004) Percent of Losses

Personal and Commercial
ZIP Code Residential Monetary Percent of Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33950 1,054,149,311 12.9822%
33952 620,572,657 7.6425%
33983 433,172,941 5.3347%
33980 283,704,470 3.4939%
33924 225,664,637 2.7791%
33957 210,526,548 2.5927%
33948 191,040,022 2.3527%
33982 165,701,878 2.0407%
34266 162,949,801 2.0068%
34744 149,727,014 1.8439%
33955 141,325,284 1.7405%
33884 133,517,709 1.6443%
33922 119,600,294 1.4729%
33904 114,518,454 1.4103%
33844 102,991,854 1.2684%
®
210

Contribution ($)
34743 99,145,928 1.2210%
33914 96,631,009 1.1900%
34746 92,708,730 1.1417%
33853 92,520,735 1.1394%
32765 90,468,163 1.1141%
33954 89,277,001 1.0995%
33908 86,987,426 1.0713%
32825 85,827,428 1.0570%
34269 84,241,599 1.0375%
33921 75,369,753 0.9282%
33919 74,581,384 0.9185%
34769 73,852,880 0.9095%
34759 71,073,749 0.8753%
32837 68,995,515 0.8497%
32812 67,287,025 0.8287%
32822 65,143,139 0.8023%
32828 64,498,625 0.7943%
33931 61,415,179 0.7563%
34741 55,576,042 0.6844%
32792 53,639,587 0.6606%
32817 52,678,413 0.6488%
34758 52,162,406 0.6424%
33873 51,746,687 0.6373%
32708 51,359,934 0.6325%
33990 51,181,537 0.6303%
33898 50,886,593 0.6267%
32824 50,763,373 0.6252%
33903 49,293,993 0.6071%
32806 49,234,131 0.6063%
32789 47,872,041 0.5896%
33912 47,610,911 0.5863%
33859 46,549,094 0.5733%
33956 43,102,038 0.5308%
33917 42,202,891 0.5197%
33981 41,965,915 0.5168%
33993 40,670,405 0.5009%
33881 37,382,113 0.4604%
32819 36,582,012 0.4505%
32807 36,499,413 0.4495%
32127 33,409,161 0.4114%
32826 33,012,939 0.4066%
32803 32,819,766 0.4042%
33880 32,754,844 0.4034%
32809 31,690,816 0.3903%
34772 31,327,700 0.3858%
34134 30,176,786 0.3716%
32707 29,204,891 0.3597%
33991 28,474,891 0.3507%
34108 27,276,610 0.3359%
33946 27,167,454 0.3346%
33843 26,241,125 0.3232%
33841 25,973,925 0.3199%
32751 24,703,810 0.3042%
33901 24,351,670 0.2999%
34135 24,182,743 0.2978%
34286 23,602,374 0.2907%
32832 23,501,777 0.2894%
32829 23,402,357 0.2882%
®
211

Contribution ($)
33907 23,334,758 0.2874%
33837 23,250,143 0.2863%
32766 22,889,584 0.2819%
34288 22,720,269 0.2798%
34771 22,716,029 0.2798%
32738 21,717,030 0.2675%
33905 21,484,913 0.2646%
32804 21,178,504 0.2608%
32839 20,629,272 0.2541%
32168 19,464,830 0.2397%
33909 19,348,958 0.2383%
32118 18,664,520 0.2299%
34103 18,427,019 0.2269%
33827 18,412,182 0.2268%
34102 18,370,663 0.2262%
32725 18,182,768 0.2239%
34110 18,012,553 0.2218%
32821 17,299,342 0.2130%
32771 16,965,249 0.2089%
33830 16,556,883 0.2039%
32827 16,308,712 0.2008%
32836 16,284,368 0.2005%
33928 16,217,921 0.1997%
32169 16,197,207 0.1995%
32750 15,480,036 0.1906%
32746 14,546,623 0.1791%
32119 14,542,491 0.1791%
33825 13,898,544 0.1712%
32835 13,399,582 0.1650%
32808 12,654,876 0.1558%
32176 12,625,807 0.1555%
34145 12,604,706 0.1552%
32773 12,198,037 0.1502%
33872 12,141,378 0.1495%
32732 12,096,799 0.1490%
33890 12,072,043 0.1487%
32779 11,916,768 0.1468%
34109 11,403,794 0.1404%
33838 11,012,330 0.1356%
32805 10,882,538 0.1340%
32174 10,705,760 0.1318%
34112 10,520,733 0.1296%
34119 10,253,559 0.1263%
34747 10,072,241 0.1240%
32128 9,831,918 0.1211%
32701 9,666,593 0.1190%
32129 9,232,931 0.1137%
32714 9,148,081 0.1127%
32811 8,892,852 0.1095%
32801 8,862,413 0.1091%
34105 8,790,461 0.1083%
34786 8,675,890 0.1068%
33967 8,630,551 0.1063%
33916 8,363,523 0.1030%
32810 8,113,218 0.0999%
34104 7,905,580 0.0974%
34224 7,797,830 0.0960%
33913 7,767,560 0.0957%
®
212

Contribution ($)
33936 7,698,637 0.0948%
34223 7,581,574 0.0934%
32117 7,244,625 0.0892%
32141 7,035,182 0.0866%
33953 6,997,773 0.0862%
34287 6,901,225 0.0850%
32818 6,885,506 0.0848%
32114 6,850,974 0.0844%
33971 6,699,544 0.0825%
32820 5,962,482 0.0734%
34116 5,434,271 0.0669%
32833 5,218,327 0.0643%
34113 5,155,879 0.0635%
32713 4,900,162 0.0603%
33947 4,593,277 0.0566%
33870 4,559,333 0.0561%
33852 4,527,868 0.0558%
33966 4,385,249 0.0540%
34293 4,285,627 0.0528%
33972 4,155,258 0.0512%
33851 4,099,796 0.0505%
32132 3,655,237 0.0450%
32730 3,509,968 0.0432%
34120 3,501,718 0.0431%
33850 3,348,638 0.0412%
33896 3,178,321 0.0391%
32764 3,124,789 0.0385%
32780 2,954,645 0.0364%
34114 2,940,283 0.0362%
33875 2,722,946 0.0335%
33945 2,683,919 0.0331%
32703 2,672,752 0.0329%
32763 2,604,988 0.0321%
32724 2,511,384 0.0309%
33823 2,331,421 0.0287%
32754 2,286,610 0.0282%
32796 2,218,180 0.0273%
33839 2,215,338 0.0273%
34117 2,144,304 0.0264%
32814 2,059,420 0.0254%
33834 1,951,727 0.0240%
34761 1,871,289 0.0230%
33920 1,840,683 0.0227%
33935 1,739,953 0.0214%
34285 1,629,498 0.0201%
33897 1,600,363 0.0197%
34275 1,593,382 0.0196%
33877 1,532,102 0.0189%
34292 1,531,519 0.0189%
32927 1,526,117 0.0188%
33820 1,408,779 0.0173%
32926 1,396,763 0.0172%
32955 1,396,539 0.0172%
32952 1,371,207 0.0169%
34268 1,283,162 0.0158%
32931 1,254,675 0.0155%
33949 1,242,477 0.0153%
33951 1,209,738 0.0149%
®
213

Contribution ($)
32940 1,184,902 0.0146%
34267 1,164,938 0.0143%
32709 1,135,451 0.0140%
34265 1,125,075 0.0139%
32953 1,095,005 0.0135%
34289 1,041,799 0.0128%
33876 924,497 0.0114%
33938 906,689 0.0112%
32744 902,765 0.0111%
33848 675,378 0.0083%
32124 664,359 0.0082%
33855 660,716 0.0081%
32759 659,271 0.0081%
34734 635,573 0.0078%
32920 563,351 0.0069%
34142 546,518 0.0067%
34773 532,945 0.0066%
33847 527,696 0.0065%
32136 524,649 0.0065%
33440 517,725 0.0064%
®
214
Table 24: Hurricane Frances (2004) Percent of Losses

Percent of
ZIP Code Residential Monetary
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
32963 146,780,440 3.9846%
32958 86,975,794 2.3611%
33480 63,755,448 1.7308%
34997 60,415,248 1.6401%
32976 54,658,739 1.4838%
34952 54,270,160 1.4733%
33455 51,334,474 1.3936%
34990 50,057,788 1.3589%
33418 48,661,385 1.3210%
34996 47,612,265 1.2925%
33469 39,904,208 1.0833%
33458 37,716,079 1.0239%
32951 37,189,405 1.0096%
34957 36,756,074 0.9978%
34949 36,546,853 0.9921%
34974 34,628,013 0.9400%
34983 34,149,653 0.9271%
34953 33,450,051 0.9081%
33410 33,123,969 0.8992%
34982 33,044,014 0.8970%
33408 32,860,925 0.8921%
33477 31,948,988 0.8673%
33411 31,154,619 0.8457%
32967 30,734,931 0.8344%
32907 30,695,517 0.8333%
32960 29,255,434 0.7942%
33414 28,578,746 0.7758%
32935 27,579,951 0.7487%
32937 27,381,333 0.7433%
32962 25,745,150 0.6989%
32966 24,327,213 0.6604%
32905 23,190,886 0.6296%
32909 23,189,514 0.6295%
33404 22,944,188 0.6229%
33467 22,727,032 0.6170%
34951 21,816,970 0.5923%
34994 21,076,638 0.5722%
33437 19,830,675 0.5383%
32903 19,312,568 0.5243%
32940 18,300,598 0.4968%
33417 16,624,464 0.4513%
32931 16,609,109 0.4509%
32952 16,405,074 0.4453%
32904 16,241,166 0.4409%
32901 16,102,738 0.4371%
34986 15,939,475 0.4327%
33436 15,517,707 0.4213%
33401 15,407,185 0.4183%
32765 14,809,453 0.4020%
34972 14,639,450 0.3974%
33407 14,594,117 0.3962%
32955 14,281,420 0.3877%
32708 14,094,628 0.3826%
32779 13,957,897 0.3789%
34984 13,666,529 0.3710%
®
215

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33462 13,648,720 0.3705%
33463 13,634,346 0.3701%
32725 13,611,695 0.3695%
32174 13,586,666 0.3688%
33496 13,573,635 0.3685%
32968 13,147,025 0.3569%
34947 12,460,518 0.3383%
33470 12,361,892 0.3356%
32169 12,311,759 0.3342%
32789 12,271,435 0.3331%
33415 12,264,256 0.3329%
32934 12,256,582 0.3327%
34950 12,190,446 0.3309%
32771 11,969,195 0.3249%
34744 11,947,113 0.3243%
33412 11,909,270 0.3233%
32746 11,895,803 0.3229%
32118 11,705,283 0.3178%
33409 11,262,862 0.3058%
33478 11,231,238 0.3049%
32127 11,183,170 0.3036%
33405 10,900,026 0.2959%
33433 10,678,342 0.2899%
32780 10,664,539 0.2895%
32792 10,662,231 0.2894%
32176 10,562,041 0.2867%
32738 10,546,602 0.2863%
32819 10,371,261 0.2815%
32953 10,258,802 0.2785%
33852 10,125,886 0.2749%
33446 9,761,901 0.2650%
32825 9,708,647 0.2636%
33445 9,621,397 0.2612%
34786 9,615,783 0.2610%
32159 9,607,632 0.2608%
32950 9,458,748 0.2568%
33406 9,407,689 0.2554%
33461 9,219,539 0.2503%
34748 9,209,685 0.2500%
33435 9,197,627 0.2497%
32712 9,003,729 0.2444%
32837 8,903,147 0.2417%
33460 8,783,870 0.2385%
32707 8,726,197 0.2369%
33434 8,722,290 0.2368%
33428 8,554,508 0.2322%
34769 8,547,220 0.2320%
34746 8,518,440 0.2312%
33884 8,412,151 0.2284%
32806 8,287,869 0.2250%
34743 8,184,656 0.2222%
32751 8,128,590 0.2207%
33844 7,990,420 0.2169%
32137 7,919,426 0.2150%
32750 7,910,330 0.2147%
32812 7,880,352 0.2139%
33487 7,805,270 0.2119%
®
216

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
32720 7,711,818 0.2094%
33484 7,696,258 0.2089%
34711 7,645,958 0.2076%
32724 7,586,282 0.2059%
32828 7,487,496 0.2033%
33483 7,437,287 0.2019%
33881 7,429,565 0.2017%
32119 7,382,222 0.2004%
32926 7,368,291 0.2000%
32817 7,338,258 0.1992%
32703 7,320,156 0.1987%
32822 7,198,820 0.1954%
32927 7,184,338 0.1950%
33403 7,163,156 0.1945%
32713 6,972,099 0.1893%
33872 6,946,136 0.1886%
34946 6,913,152 0.1877%
32714 6,829,570 0.1854%
32835 6,794,637 0.1845%
33064 6,679,528 0.1813%
34471 6,613,851 0.1795%
33813 6,601,353 0.1792%
32803 6,590,577 0.1789%
32804 6,584,858 0.1788%
34788 6,529,661 0.1773%
32796 6,482,497 0.1760%
33498 6,471,751 0.1757%
34787 6,437,134 0.1747%
33825 6,410,641 0.1740%
32949 6,370,274 0.1729%
32168 6,361,820 0.1727%
32141 6,340,137 0.1721%
33065 6,323,578 0.1717%
33071 6,306,940 0.1712%
32082 6,277,572 0.1704%
33880 6,156,156 0.1671%
32778 6,111,983 0.1659%
34491 6,066,591 0.1647%
32908 6,062,142 0.1646%
33870 6,020,623 0.1634%
32757 6,019,083 0.1634%
32818 5,989,977 0.1626%
33062 5,987,223 0.1625%
33063 5,920,780 0.1607%
32808 5,890,583 0.1599%
33426 5,869,701 0.1593%
33432 5,801,800 0.1575%
34772 5,749,020 0.1561%
33308 5,742,221 0.1559%
32726 5,679,926 0.1542%
34771 5,643,729 0.1532%
33823 5,630,291 0.1528%
32773 5,601,995 0.1521%
33898 5,578,413 0.1514%
33321 5,557,916 0.1509%
32920 5,540,601 0.1504%
34761 5,490,083 0.1490%
®
217

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33067 5,476,960 0.1487%
33431 5,354,605 0.1454%
32948 5,348,838 0.1452%
32824 5,255,928 0.1427%
32807 5,254,307 0.1426%
32080 5,249,693 0.1425%
33486 5,168,614 0.1403%
33442 5,136,205 0.1394%
32810 5,075,462 0.1378%
34741 5,034,677 0.1367%
32836 4,976,587 0.1351%
32809 4,930,100 0.1338%
33810 4,907,766 0.1332%
34472 4,828,482 0.1311%
32701 4,797,118 0.1302%
33076 4,585,961 0.1245%
32117 4,541,811 0.1233%
34945 4,523,032 0.1228%
32763 4,488,447 0.1218%
33594 4,484,905 0.1218%
33326 4,426,922 0.1202%
33809 4,426,791 0.1202%
34956 4,411,907 0.1198%
33322 4,411,470 0.1198%
33801 4,371,217 0.1187%
33440 4,295,419 0.1166%
33803 4,262,171 0.1157%
33413 4,160,095 0.1129%
33029 4,159,654 0.1129%
33319 4,145,274 0.1125%
33324 4,132,900 0.1122%
34209 4,089,584 0.1110%
32114 4,046,293 0.1098%
32129 4,040,904 0.1097%
32162 3,993,450 0.1084%
33312 3,989,592 0.1083%
34476 3,986,632 0.1082%
33830 3,968,608 0.1077%
33837 3,932,025 0.1067%
32826 3,905,824 0.1060%
34470 3,895,269 0.1057%
33068 3,847,578 0.1044%
32128 3,843,122 0.1043%
34758 3,828,185 0.1039%
33317 3,826,166 0.1039%
33444 3,759,658 0.1021%
33325 3,686,943 0.1001%
33950 3,682,751 0.1000%
32839 3,668,172 0.0996%
34981 3,641,925 0.0989%
34482 3,639,019 0.0988%
33140 3,618,822 0.0982%
34747 3,600,078 0.0977%
32922 3,576,716 0.0971%
34228 3,564,354 0.0968%
33024 3,546,835 0.0963%
33843 3,537,452 0.0960%
®
218

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
34759 3,520,210 0.0956%
33853 3,503,756 0.0951%
32766 3,491,538 0.0948%
33904 3,462,926 0.0940%
33021 3,374,666 0.0916%
32136 3,371,058 0.0915%
34474 3,356,584 0.0911%
34420 3,322,925 0.0902%
34293 3,302,406 0.0896%
33875 3,283,454 0.0891%
33160 3,240,392 0.0880%
32754 3,234,588 0.0878%
33908 3,232,392 0.0877%
33897 3,209,365 0.0871%
34481 3,192,537 0.0867%
33569 3,183,720 0.0864%
34480 3,172,704 0.0861%
32821 3,141,837 0.0853%
33026 3,134,644 0.0851%
32084 3,123,400 0.0848%
34731 3,070,188 0.0833%
33541 3,058,689 0.0830%
33430 3,051,484 0.0828%
33073 3,042,113 0.0826%
33921 3,028,298 0.0822%
33441 3,013,597 0.0818%
33023 3,010,779 0.0817%
34683 2,990,405 0.0812%
34465 2,986,728 0.0811%
33309 2,980,550 0.0809%
32225 2,977,892 0.0808%
33914 2,977,751 0.0808%
32086 2,973,747 0.0807%
33476 2,972,221 0.0807%
33139 2,968,997 0.0806%
33328 2,949,641 0.0801%
33511 2,943,128 0.0799%
33313 2,932,305 0.0796%
34223 2,930,021 0.0795%
32164 2,929,306 0.0795%
33917 2,928,248 0.0795%
32784 2,905,116 0.0789%
33066 2,883,360 0.0783%
34667 2,873,403 0.0780%
32034 2,861,798 0.0777%
33351 2,857,124 0.0776%
33311 2,855,707 0.0775%
34668 2,851,255 0.0774%
34987 2,812,833 0.0764%
33060 2,799,395 0.0760%
33009 2,787,355 0.0757%
34108 2,785,670 0.0756%
34145 2,782,452 0.0755%
34231 2,760,825 0.0749%
32250 2,718,911 0.0738%
34698 2,711,561 0.0736%
33957 2,705,065 0.0734%
®
219

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33331 2,703,350 0.0734%
33903 2,690,380 0.0730%
33629 2,685,136 0.0729%
34609 2,669,039 0.0725%
34479 2,664,163 0.0723%
34446 2,656,032 0.0721%
32811 2,615,656 0.0710%
33952 2,594,316 0.0704%
33323 2,589,632 0.0703%
33919 2,588,687 0.0703%
33027 2,579,655 0.0700%
34608 2,577,202 0.0700%
34606 2,575,592 0.0699%
34442 2,570,467 0.0698%
32210 2,529,910 0.0687%
32832 2,511,054 0.0682%
32805 2,502,878 0.0679%
34221 2,501,766 0.0679%
33156 2,493,563 0.0677%
34135 2,481,300 0.0674%
34432 2,473,012 0.0671%
33334 2,463,316 0.0669%
34613 2,459,410 0.0668%
33647 2,455,610 0.0667%
33912 2,452,396 0.0666%
33542 2,446,043 0.0664%
34785 2,404,225 0.0653%
33180 2,402,353 0.0652%
33149 2,387,121 0.0648%
33316 2,369,940 0.0643%
34266 2,364,067 0.0642%
33069 2,351,104 0.0638%
32829 2,333,448 0.0633%
33706 2,324,211 0.0631%
33154 2,321,619 0.0630%
33141 2,293,922 0.0623%
33860 2,293,738 0.0623%
33624 2,285,702 0.0620%
33859 2,280,244 0.0619%
33186 2,275,237 0.0618%
32132 2,259,782 0.0613%
32736 2,255,302 0.0612%
34655 2,251,922 0.0611%
32073 2,230,726 0.0606%
32608 2,228,334 0.0605%
33015 2,217,765 0.0602%
33025 2,216,804 0.0602%
34134 2,207,574 0.0599%
32605 2,194,050 0.0596%
32776 2,160,156 0.0586%
33931 2,135,844 0.0580%
32732 2,131,108 0.0579%
34242 2,104,123 0.0571%
34224 2,088,491 0.0567%
32833 2,087,075 0.0567%
32223 2,066,248 0.0561%
33176 2,065,547 0.0561%
®
220

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33327 2,063,445 0.0560%
33611 2,059,172 0.0559%
34429 2,055,717 0.0558%
32179 2,045,790 0.0555%
33301 2,045,324 0.0555%
33330 2,045,126 0.0555%
34102 2,044,747 0.0555%
33019 2,041,118 0.0554%
32233 2,040,289 0.0554%
33157 2,037,274 0.0553%
34287 2,032,622 0.0552%
33756 2,019,909 0.0548%
34689 1,999,756 0.0543%
33304 1,995,846 0.0542%
33811 1,994,239 0.0541%
33525 1,993,356 0.0541%
33905 1,991,733 0.0541%
34488 1,977,922 0.0537%
34473 1,973,822 0.0536%
33868 1,971,572 0.0535%
33935 1,933,504 0.0525%
32177 1,931,064 0.0524%
33990 1,929,049 0.0524%
33710 1,914,186 0.0520%
33615 1,913,021 0.0519%
34450 1,909,192 0.0518%
34275 1,904,398 0.0517%
34103 1,900,264 0.0516%
33876 1,880,274 0.0510%
33175 1,874,407 0.0509%
34110 1,847,897 0.0502%
34601 1,833,626 0.0498%
34653 1,812,758 0.0492%
33703 1,804,639 0.0490%
33715 1,801,842 0.0489%
33617 1,798,398 0.0488%
34652 1,793,403 0.0487%
33805 1,783,805 0.0484%
34452 1,777,794 0.0483%
32207 1,770,824 0.0481%
34285 1,760,765 0.0478%
34431 1,756,948 0.0477%
33165 1,756,638 0.0477%
34684 1,756,330 0.0477%
33543 1,740,153 0.0472%
32244 1,732,591 0.0470%
34232 1,731,956 0.0470%
33133 1,725,774 0.0468%
34119 1,724,812 0.0468%
33020 1,718,231 0.0466%
34428 1,714,261 0.0465%
33936 1,708,806 0.0464%
34243 1,705,601 0.0463%
32607 1,704,099 0.0463%
34448 1,696,574 0.0461%
33179 1,694,062 0.0460%
32068 1,688,020 0.0458%
®
221

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33850 1,687,861 0.0458%
33707 1,681,073 0.0456%
33471 1,676,599 0.0455%
33767 1,668,574 0.0453%
32735 1,665,895 0.0452%
33510 1,654,912 0.0449%
33702 1,654,769 0.0449%
33556 1,654,185 0.0449%
34736 1,653,326 0.0449%
34461 1,643,099 0.0446%
33618 1,633,672 0.0443%
33573 1,627,454 0.0442%
33143 1,622,820 0.0441%
32801 1,620,115 0.0440%
33565 1,616,287 0.0439%
34217 1,614,154 0.0438%
33134 1,612,775 0.0438%
33305 1,609,648 0.0437%
34203 1,609,491 0.0437%
33055 1,606,436 0.0436%
32257 1,601,604 0.0435%
32606 1,598,412 0.0434%
33012 1,568,451 0.0426%
33566 1,567,413 0.0426%
33018 1,555,771 0.0422%
33708 1,553,620 0.0422%
32224 1,549,148 0.0421%
33770 1,529,807 0.0415%
33014 1,524,152 0.0414%
32205 1,521,206 0.0413%
33572 1,518,197 0.0412%
33584 1,509,948 0.0410%
32043 1,497,073 0.0406%
33155 1,491,012 0.0405%
33772 1,487,936 0.0404%
32798 1,487,350 0.0404%
34205 1,477,610 0.0401%
32696 1,475,532 0.0401%
32827 1,459,512 0.0396%
34238 1,437,760 0.0390%
33948 1,437,452 0.0390%
32259 1,422,708 0.0386%
33928 1,411,098 0.0383%
33028 1,407,857 0.0382%
33764 1,406,037 0.0382%
33332 1,400,958 0.0380%
34109 1,399,962 0.0380%
34207 1,396,019 0.0379%
33037 1,391,236 0.0378%
34112 1,387,395 0.0377%
34695 1,381,476 0.0375%
33774 1,366,906 0.0371%
34639 1,363,850 0.0370%
33161 1,362,667 0.0370%
33178 1,352,032 0.0367%
33138 1,349,275 0.0366%
32277 1,348,664 0.0366%
®
222

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
34453 1,342,129 0.0364%
33983 1,338,359 0.0363%
33704 1,338,172 0.0363%
34236 1,328,454 0.0361%
32246 1,327,110 0.0360%
34241 1,321,336 0.0359%
33606 1,319,504 0.0358%
34239 1,316,801 0.0357%
33755 1,313,265 0.0357%
32820 1,309,298 0.0355%
32134 1,307,648 0.0355%
33547 1,291,055 0.0350%
32003 1,288,239 0.0350%
33162 1,287,493 0.0350%
33857 1,286,635 0.0349%
32656 1,279,834 0.0347%
33604 1,274,307 0.0346%
34715 1,273,378 0.0346%
33540 1,272,535 0.0345%
34654 1,269,654 0.0345%
33982 1,258,895 0.0342%
34677 1,257,963 0.0341%
33609 1,250,366 0.0339%
34208 1,245,006 0.0338%
33612 1,239,418 0.0336%
33314 1,238,233 0.0336%
34292 1,233,706 0.0335%
33771 1,227,409 0.0333%
33614 1,224,699 0.0332%
34714 1,219,330 0.0331%
33513 1,217,467 0.0331%
33549 1,210,855 0.0329%
32730 1,207,136 0.0328%
32065 1,197,296 0.0325%
33016 1,195,246 0.0324%
33056 1,190,497 0.0323%
33955 1,190,281 0.0323%
33196 1,185,175 0.0322%
34607 1,182,515 0.0321%
33761 1,182,049 0.0321%
33924 1,177,546 0.0320%
33169 1,164,151 0.0316%
33827 1,159,351 0.0315%
33873 1,157,884 0.0314%
34475 1,157,866 0.0314%
33173 1,156,849 0.0314%
33901 1,149,911 0.0312%
33177 1,149,767 0.0312%
33776 1,146,337 0.0311%
33613 1,143,366 0.0310%
32640 1,141,075 0.0310%
32211 1,137,278 0.0309%
34685 1,136,992 0.0309%
33713 1,135,364 0.0308%
33841 1,134,507 0.0308%
34202 1,134,300 0.0308%
34105 1,131,630 0.0307%
®
223

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
34434 1,123,894 0.0305%
32216 1,121,670 0.0304%
33971 1,117,428 0.0303%
32256 1,117,176 0.0303%
34691 1,116,712 0.0303%
33523 1,116,331 0.0303%
33315 1,114,671 0.0303%
33610 1,114,175 0.0302%
33705 1,105,959 0.0300%
33570 1,101,975 0.0299%
34436 1,099,669 0.0299%
34210 1,090,799 0.0296%
33619 1,088,898 0.0296%
34104 1,082,829 0.0294%
32092 1,075,574 0.0292%
32112 1,075,014 0.0292%
33193 1,067,606 0.0290%
33980 1,065,499 0.0289%
32653 1,064,851 0.0289%
32130 1,053,906 0.0286%
34219 1,053,854 0.0286%
32217 1,042,485 0.0283%
34433 1,037,927 0.0282%
33563 1,030,191 0.0280%
33972 1,023,364 0.0278%
34120 1,015,523 0.0276%
33558 1,000,986 0.0272%
33544 999,090 0.0271%
34610 995,428 0.0270%
34240 988,397 0.0268%
33782 984,169 0.0267%
34229 981,932 0.0267%
33777 969,462 0.0263%
33004 969,067 0.0263%
32615 964,925 0.0262%
33183 962,009 0.0261%
32669 960,917 0.0261%
32148 956,015 0.0260%
33909 954,118 0.0259%
33991 949,437 0.0258%
33913 948,129 0.0257%
34233 947,995 0.0257%
33946 947,487 0.0257%
32266 941,686 0.0256%
33907 933,087 0.0253%
33981 931,778 0.0253%
33709 930,732 0.0253%
33896 930,696 0.0253%
33815 929,647 0.0252%
32668 927,406 0.0252%
33625 923,492 0.0251%
34116 910,225 0.0247%
33993 903,716 0.0245%
33626 899,449 0.0244%
32744 892,224 0.0242%
33181 891,772 0.0242%
34222 891,732 0.0242%
®
224

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
34235 889,328 0.0241%
32195 888,587 0.0241%
34234 887,959 0.0241%
32764 885,070 0.0240%
34113 868,533 0.0236%
32113 865,871 0.0235%
33146 859,883 0.0233%
32024 859,875 0.0233%
33129 855,393 0.0232%
32189 843,898 0.0229%
33147 840,574 0.0228%
33145 837,402 0.0227%
33956 837,189 0.0227%
34773 833,038 0.0226%
34756 831,472 0.0226%
34669 830,399 0.0225%
33947 830,234 0.0225%
33773 828,094 0.0225%
33712 822,483 0.0223%
32102 819,979 0.0223%
34690 819,685 0.0223%
32601 818,730 0.0222%
33781 817,837 0.0222%
32759 817,161 0.0222%
33634 816,823 0.0222%
33013 816,040 0.0222%
32609 814,856 0.0221%
33759 813,785 0.0221%
32957 813,588 0.0221%
33538 806,814 0.0219%
33711 805,796 0.0219%
32686 800,062 0.0217%
32618 793,407 0.0215%
33125 792,483 0.0215%
34734 784,571 0.0213%
33603 777,624 0.0211%
33778 773,540 0.0210%
33567 767,521 0.0208%
32226 767,516 0.0208%
34739 767,446 0.0208%
33166 767,149 0.0208%
34602 764,652 0.0208%
32666 757,072 0.0206%
32693 756,336 0.0205%
34737 750,361 0.0204%
33785 749,754 0.0204%
33142 734,667 0.0199%
33527 731,532 0.0199%
33185 731,414 0.0199%
32258 728,486 0.0198%
33174 717,912 0.0195%
32702 712,595 0.0193%
34212 708,234 0.0192%
33010 706,702 0.0192%
33168 704,082 0.0191%
34286 700,087 0.0190%
33812 698,980 0.0190%
®
225

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33126 698,185 0.0190%
33184 691,857 0.0188%
32626 690,953 0.0188%
33607 687,287 0.0187%
32643 687,086 0.0187%
34114 686,744 0.0186%
33855 681,504 0.0185%
32110 679,183 0.0184%
33597 667,806 0.0181%
32091 663,704 0.0180%
32709 660,039 0.0179%
32617 658,638 0.0179%
33838 650,699 0.0177%
32767 649,432 0.0176%
33763 648,252 0.0176%
33144 647,771 0.0176%
33054 640,236 0.0174%
33922 635,214 0.0172%
33172 632,666 0.0172%
32221 627,994 0.0170%
33635 611,459 0.0166%
32025 608,723 0.0165%
34688 608,214 0.0165%
33920 603,755 0.0164%
32095 603,079 0.0164%
33187 601,564 0.0163%
34705 601,088 0.0163%
33954 598,796 0.0163%
33306 592,991 0.0161%
33890 587,372 0.0159%
33109 582,707 0.0158%
33033 579,359 0.0157%
33762 576,512 0.0157%
33559 574,075 0.0156%
33137 573,707 0.0156%
33475 571,067 0.0155%
33616 560,576 0.0152%
33760 556,491 0.0151%
34237 553,022 0.0150%
33967 547,039 0.0149%
32038 544,899 0.0148%
34604 543,997 0.0148%
32209 538,520 0.0146%
33032 536,856 0.0146%
33765 533,558 0.0145%
32131 530,215 0.0144%
32621 528,316 0.0143%
32124 526,794 0.0143%
32641 524,409 0.0142%
34797 522,837 0.0142%
33701 520,133 0.0141%
33189 518,830 0.0141%
34117 517,778 0.0141%
32680 516,892 0.0140%
33714 513,633 0.0139%
34484 511,843 0.0139%
32667 511,575 0.0139%
®
226

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33158 510,477 0.0139%
33182 509,399 0.0138%
33953 507,187 0.0138%
33548 506,534 0.0138%
32060 505,564 0.0137%
33637 504,039 0.0137%
33070 500,442 0.0136%
®
227
Table 25: Hurricane Ivan (2004) Percent of Losses

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
32507 208,654,887 16.7784%
32561 123,535,177 9.9338%
32506 105,987,957 8.5227%
32503 78,605,626 6.3209%
32526 75,813,312 6.0963%
32514 69,690,007 5.6039%
32563 63,672,372 5.1200%
32504 63,638,663 5.1173%
32533 45,781,573 3.6814%
32505 36,404,386 2.9274%
32566 34,215,422 2.7513%
32571 33,196,834 2.6694%
32541 32,657,067 2.6260%
32501 26,420,579 2.1245%
32548 22,267,645 1.7906%
32578 20,570,462 1.6541%
32534 19,718,108 1.5856%
32547 18,811,851 1.5127%
32570 18,146,688 1.4592%
32550 16,954,023 1.3633%
32459 15,204,730 1.2226%
32583 15,087,796 1.2132%
32579 12,403,383 0.9974%
32569 12,008,226 0.9656%
32577 7,283,559 0.5857%
32413 6,907,282 0.5554%
32408 5,901,260 0.4745%
32404 4,329,033 0.3481%
32565 4,231,551 0.3403%
32539 3,956,837 0.3182%
32405 3,659,767 0.2943%
32535 3,441,097 0.2767%
32536 3,365,643 0.2706%
32401 3,251,393 0.2615%
32407 3,214,157 0.2585%
32568 3,122,088 0.2511%
32444 2,743,714 0.2206%
32580 2,253,349 0.1812%
32433 2,250,811 0.1810%
32502 2,172,823 0.1747%
32456 2,095,227 0.1685%
32439 1,611,116 0.1296%
32328 1,487,900 0.1196%
32428 1,344,629 0.1081%
32531 1,193,817 0.0960%
32409 980,672 0.0789%
32435 856,932 0.0689%
32425 681,875 0.0548%
32446 637,979 0.0513%
32564 630,672 0.0507%
32466 537,665 0.0432%
®
228
Table 26: Hurricane Jeanne (2004) Percent of Losses

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
32963 304,376,517 4.4098%
32958 160,784,565 2.3295%
32907 151,442,499 2.1941%
32976 126,658,081 1.8350%
34997 111,194,866 1.6110%
32951 108,483,587 1.5717%
32935 105,876,301 1.5339%
34952 105,323,748 1.5259%
34990 95,987,212 1.3907%
33480 92,832,306 1.3450%
34949 91,890,474 1.3313%
33455 91,347,566 1.3234%
32909 90,912,772 1.3171%
32905 90,002,260 1.3040%
32960 88,903,963 1.2880%
34996 86,495,995 1.2532%
33418 83,677,331 1.2123%
32962 83,306,023 1.2069%
32937 78,587,606 1.1386%
32904 76,410,823 1.1070%
33469 74,327,049 1.0769%
34983 73,217,633 1.0608%
34953 70,468,203 1.0209%
32940 69,030,441 1.0001%
34957 68,335,198 0.9900%
33458 67,957,724 0.9846%
34982 67,701,195 0.9809%
32967 66,474,457 0.9631%
32966 63,678,197 0.9226%
34974 63,656,412 0.9223%
32901 61,763,758 0.8948%
34951 61,439,732 0.8901%
32903 60,073,750 0.8704%
33477 55,131,699 0.7988%
33410 54,799,589 0.7939%
33408 54,175,690 0.7849%
33852 52,749,356 0.7642%
32934 52,688,609 0.7634%
33884 50,372,951 0.7298%
33411 48,547,034 0.7034%
32955 45,989,611 0.6663%
32952 45,347,135 0.6570%
32931 45,120,128 0.6537%
33872 41,550,904 0.6020%
32968 41,165,209 0.5964%
33844 39,926,187 0.5785%
33414 39,708,985 0.5753%
34994 39,526,453 0.5727%
34986 38,638,384 0.5598%
33825 38,154,726 0.5528%
33870 36,218,954 0.5247%
33404 34,815,409 0.5044%
32950 34,641,581 0.5019%
33881 33,231,501 0.4815%
33898 32,908,430 0.4768%
®
229

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
34769 32,091,027 0.4649%
34744 30,958,336 0.4485%
34947 30,757,895 0.4456%
33880 29,802,271 0.4318%
34950 28,670,971 0.4154%
34772 28,059,872 0.4065%
34984 27,443,683 0.3976%
34972 27,285,110 0.3953%
34748 26,904,969 0.3898%
34711 26,544,239 0.3846%
33417 25,950,574 0.3760%
32908 25,762,454 0.3732%
34746 25,580,126 0.3706%
34786 25,471,305 0.3690%
32953 24,464,337 0.3544%
33467 24,411,651 0.3537%
33853 23,812,708 0.3450%
33401 23,435,893 0.3395%
33407 23,277,039 0.3372%
32819 23,153,904 0.3355%
33813 22,636,172 0.3280%
33470 22,332,632 0.3236%
32949 21,616,371 0.3132%
33412 20,883,177 0.3026%
34759 20,789,840 0.3012%
33478 20,775,369 0.3010%
32159 20,311,081 0.2943%
33843 20,168,230 0.2922%
33830 19,386,028 0.2809%
33875 19,210,448 0.2783%
34771 19,073,004 0.2763%
34787 18,953,408 0.2746%
33823 18,867,585 0.2734%
34743 18,218,494 0.2640%
32837 17,889,937 0.2592%
32926 17,610,043 0.2551%
34946 17,427,500 0.2525%
33437 17,334,162 0.2511%
33409 16,807,360 0.2435%
32789 16,773,030 0.2430%
32779 16,418,137 0.2379%
33415 16,326,686 0.2365%
32835 15,225,209 0.2206%
32712 14,830,824 0.2149%
33463 14,663,266 0.2124%
34758 14,492,888 0.2100%
32780 14,448,072 0.2093%
33436 14,167,400 0.2053%
33859 14,138,003 0.2048%
33462 14,043,668 0.2035%
33405 14,020,034 0.2031%
32806 13,744,360 0.1991%
34761 13,570,718 0.1966%
32778 13,442,614 0.1948%
32703 13,414,411 0.1943%
32927 13,152,428 0.1906%
34788 13,091,505 0.1897%
®
230

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
32920 12,599,998 0.1825%
32818 12,516,573 0.1813%
32708 12,440,306 0.1802%
34741 12,416,935 0.1799%
33406 12,393,882 0.1796%
33801 12,314,064 0.1784%
33803 12,156,196 0.1761%
32836 12,102,160 0.1753%
34266 12,053,275 0.1746%
32812 12,002,413 0.1739%
33837 11,793,132 0.1709%
32765 11,756,493 0.1703%
34945 11,494,293 0.1665%
32792 11,302,805 0.1638%
32757 11,212,595 0.1624%
33403 11,088,196 0.1606%
32808 11,073,625 0.1604%
34491 10,976,510 0.1590%
32746 10,720,964 0.1553%
32804 10,680,548 0.1547%
32751 10,421,631 0.1510%
33461 10,337,374 0.1498%
32825 10,318,165 0.1495%
33876 10,314,566 0.1494%
32726 10,271,662 0.1488%
32822 10,091,185 0.1462%
33460 10,025,198 0.1452%
33810 9,990,977 0.1447%
32922 9,800,515 0.1420%
33594 9,651,864 0.1398%
32948 9,645,598 0.1397%
33809 9,478,187 0.1373%
32824 9,459,952 0.1371%
33496 9,344,585 0.1354%
32803 9,248,341 0.1340%
33440 9,247,637 0.1340%
32714 8,944,848 0.1296%
32809 8,885,957 0.1287%
34956 8,777,777 0.1272%
32707 8,633,761 0.1251%
32771 8,605,620 0.1247%
34747 8,546,457 0.1238%
32725 8,517,341 0.1234%
33435 8,205,521 0.1189%
34981 8,201,439 0.1188%
32810 8,055,162 0.1167%
32162 8,033,190 0.1164%
32828 7,959,184 0.1153%
34471 7,809,358 0.1131%
33706 7,788,371 0.1128%
32750 7,743,095 0.1122%
33873 7,548,288 0.1094%
34731 7,538,761 0.1092%
33827 7,280,532 0.1055%
33433 7,150,053 0.1036%
33860 7,111,707 0.1030%
32174 7,066,369 0.1024%
®
231

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33897 7,050,668 0.1022%
32821 7,039,226 0.1020%
34698 6,947,628 0.1007%
33445 6,918,115 0.1002%
34472 6,913,038 0.1002%
32817 6,900,324 0.1000%
33446 6,831,933 0.0990%
34987 6,753,838 0.0978%
32839 6,691,933 0.0970%
33841 6,525,636 0.0945%
33569 6,503,952 0.0942%
33430 6,421,284 0.0930%
33511 6,376,257 0.0924%
32796 6,372,962 0.0923%
32807 6,354,293 0.0921%
33850 6,287,559 0.0911%
33767 6,224,078 0.0902%
32738 6,187,961 0.0897%
33756 6,112,960 0.0886%
34785 6,067,949 0.0879%
33434 6,021,505 0.0872%
33541 5,854,979 0.0848%
34667 5,814,882 0.0842%
33413 5,810,855 0.0842%
33710 5,808,365 0.0842%
33428 5,764,809 0.0835%
34683 5,655,558 0.0819%
32176 5,592,234 0.0810%
33487 5,557,016 0.0805%
34476 5,555,740 0.0805%
34668 5,550,314 0.0804%
32118 5,541,810 0.0803%
34420 5,514,426 0.0799%
34609 5,470,417 0.0793%
32701 5,469,358 0.0792%
33483 5,404,338 0.0783%
33484 5,354,677 0.0776%
33629 5,334,476 0.0773%
33426 5,317,561 0.0770%
34209 5,315,495 0.0770%
32811 5,300,761 0.0768%
34608 5,274,642 0.0764%
33708 5,273,198 0.0764%
33707 5,202,528 0.0754%
33811 5,188,800 0.0752%
34606 5,164,394 0.0748%
32169 5,010,938 0.0726%
33476 4,997,433 0.0724%
33471 4,974,567 0.0721%
32127 4,949,940 0.0717%
33647 4,943,000 0.0716%
32720 4,906,961 0.0711%
34446 4,904,456 0.0711%
32713 4,890,169 0.0708%
33542 4,859,898 0.0704%
34736 4,858,480 0.0704%
34228 4,807,920 0.0697%
®
232

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
32832 4,728,207 0.0685%
33703 4,666,144 0.0676%
34465 4,658,071 0.0675%
34715 4,600,198 0.0666%
33611 4,598,136 0.0666%
32724 4,595,422 0.0666%
33857 4,574,321 0.0663%
34470 4,559,677 0.0661%
32137 4,551,702 0.0659%
33770 4,546,985 0.0659%
34613 4,541,220 0.0658%
33715 4,492,297 0.0651%
32805 4,454,418 0.0645%
34773 4,428,848 0.0642%
34480 4,406,438 0.0638%
34442 4,388,826 0.0636%
33868 4,352,396 0.0631%
33525 4,283,109 0.0621%
33498 4,281,925 0.0620%
32082 4,262,758 0.0618%
33772 4,223,099 0.0612%
33573 4,220,418 0.0611%
33624 4,205,000 0.0609%
32773 4,185,029 0.0606%
34450 4,158,699 0.0603%
34482 4,080,008 0.0591%
33855 4,069,052 0.0590%
34221 4,065,112 0.0589%
33838 4,001,406 0.0580%
33432 3,988,236 0.0578%
33805 3,973,269 0.0576%
34474 3,961,439 0.0574%
34481 3,896,859 0.0565%
33950 3,864,097 0.0560%
33702 3,851,007 0.0558%
33431 3,839,314 0.0556%
33755 3,837,840 0.0556%
33572 3,835,713 0.0556%
32784 3,788,993 0.0549%
34601 3,750,135 0.0543%
34655 3,708,039 0.0537%
33566 3,703,173 0.0537%
34452 3,690,129 0.0535%
34739 3,647,223 0.0528%
33510 3,638,129 0.0527%
33543 3,636,741 0.0527%
33064 3,624,984 0.0525%
33774 3,617,180 0.0524%
34689 3,603,030 0.0522%
33935 3,597,043 0.0521%
33890 3,522,817 0.0510%
33704 3,517,280 0.0510%
32119 3,503,982 0.0508%
33615 3,474,672 0.0503%
33486 3,428,442 0.0497%
33565 3,418,259 0.0495%
32826 3,390,959 0.0491%
®
233

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33584 3,379,523 0.0490%
33617 3,367,445 0.0488%
34473 3,366,253 0.0488%
32210 3,352,130 0.0486%
34652 3,324,015 0.0482%
34231 3,299,836 0.0478%
32829 3,289,102 0.0477%
33065 3,272,688 0.0474%
33547 3,265,866 0.0473%
33771 3,258,148 0.0472%
34429 3,178,428 0.0460%
33067 3,159,056 0.0458%
33442 3,154,667 0.0457%
34432 3,141,335 0.0455%
33776 3,137,410 0.0455%
34653 3,132,211 0.0454%
34714 3,056,457 0.0443%
34479 3,053,233 0.0442%
33071 3,052,174 0.0442%
34684 3,031,410 0.0439%
33713 3,019,403 0.0437%
33618 3,019,243 0.0437%
34448 3,014,235 0.0437%
33764 3,012,093 0.0436%
33062 2,970,331 0.0430%
32763 2,967,018 0.0430%
33952 2,904,154 0.0421%
33076 2,891,811 0.0419%
34639 2,886,540 0.0418%
32776 2,868,287 0.0416%
33556 2,857,647 0.0414%
33063 2,856,346 0.0414%
34461 2,852,272 0.0413%
32034 2,851,466 0.0413%
32080 2,844,492 0.0412%
33709 2,833,516 0.0411%
32179 2,803,903 0.0406%
32608 2,800,216 0.0406%
33917 2,775,992 0.0402%
32798 2,775,467 0.0402%
33308 2,767,495 0.0401%
33777 2,755,962 0.0399%
33444 2,754,443 0.0399%
32073 2,748,344 0.0398%
33705 2,737,947 0.0397%
34756 2,729,470 0.0395%
34242 2,720,429 0.0394%
32168 2,710,229 0.0393%
32801 2,703,686 0.0392%
32735 2,682,392 0.0389%
33523 2,675,903 0.0388%
34453 2,675,705 0.0388%
33570 2,673,180 0.0387%
32605 2,662,694 0.0386%
32141 2,632,615 0.0381%
32225 2,617,648 0.0379%
34217 2,606,937 0.0378%
®
234

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33321 2,605,625 0.0378%
32833 2,604,863 0.0377%
33513 2,568,940 0.0372%
32068 2,549,434 0.0369%
33540 2,517,679 0.0365%
32736 2,515,115 0.0364%
33606 2,508,945 0.0363%
33563 2,484,015 0.0360%
34695 2,465,148 0.0357%
34737 2,461,752 0.0357%
34243 2,458,148 0.0356%
32827 2,448,977 0.0355%
32223 2,446,380 0.0354%
32766 2,402,935 0.0348%
33549 2,389,227 0.0346%
33782 2,388,599 0.0346%
33812 2,381,376 0.0345%
33982 2,371,418 0.0344%
33711 2,345,522 0.0340%
33785 2,334,987 0.0338%
34293 2,334,346 0.0338%
33604 2,323,968 0.0337%
33609 2,322,363 0.0336%
34203 2,319,306 0.0336%
34232 2,315,184 0.0335%
33619 2,312,290 0.0335%
32117 2,275,317 0.0330%
32244 2,262,714 0.0328%
33839 2,258,159 0.0327%
33612 2,256,023 0.0327%
34607 2,247,300 0.0326%
33781 2,243,812 0.0325%
34677 2,221,698 0.0322%
32754 2,221,385 0.0322%
33614 2,217,650 0.0321%
33610 2,214,779 0.0321%
34654 2,213,356 0.0321%
33815 2,204,635 0.0319%
33983 2,198,051 0.0318%
33896 2,183,896 0.0316%
33712 2,174,559 0.0315%
34436 2,166,116 0.0314%
33761 2,148,464 0.0311%
32207 2,140,346 0.0310%
33613 2,140,315 0.0310%
33773 2,098,341 0.0304%
33544 2,093,175 0.0303%
34691 2,078,103 0.0301%
34488 2,077,835 0.0301%
34428 2,069,518 0.0300%
32205 2,059,614 0.0298%
33778 2,044,967 0.0296%
33322 2,043,506 0.0296%
32607 2,030,974 0.0294%
33903 2,030,734 0.0294%
32250 2,022,028 0.0293%
34207 2,016,480 0.0292%
®
235

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33905 2,005,708 0.0291%
32656 1,967,367 0.0285%
33558 1,963,081 0.0284%
34734 1,949,014 0.0282%
33319 1,947,842 0.0282%
34205 1,947,571 0.0282%
32114 1,907,603 0.0276%
32136 1,903,669 0.0276%
34685 1,902,328 0.0276%
34431 1,886,075 0.0273%
34610 1,883,849 0.0273%
32084 1,874,196 0.0272%
32086 1,865,342 0.0270%
32606 1,856,087 0.0269%
33538 1,849,989 0.0268%
33073 1,844,684 0.0267%
33567 1,843,647 0.0267%
33312 1,838,243 0.0266%
32957 1,828,722 0.0265%
33324 1,820,076 0.0264%
32129 1,819,876 0.0264%
33068 1,814,316 0.0263%
34236 1,813,660 0.0263%
33326 1,797,644 0.0260%
34287 1,791,036 0.0259%
34275 1,790,830 0.0259%
33441 1,789,004 0.0259%
32257 1,779,893 0.0258%
32128 1,766,413 0.0256%
34223 1,764,983 0.0256%
32164 1,761,415 0.0255%
33317 1,753,386 0.0254%
34219 1,747,989 0.0253%
34797 1,736,805 0.0252%
34208 1,719,396 0.0249%
34238 1,690,259 0.0245%
33625 1,678,501 0.0243%
34241 1,670,848 0.0242%
33527 1,645,657 0.0238%
34239 1,640,551 0.0238%
33936 1,630,479 0.0236%
33029 1,624,169 0.0235%
32195 1,620,437 0.0235%
34705 1,613,126 0.0234%
33325 1,609,255 0.0233%
33024 1,603,017 0.0232%
34434 1,602,524 0.0232%
32233 1,586,941 0.0230%
34602 1,585,803 0.0230%
32177 1,578,567 0.0229%
34202 1,549,339 0.0224%
34210 1,541,934 0.0223%
33759 1,537,211 0.0223%
33626 1,533,510 0.0222%
34669 1,532,370 0.0222%
32043 1,529,456 0.0222%
32640 1,524,466 0.0221%
®
236

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33021 1,512,240 0.0219%
33634 1,506,498 0.0218%
33851 1,505,525 0.0218%
32065 1,494,346 0.0217%
32696 1,462,215 0.0212%
32259 1,458,712 0.0211%
33834 1,436,860 0.0208%
33714 1,435,725 0.0208%
33616 1,432,224 0.0208%
33309 1,426,314 0.0207%
32277 1,411,198 0.0204%
32003 1,407,369 0.0204%
33603 1,406,255 0.0204%
33066 1,400,562 0.0203%
33948 1,396,336 0.0202%
33763 1,389,015 0.0201%
34222 1,388,882 0.0201%
33313 1,387,687 0.0201%
33311 1,381,368 0.0200%
33060 1,379,324 0.0200%
33786 1,377,024 0.0200%
32218 1,374,630 0.0199%
33597 1,368,833 0.0198%
34285 1,368,718 0.0198%
34690 1,368,222 0.0198%
33351 1,339,734 0.0194%
34433 1,336,699 0.0194%
34475 1,326,552 0.0192%
32134 1,321,649 0.0191%
34240 1,303,768 0.0189%
33026 1,300,056 0.0188%
32653 1,300,047 0.0188%
33023 1,288,841 0.0187%
33980 1,287,981 0.0187%
33328 1,279,752 0.0185%
33607 1,268,776 0.0184%
34234 1,265,369 0.0183%
34235 1,251,890 0.0181%
32730 1,245,471 0.0180%
32217 1,243,937 0.0180%
32060 1,243,711 0.0180%
32224 1,238,742 0.0179%
32732 1,237,826 0.0179%
33701 1,237,704 0.0179%
33960 1,236,875 0.0179%
33160 1,228,230 0.0178%
34233 1,221,545 0.0177%
33334 1,214,457 0.0176%
32216 1,214,326 0.0176%
32211 1,210,160 0.0175%
32615 1,183,081 0.0171%
32208 1,181,823 0.0171%
32601 1,179,248 0.0171%
32246 1,176,636 0.0170%
33069 1,176,512 0.0170%
33765 1,176,081 0.0170%
33559 1,173,421 0.0170%
®
237

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
33762 1,163,556 0.0169%
33323 1,161,411 0.0168%
33140 1,161,310 0.0168%
33972 1,156,051 0.0167%
32091 1,136,703 0.0165%
32024 1,134,705 0.0164%
33331 1,130,243 0.0164%
34224 1,124,368 0.0163%
33957 1,123,303 0.0163%
32666 1,116,587 0.0162%
33760 1,115,478 0.0162%
32609 1,111,265 0.0161%
32820 1,107,286 0.0160%
33009 1,104,130 0.0160%
33971 1,096,980 0.0159%
34484 1,096,921 0.0159%
33990 1,096,312 0.0159%
32148 1,093,085 0.0158%
33635 1,088,721 0.0158%
33316 1,068,105 0.0155%
33027 1,067,928 0.0155%
33598 1,064,850 0.0154%
34604 1,062,223 0.0154%
34292 1,056,859 0.0153%
33548 1,053,283 0.0153%
34229 1,040,806 0.0151%
32221 1,036,519 0.0150%
33592 1,033,933 0.0150%
32025 1,029,384 0.0149%
33637 1,015,734 0.0147%
32113 1,011,035 0.0146%
32256 1,010,318 0.0146%
34212 1,006,986 0.0146%
34688 1,001,717 0.0145%
33921 1,000,819 0.0145%
33475 979,565 0.0142%
33301 977,228 0.0142%
33955 965,159 0.0140%
33180 956,729 0.0139%
33025 947,351 0.0137%
33493 944,471 0.0137%
32669 941,072 0.0136%
33605 938,226 0.0136%
33304 936,116 0.0136%
32668 926,550 0.0134%
33327 918,388 0.0133%
32686 913,320 0.0132%
32132 910,887 0.0132%
34638 908,753 0.0132%
33920 904,258 0.0131%
32209 892,713 0.0129%
33139 892,515 0.0129%
33901 878,967 0.0127%
32055 876,131 0.0127%
33019 876,127 0.0127%
33330 870,577 0.0126%
34286 864,496 0.0125%
®
238

Percent of
Losses (%)
Contribution ($)
32092 849,034 0.0123%
33602 847,580 0.0123%
34614 842,957 0.0122%
32709 836,377 0.0121%
33534 830,429 0.0120%
34760 830,076 0.0120%
34991 827,354 0.0120%
32618 817,767 0.0118%
33154 816,359 0.0118%
34753 810,717 0.0117%
32641 788,058 0.0114%
33020 783,146 0.0113%
33305 779,264 0.0113%
33141 778,961 0.0113%
33438 772,897 0.0112%
34269 767,157 0.0111%
32970 765,152 0.0111%
32964 756,581 0.0110%
34237 756,072 0.0110%
32226 755,159 0.0109%
32617 751,332 0.0109%
34251 742,307 0.0108%
32112 728,620 0.0106%
32643 727,995 0.0105%
33954 723,739 0.0105%
34216 721,983 0.0105%
32266 713,210 0.0103%
32702 695,460 0.0101%
33909 694,975 0.0101%
32063 682,638 0.0099%
33149 675,482 0.0098%
32258 673,182 0.0098%
33913 672,466 0.0097%
32693 664,067 0.0096%
32961 661,470 0.0096%
32130 660,457 0.0096%
32667 642,998 0.0093%
32189 636,509 0.0092%
33028 604,315 0.0088%
33576 601,212 0.0087%
32038 592,838 0.0086%
33981 589,820 0.0085%
32102 576,780 0.0084%
33332 568,515 0.0082%
32626 561,698 0.0081%
33993 560,362 0.0081%
33314 546,099 0.0079%
32206 538,186 0.0078%
32767 537,869 0.0078%
33877 532,315 0.0077%
32764 527,454 0.0076%
32814 522,494 0.0076%
32744 521,603 0.0076%
33716 517,761 0.0075%
32220 509,859 0.0074%
33315 509,513 0.0074%
32054 501,168 0.0073%
®
239
Figure 65: Percentage of Residential Losses from Hurricane Charley (2004) by ZIP Code
®
240
Figure 66: Percentage of Residential Losses from Hurricane Frances (2004) by ZIP Code
®
241
Figure 67: Percentage of Residential Losses from Hurricane Ivan (2004) by ZIP Code
®
242
Figure 68: Percentage of Residential Losses from Hurricane Jeanne (2004) by ZIP Code
®
243
Figure 69: Percentage of Cumulative Residential Losses from 2004 Events by ZIP Code
®
244
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form A-4: Output Ranges
Form A-4: Output Ranges
A. Provide personal and commercial residential output ranges in the format shown in the file
named “2011FormA4.xlsx” by using an automated program or script. A hard copy of Form A-
4 shall be included in a submission appendix. Provide this form in Excel format. The file name
shall include the abbreviated name of the modeler, the Standards year, and the form name.
B. Provide loss costs rounded to 3 decimal places by county. Within each county, loss costs
shall be shown separately per $1,000 of exposure for frame owners, masonry owners, frame
renters, masonry renters, frame condo unit owners, masonry condo unit owners, mobile
home, and commercial residential. For each of these categories using ZIP Code centroids, the
output range shall show the highest loss cost, the lowest loss cost, and the weighted average
loss cost. The aggregate residential exposure data for this form shall be developed from the
information in the file named “hlpm2007c.exe,” except for insured value and deductibles
information. Insured values shall be based on the output range specifications below.
Deductible amounts of 0% and as specified in the output range specifications will be assumed
to be uniformly applied to all risks. When calculating the weighted average loss costs, weight
the loss costs by the total insured value calculated above. Include the statewide range of loss
costs (i.e., low, high, and weighted average).
C. If a modeling organization has loss costs for a ZIP Code for which there is no exposure, give
the loss costs zero weight (i.e., assume the exposure in that ZIP Code is zero). Provide a list
in the submission document of those ZIP Codes where this occurs.
D. If a modeling organization does not have loss costs for a ZIP Code for which there is some
exposure, do not assume such loss costs are zero, but use only the exposures for which there
are loss costs in calculating the weighted average loss costs. Provide a list in the submission
document of the ZIP Codes where this occurs.
E. All anomalies in loss costs that are not consistent with the requirements of Standard A-6 and
have been explained in Disclosure A-6.14 shall be shaded.
Indicate if per diem is used in producing loss costs for Coverage D (ALE) in the personal
residential output ranges. If a per diem rate is used in the submission, a rate of $150.00 per day
per policy shall be used.
The required file is provided in Excel format in the file RMS11FormA4_20130311.xlsx at the link
provided and appears below. There are no instances of loss costs for a ZIP Code for which there is no
exposure in the submitted Output Ranges. The gross (non-zero deductible) loss costs have been
calculated with the assumption that an insurer will not elect to apply an all other perils deductible to
subsequent hurricane losses. There are no instances where we have a zero loss cost for a ZIP Code
for which there is some exposure in the submitted Output Ranges.
Output Range Specifications
Policy Type Assumptions
Owners Coverage A = Structure

 Coverage A limit = $100,000
 Coverage B limit = 10% of Coverage A limit
®
245
 Coverage C limit = 50% of Coverage A limit
 Coverage D limit = 20% of Coverage A limit
 Dominant Coverage = A.
 2% Deductible of Coverage A.
Renters Coverage C = Contents
 Coverage C limit = $25,000
 Coverage D limit = 40% of Coverage C limit
 Dominate Coverage = C.
 Loss costs per $1,000 shall be related to the Coverage C limit.
 2% Deductible of Coverage C.
Condo Unit Owners Coverage A = Structure
 Coverage A limit = 10% of Coverage C limit
 Coverage C limit = $50,000
 Coverage D limit = 40% of Coverage C limit
 Dominant Coverage = C.
 Loss costs per $1,000 shall be related to the Coverage C limit.
 2% Deductible of Coverage C.
Mobile Home Coverage A = Structure
 Coverage B limit = 10% of Coverage A limit
®
246

Commercial Residential
Coverage A = Structure
Coverage C= Contents
Coverage D= Time Element
®
247
Table 27: Loss Costs per $1000 for 0% Deductible
Loss Frame Masonry Mobile Frame Masonry Frame Masonry Commercial

County
Costs Owners Owners Homes Renters Renters Condo Unit Condo Unit Residential
Alachua LOW 0.143 0.132 2.667 0.081 0.069 0.097 0.084 0.178
AVERAGE 1.021 1.182 3.707 0.284 0.265 0.365 0.315 0.644
HIGH 2.195 2.231 5.704 0.647 0.542 0.692 0.647 1.318
Baker LOW 0.093 0.088 1.749 0.043 0.048 0.066 0.250 0.290
AVERAGE 0.596 0.640 2.117 0.187 0.182 0.066 0.250 0.336
HIGH 1.013 0.950 2.714 0.238 0.209 0.066 0.250 0.474
Bay LOW 0.224 0.207 3.351 0.167 0.156 0.243 0.128 0.304
AVERAGE 1.969 1.958 5.398 0.686 0.605 1.450 0.748 1.667
HIGH 4.232 3.980 10.050 1.661 1.288 1.836 1.430 2.631
Bradford LOW 0.131 0.124 2.413 0.071 0.055 0.211 0.319 0.222
AVERAGE 0.987 1.017 2.856 0.269 0.225 0.211 0.319 0.593
HIGH 1.342 1.331 3.571 0.343 0.295 0.211 0.319 0.695
Brevard LOW 0.496 0.458 9.090 0.379 0.272 0.454 0.274 0.465
AVERAGE 4.610 3.680 13.075 1.668 1.333 2.473 2.388 3.726
HIGH 10.996 10.467 23.393 4.645 3.314 5.453 3.904 7.602
Broward LOW 0.745 0.679 19.104 0.742 0.362 0.872 0.435 0.855
AVERAGE 5.890 5.289 24.476 3.313 2.437 4.151 3.356 5.730
HIGH 12.893 13.596 30.573 8.429 5.932 9.889 7.019 13.464
Calhoun LOW 0.159 0.148 2.714 0.134 0.070 0.289

AVERAGE 1.136 1.149 3.145 0.337 0.283 0.289
HIGH 1.573 1.464 4.192 0.453 0.376 0.289
Charlotte LOW 0.480 0.447 10.532 0.340 0.288 0.483 0.346 0.540
AVERAGE 5.165 3.910 14.131 1.650 1.265 2.985 1.626 3.113
HIGH 11.570 10.969 23.058 4.157 3.184 4.904 3.776 7.340
Citrus LOW 0.295 0.262 5.787 0.185 0.158 0.257 0.203 0.393
AVERAGE 2.699 2.016 7.094 0.765 0.591 1.074 0.924 1.769
HIGH 3.955 3.761 9.902 1.123 0.925 1.333 1.103 2.244
Clay LOW 0.105 0.098 2.285 0.055 0.049 0.088 0.076 0.170
AVERAGE 0.750 0.916 2.943 0.242 0.229 0.264 0.207 0.593
HIGH 1.914 1.796 5.137 0.483 0.402 0.576 0.530 0.816
Collier LOW 0.700 0.647 14.041 0.614 0.367 0.696 0.364 0.619
AVERAGE 6.030 4.477 16.957 2.380 1.643 3.204 2.499 3.921
HIGH 15.511 14.612 28.886 6.845 4.849 8.039 5.692 10.428
Columbia LOW 0.125 0.103 2.408 0.062 0.053 0.111 0.182 0.387
AVERAGE 0.833 0.848 2.895 0.234 0.204 0.309 0.278 0.567
HIGH 1.557 1.445 4.087 0.426 0.366 0.445 0.299 0.631
DeSoto LOW 0.482 0.433 9.231 0.317 0.231 0.452 0.278 0.743
AVERAGE 4.079 3.609 10.579 1.290 1.082 1.233 1.046 2.001
HIGH 6.092 5.806 13.563 1.600 1.361 1.913 1.631 2.993
®
248

County
Dixie LOW 0.267 0.252 4.110 0.243 0.187 0.455 0.353 0.694
AVERAGE 1.932 1.561 4.550 0.606 0.389 0.519 0.461 0.838
HIGH 3.969 3.718 9.163 1.678 0.486 0.572 1.252 0.865
Duval LOW 0.106 0.092 2.183 0.053 0.046 0.063 0.062 0.123
AVERAGE 1.060 1.138 3.139 0.320 0.285 0.325 0.312 0.707
HIGH 3.341 3.078 8.046 1.195 0.938 0.993 1.042 1.610
Escambia LOW 0.221 0.205 3.402 0.127 0.103 0.303 0.210 0.435
AVERAGE 2.556 2.710 6.531 1.045 0.885 1.819 1.434 1.914
HIGH 6.490 6.096 12.982 2.680 2.026 3.106 2.336 4.161
Flagler LOW 0.209 0.208 3.902 0.129 0.108 0.307 0.085 0.249
AVERAGE 1.937 1.160 5.795 0.589 0.409 1.206 0.515 1.199
HIGH 5.261 4.946 12.377 1.444 1.583 2.378 1.325 2.591
Franklin LOW 0.623 0.725 7.604 0.556 0.756 0.590 0.432 0.858
AVERAGE 3.527 3.858 8.987 1.521 1.404 1.138 1.881 1.993
HIGH 6.209 5.604 12.814 2.363 1.799 2.745 2.103 3.837
Gadsden LOW 0.088 0.091 1.676 0.050 0.042 0.466

AVERAGE 0.682 0.711 1.984 0.229 0.196 0.489
HIGH 1.057 0.982 2.923 0.280 0.230 0.532
Gilchrist LOW 0.242 0.209 3.711 0.147 0.184 0.526 0.631

AVERAGE 1.344 1.366 4.059 0.498 0.442 0.526 0.631
HIGH 2.162 1.844 5.069 0.569 0.489 0.526 0.631
Glades LOW 1.001 0.814 13.201 1.527 0.495

AVERAGE 6.017 5.225 14.542 2.372 1.787
HIGH 7.497 7.138 18.196 2.466 2.017
Gulf LOW 0.235 0.244 3.320 0.302 0.241 0.563 0.412 0.666
AVERAGE 2.302 2.803 5.024 1.207 1.004 1.126 1.010 1.863
HIGH 5.073 4.764 11.770 1.568 1.192 1.835 1.865 2.626
Hamilton LOW 0.089 0.084 1.614 0.053 0.154 0.138 0.200

AVERAGE 0.686 0.698 2.026 0.202 0.198 0.138 0.433
HIGH 0.992 0.928 2.749 0.251 0.219 0.138 0.559
Hardee LOW 0.489 0.363 8.329 0.250 0.215 2.114

AVERAGE 3.582 3.205 9.002 1.134 0.905 2.251
HIGH 4.945 4.696 12.491 1.445 1.225 3.120
Hendry LOW 0.783 0.575 12.078 0.448 0.378 2.256 0.846 1.600
AVERAGE 6.298 5.778 15.143 2.083 1.907 3.567 2.722 5.455
HIGH 10.777 10.234 22.194 3.465 2.712 4.130 3.248 6.621
Hernando LOW 0.342 0.291 6.836 0.224 0.170 0.269 0.249 0.403
AVERAGE 2.892 2.364 7.835 0.813 0.608 0.922 0.996 1.600
HIGH 4.713 4.477 10.742 1.247 1.058 1.489 1.267 2.588
®
249

County
Highlands LOW 0.508 0.454 10.227 0.360 0.292 0.474 0.351 0.687
AVERAGE 4.259 3.876 11.252 1.445 1.121 1.766 1.480 2.605
HIGH 7.123 6.783 16.278 2.095 1.813 2.437 2.010 3.911
Hillsborough LOW 0.322 0.300 7.189 0.198 0.164 0.238 0.160 0.385
AVERAGE 3.166 2.765 9.048 0.857 0.714 1.033 0.947 1.823
HIGH 6.770 6.981 15.881 2.504 2.029 2.540 2.402 4.310
Holmes LOW 0.133 0.140 2.570 0.078 0.102 0.433 0.354

AVERAGE 1.002 1.012 2.737 0.300 0.245 0.433 0.481
HIGH 1.463 1.376 3.607 0.380 0.278 0.433 0.608
Indian River LOW 0.691 0.610 11.251 0.594 0.465 0.735 0.403 1.064
AVERAGE 5.465 3.219 13.354 2.422 1.604 3.265 2.565 4.497
HIGH 9.626 9.054 23.502 4.462 3.217 5.250 3.812 7.452
Jackson LOW 0.139 0.143 2.624 0.079 0.086 0.385 0.331 0.174
AVERAGE 1.038 1.086 2.873 0.317 0.276 0.385 0.354 0.543
HIGH 1.571 1.411 3.945 0.415 0.343 0.385 0.387 0.717
Jefferson LOW 0.103 0.096 1.560 0.056 0.069 0.187

AVERAGE 0.554 0.554 1.717 0.197 0.164 0.370
HIGH 0.924 0.863 2.466 0.269 0.217 0.440
Lafayette LOW 0.164 0.160 2.411 0.150 0.118

AVERAGE 0.992 1.039 3.035 0.324 0.250
HIGH 1.340 1.253 3.564 0.378 0.316
Lake LOW 0.265 0.241 4.547 0.179 0.141 0.293 0.197 0.496
AVERAGE 2.459 1.917 8.148 0.742 0.611 1.331 1.034 1.698
HIGH 5.045 5.018 11.992 1.381 1.162 1.565 1.331 2.792
Lee LOW 0.626 0.579 12.965 0.485 0.385 0.570 0.269 0.496
AVERAGE 5.893 3.616 15.387 2.245 1.274 3.424 1.891 3.483
HIGH 14.689 13.901 28.877 9.683 6.758 11.330 7.956 14.885
Leon LOW 0.087 0.086 1.759 0.054 0.045 0.065 0.039 0.072
AVERAGE 0.643 0.652 2.339 0.182 0.155 0.165 0.159 0.370
HIGH 1.336 1.247 3.455 0.367 0.350 0.355 0.271 0.596
Levy LOW 0.252 0.254 3.511 0.164 0.138 0.196 0.490 0.725
AVERAGE 2.046 1.747 5.089 0.715 0.534 1.468 1.101 1.874
HIGH 5.226 4.923 10.902 1.897 0.973 2.223 1.712 3.239
Liberty LOW 0.154 0.140 2.514 0.089 0.300

AVERAGE 1.034 1.051 2.873 0.320 0.305
HIGH 1.369 1.232 3.593 0.365 0.308
Madison LOW 0.088 0.083 1.451 0.046 0.058 0.431

AVERAGE 0.672 0.662 1.859 0.204 0.183 0.435
HIGH 0.984 0.920 2.722 0.258 0.221 0.490
®
250

County
Manatee LOW 0.493 0.457 10.182 0.352 0.292 0.422 0.230 0.470
AVERAGE 4.702 3.366 11.956 1.679 1.165 2.703 1.892 3.442
HIGH 11.026 11.954 27.118 5.039 3.735 6.518 4.753 9.349
Marion LOW 0.210 0.190 3.751 0.137 0.101 0.170 0.148 0.283
AVERAGE 2.013 1.416 5.733 0.496 0.398 0.729 0.532 0.962
HIGH 4.171 3.956 10.643 1.224 0.721 0.992 0.862 1.810
Martin LOW 0.893 0.813 15.923 0.996 0.594 0.917 0.554 1.317
AVERAGE 7.980 5.458 19.039 3.341 2.116 4.822 3.544 5.703
HIGH 13.766 12.977 23.967 5.513 4.048 6.474 4.797 9.117
Miami-Dade LOW 0.732 0.692 19.212 0.795 0.408 0.929 0.441 0.754
AVERAGE 6.101 5.547 22.416 4.858 3.305 5.809 4.799 6.919
HIGH 14.110 14.692 57.460 18.923 12.763 21.865 14.941 26.542
Monroe LOW 1.596 1.572 27.847 3.792 1.808 3.003 1.856 2.972
AVERAGE 5.927 6.079 36.775 8.109 5.977 9.975 8.436 11.288
HIGH 11.827 11.043 46.864 12.908 9.866 16.291 11.435 19.053
Nassau LOW 0.091 0.086 1.704 0.042 0.038 0.051 0.102 0.100
AVERAGE 1.250 1.121 2.853 0.504 0.450 0.870 0.627 1.166
HIGH 2.908 2.742 6.551 0.900 0.795 1.171 0.857 1.840
Okaloosa LOW 0.173 0.159 2.776 0.098 0.082 0.151 0.221 0.261
AVERAGE 2.277 2.428 4.669 0.895 0.739 1.844 1.150 2.360
HIGH 5.675 5.347 11.630 2.185 1.682 2.546 1.968 3.557
Okeechobee LOW 0.786 0.721 14.106 0.636 0.511 1.044 0.616 1.737
AVERAGE 6.886 5.601 16.555 2.312 1.904 3.559 2.977 5.153
HIGH 10.310 9.791 21.149 3.345 2.620 3.978 3.133 5.374
Orange LOW 0.324 0.286 6.823 0.176 0.123 0.230 0.141 0.259
AVERAGE 2.548 2.325 7.965 0.645 0.553 0.833 0.707 1.395
HIGH 6.611 6.280 14.009 2.151 1.773 1.492 2.121 2.620
Osceola LOW 0.327 0.286 6.105 0.185 0.161 0.222 0.133 0.256
AVERAGE 2.285 2.128 9.093 0.670 0.583 0.755 0.529 1.422
HIGH 5.477 5.193 12.938 1.684 1.261 1.826 1.513 3.163
Palm Beach LOW 0.596 0.571 15.086 0.637 0.398 0.766 0.319 0.836
AVERAGE 5.675 4.234 21.146 3.353 2.234 4.290 3.195 5.528
HIGH 13.674 12.886 36.930 7.990 5.670 9.363 6.701 12.812
Pasco LOW 0.387 0.360 8.289 0.250 0.147 0.299 0.230 0.505
AVERAGE 2.727 2.682 9.716 0.870 0.713 1.294 1.128 2.137
HIGH 5.609 5.355 13.160 1.471 1.252 1.759 1.501 2.968
Pinellas LOW 0.376 0.349 8.182 0.250 0.208 0.300 0.193 0.323
AVERAGE 4.646 4.280 11.021 1.438 1.197 2.111 1.877 3.119
HIGH 9.518 9.023 21.397 6.112 4.403 7.183 5.843 10.165
®
251

County
Polk LOW 0.364 0.305 7.425 0.198 0.173 0.238 0.209 0.432
AVERAGE 3.239 2.594 9.304 0.947 0.768 1.105 1.009 1.897
HIGH 6.052 5.754 14.953 1.903 1.582 2.085 1.707 2.996
Putnam LOW 0.168 0.155 3.024 0.104 0.090 0.250 0.130 0.504
AVERAGE 1.576 1.522 4.347 0.441 0.391 0.672 0.477 1.052
HIGH 2.673 2.577 7.013 0.715 0.631 0.855 0.756 1.510
St. Johns LOW 0.153 0.143 2.962 0.098 0.082 0.118 0.098 0.220
AVERAGE 1.227 1.370 4.696 0.482 0.399 0.775 0.702 1.295
HIGH 3.640 3.423 8.105 1.164 0.918 1.370 1.088 2.139
St. Lucie LOW 0.678 0.620 12.528 0.554 0.443 0.739 0.504 0.999
AVERAGE 5.866 3.148 14.581 2.192 1.302 3.917 3.176 4.602
HIGH 9.968 9.392 31.280 7.467 5.046 8.689 5.954 11.231
Santa Rosa LOW 0.230 0.212 3.517 0.132 0.143 0.452 0.209 0.420
AVERAGE 2.369 2.531 6.269 1.169 1.012 3.523 1.510 3.222
HIGH 9.096 8.554 17.549 3.959 2.946 4.573 3.433 5.933
Sarasota LOW 0.470 0.429 9.677 0.329 0.249 0.394 0.219 0.455
AVERAGE 4.635 3.359 12.388 1.532 1.130 2.439 1.948 3.242
HIGH 9.437 8.965 29.615 5.836 4.221 6.848 4.997 9.770
Seminole LOW 0.310 0.242 6.667 0.158 0.109 0.150 0.129 0.243
AVERAGE 2.628 2.257 7.205 0.612 0.532 0.814 0.691 1.442
HIGH 5.701 5.407 12.094 1.131 1.541 1.351 1.149 2.394
Sumter LOW 0.306 0.286 6.604 0.190 0.165 0.238 0.207 0.388
AVERAGE 0.922 1.174 7.741 0.541 0.534 1.030 0.553 0.942
HIGH 4.014 3.806 10.342 1.103 0.959 1.134 0.984 2.118
Suwannee LOW 0.135 0.111 2.352 0.067 0.088 0.338 0.362

AVERAGE 0.908 0.911 2.728 0.267 0.249 0.338 0.705
HIGH 1.566 1.614 4.153 0.441 0.378 0.338 0.906
Taylor LOW 0.102 0.136 1.580 0.085 0.094 0.136 0.180 0.372
AVERAGE 1.112 1.105 3.169 0.333 0.301 0.365 0.284 0.743
HIGH 2.029 1.900 5.051 0.709 0.372 0.829 0.657 0.908
Union LOW 0.127 0.117 2.212 0.115 0.060 0.084 0.073 0.586
AVERAGE 0.830 0.813 2.612 0.265 0.227 0.084 0.073 0.615
HIGH 1.353 1.267 3.655 0.298 0.258 0.084 0.073 0.659
Volusia LOW 0.269 0.251 4.780 0.165 0.136 0.220 0.168 0.326
AVERAGE 3.060 2.410 7.322 0.946 0.719 1.742 1.470 2.278
HIGH 9.030 8.518 17.410 2.957 2.256 4.644 2.662 4.988
Wakulla LOW 0.180 0.161 2.612 0.128 0.098 0.547 0.437 0.250
AVERAGE 1.052 1.222 3.248 0.392 0.424 0.966 1.248 0.843
HIGH 4.047 3.809 8.624 1.466 1.120 1.708 1.318 2.457
®
252

County
Walton LOW 0.206 0.190 3.179 0.117 0.148 0.764 0.116 0.313
AVERAGE 2.238 1.963 5.216 1.102 0.877 2.221 1.196 2.471
HIGH 6.409 6.031 12.899 2.622 1.966 3.034 2.301 4.080
Washington LOW 0.153 0.143 2.593 0.131 0.203 0.181 0.271

AVERAGE 1.296 1.376 3.667 0.458 0.414 0.473 0.739
HIGH 1.980 1.860 5.054 0.649 0.521 0.766 0.877
Statewide LOW 0.087 0.083 1.451 0.042 0.038 0.051 0.039 0.072
AVERAGE 2.728 3.458 9.678 0.941 1.353 2.042 2.590 4.017
HIGH 15.511 14.692 57.460 18.923 12.763 21.865 14.941 26.542
®
253
Table 28: Loss Costs per $1000 with Specified Deductibles

County
Alachua LOW 0.087 0.078 2.313 0.051 0.042 0.063 0.053 0.115
AVERAGE 0.841 0.980 3.261 0.229 0.211 0.300 0.255 0.517
HIGH 1.876 1.905 5.051 0.556 0.458 0.596 0.552 1.110
Baker LOW 0.055 0.052 1.510 0.024 0.028 0.041 0.200 0.219
AVERAGE 0.477 0.516 1.837 0.146 0.142 0.041 0.200 0.257
HIGH 0.837 0.781 2.372 0.190 0.164 0.041 0.200 0.374
Bay LOW 0.153 0.141 2.924 0.127 0.113 0.194 0.092 0.223
AVERAGE 1.682 1.668 4.805 0.598 0.518 1.309 0.650 1.427
HIGH 3.696 3.464 9.079 1.498 1.139 1.665 1.274 2.293
Bradford LOW 0.080 0.075 2.094 0.044 0.033 0.161 0.256 0.151
AVERAGE 0.808 0.834 2.488 0.215 0.176 0.161 0.256 0.471
HIGH 1.117 1.107 3.135 0.281 0.238 0.161 0.256 0.560
Brevard LOW 0.358 0.328 8.194 0.303 0.211 0.369 0.213 0.349
AVERAGE 4.028 3.192 11.950 1.493 1.175 2.251 2.160 3.272
HIGH 9.974 9.453 21.742 4.310 3.025 5.088 3.586 6.879
Broward LOW 0.565 0.510 17.604 0.623 0.285 0.740 0.346 0.677
AVERAGE 5.178 4.617 22.745 3.032 2.191 3.825 3.053 5.088
HIGH 11.717 12.367 28.608 7.928 5.497 9.341 6.540 12.369
Calhoun LOW 0.100 0.092 2.353 0.095 0.043 0.206

AVERAGE 0.933 0.946 2.737 0.275 0.226 0.206
HIGH 1.308 1.217 3.681 0.379 0.307 0.206
Charlotte LOW 0.343 0.317 9.498 0.265 0.220 0.391 0.266 0.402
AVERAGE 4.491 3.358 12.866 1.460 1.099 2.713 1.430 2.678
HIGH 10.455 9.880 21.397 3.816 2.876 4.529 3.437 6.582
Citrus LOW 0.204 0.175 5.148 0.136 0.114 0.197 0.147 0.284
AVERAGE 2.299 1.698 6.343 0.656 0.497 0.937 0.797 1.494
HIGH 3.421 3.245 8.972 0.986 0.800 1.181 0.963 1.926
Clay LOW 0.060 0.054 1.982 0.032 0.028 0.058 0.048 0.112
AVERAGE 0.609 0.753 2.568 0.192 0.180 0.212 0.162 0.477
HIGH 1.602 1.498 4.534 0.407 0.332 0.491 0.440 0.667
Collier LOW 0.520 0.478 12.839 0.507 0.290 0.579 0.286 0.472
AVERAGE 5.322 3.913 15.595 2.155 1.455 2.934 2.256 3.435
HIGH 14.240 13.369 27.049 6.418 4.470 7.574 5.277 9.516
Columbia LOW 0.078 0.059 2.097 0.039 0.032 0.078 0.141 0.300
AVERAGE 0.679 0.693 2.531 0.188 0.161 0.253 0.225 0.454
HIGH 1.295 1.206 3.614 0.358 0.302 0.374 0.243 0.510
DeSoto LOW 0.346 0.303 8.269 0.242 0.168 0.360 0.207 0.574
AVERAGE 3.498 3.080 9.521 1.122 0.930 1.071 0.897 1.682
HIGH 5.318 5.053 12.331 1.405 1.182 1.695 1.430 2.559
®
254

County
Dixie LOW 0.196 0.181 3.648 0.193 0.144 0.382 0.288 0.560
AVERAGE 1.653 1.320 4.057 0.522 0.324 0.446 0.389 0.693
HIGH 3.511 3.277 8.357 1.531 0.411 0.497 1.106 0.718
Duval LOW 0.062 0.051 1.895 0.031 0.027 0.039 0.038 0.076
AVERAGE 0.877 0.945 2.762 0.262 0.230 0.267 0.254 0.573
HIGH 2.900 2.662 7.261 1.058 0.814 0.871 0.908 1.369
Escambia LOW 0.154 0.141 2.983 0.093 0.071 0.249 0.164 0.335
AVERAGE 2.201 2.343 5.876 0.933 0.777 1.657 1.286 1.651
HIGH 5.824 5.449 11.915 2.467 1.831 2.873 2.126 3.707
Flagler LOW 0.135 0.133 3.422 0.090 0.072 0.244 0.054 0.171
AVERAGE 1.649 0.964 5.158 0.506 0.338 1.074 0.433 1.006
HIGH 4.623 4.331 11.248 1.295 1.406 2.164 1.174 2.257
Franklin LOW 0.501 0.588 6.844 0.477 0.656 0.511 0.361 0.706
AVERAGE 3.087 3.374 8.119 1.375 1.252 1.023 1.696 1.719
HIGH 5.522 4.943 11.682 2.162 1.618 2.523 1.901 3.392
Gadsden LOW 0.049 0.050 1.452 0.030 0.025 0.365

AVERAGE 0.553 0.578 1.719 0.181 0.152 0.383
HIGH 0.869 0.804 2.550 0.223 0.179 0.423
Gilchrist LOW 0.173 0.142 3.277 0.111 0.140 0.446 0.509

AVERAGE 1.125 1.143 3.596 0.422 0.370 0.446 0.509
HIGH 1.849 1.560 4.526 0.486 0.412 0.446 0.509
Glades LOW 0.783 0.626 11.977 1.345 0.396

AVERAGE 5.256 4.541 13.226 2.125 1.574
HIGH 6.589 6.257 16.685 2.211 1.784
Gulf LOW 0.164 0.173 2.888 0.246 0.188 0.482 0.338 0.526
AVERAGE 1.979 2.414 4.446 1.083 0.883 1.008 0.889 1.602
HIGH 4.449 4.163 10.658 1.418 1.054 1.669 1.677 2.289
Hamilton LOW 0.052 0.048 1.388 0.032 0.118 0.103 0.139

AVERAGE 0.555 0.564 1.756 0.159 0.156 0.103 0.339
HIGH 0.816 0.761 2.406 0.201 0.172 0.103 0.447
Hardee LOW 0.358 0.246 7.434 0.184 0.154 1.786

AVERAGE 3.064 2.728 8.056 0.982 0.771 1.910
HIGH 4.274 4.049 11.313 1.266 1.060 2.693
Hendry LOW 0.596 0.417 10.909 0.355 0.293 2.011 0.708 1.319
AVERAGE 5.512 5.056 13.796 1.859 1.689 3.255 2.446 4.806
HIGH 9.662 9.146 20.486 3.156 2.432 3.788 2.935 5.903
Hernando LOW 0.235 0.195 6.064 0.166 0.120 0.204 0.186 0.292
AVERAGE 2.457 1.994 6.996 0.696 0.511 0.796 0.860 1.341
HIGH 4.090 3.874 9.687 1.093 0.917 1.317 1.109 2.214
®
255

County
Highlands LOW 0.368 0.320 9.208 0.281 0.222 0.381 0.271 0.526
AVERAGE 3.682 3.339 10.169 1.270 0.969 1.568 1.297 2.229
HIGH 6.284 5.966 14.904 1.867 1.597 2.189 1.782 3.414
Hillsborough LOW 0.218 0.202 6.401 0.143 0.116 0.176 0.112 0.282
AVERAGE 2.705 2.350 8.131 0.738 0.606 0.898 0.817 1.537
HIGH 5.967 6.175 14.589 2.253 1.800 2.289 2.147 3.784
Holmes LOW 0.080 0.087 2.231 0.051 0.069 0.358 0.267

AVERAGE 0.818 0.828 2.383 0.244 0.194 0.358 0.375
HIGH 1.225 1.147 3.177 0.317 0.223 0.358 0.482
Indian River LOW 0.522 0.454 10.235 0.498 0.379 0.624 0.325 0.862
AVERAGE 4.815 2.783 12.225 2.202 1.425 2.999 2.323 3.982
HIGH 8.698 8.154 21.887 4.136 2.931 4.892 3.496 6.743
Jackson LOW 0.082 0.087 2.269 0.050 0.056 0.316 0.267 0.113
AVERAGE 0.847 0.889 2.497 0.256 0.219 0.316 0.286 0.424
HIGH 1.312 1.170 3.461 0.344 0.278 0.316 0.314 0.573
Jefferson LOW 0.065 0.060 1.356 0.038 0.047 0.135

AVERAGE 0.453 0.453 1.499 0.160 0.129 0.292
HIGH 0.774 0.719 2.177 0.225 0.176 0.354
Lafayette LOW 0.107 0.106 2.103 0.113 0.084

AVERAGE 0.821 0.861 2.661 0.268 0.200
HIGH 1.123 1.046 3.143 0.316 0.259
Lake LOW 0.181 0.159 3.978 0.125 0.094 0.219 0.138 0.362
AVERAGE 2.068 1.594 7.253 0.626 0.507 1.162 0.888 1.418
HIGH 4.360 4.342 10.829 1.210 1.004 1.377 1.157 2.394
Lee LOW 0.462 0.424 11.757 0.390 0.303 0.467 0.201 0.368
AVERAGE 5.151 3.106 14.053 2.022 1.110 3.134 1.679 3.021
HIGH 13.379 12.619 26.948 9.097 6.251 10.692 7.401 13.656
Leon LOW 0.049 0.047 1.532 0.036 0.028 0.043 0.024 0.043
AVERAGE 0.526 0.535 2.053 0.145 0.121 0.131 0.124 0.290
HIGH 1.133 1.052 3.064 0.310 0.291 0.298 0.219 0.485
Levy LOW 0.171 0.172 3.087 0.121 0.098 0.147 0.410 0.584
AVERAGE 1.745 1.475 4.524 0.621 0.450 1.326 0.976 1.618
HIGH 4.652 4.366 9.963 1.725 0.847 2.034 1.541 2.863
Liberty LOW 0.097 0.085 2.182 0.058 0.240

AVERAGE 0.849 0.864 2.501 0.260 0.245
HIGH 1.148 1.018 3.146 0.299 0.247
Madison LOW 0.053 0.049 1.257 0.029 0.038 0.339

AVERAGE 0.547 0.539 1.613 0.163 0.143 0.343
HIGH 0.811 0.754 2.383 0.208 0.175 0.391
®
256

County
Manatee LOW 0.358 0.329 9.171 0.278 0.224 0.339 0.171 0.351
AVERAGE 4.082 2.893 10.861 1.496 1.016 2.459 1.686 2.996
HIGH 9.945 10.826 25.339 4.651 3.395 6.072 4.360 8.466
Marion LOW 0.137 0.116 3.264 0.093 0.063 0.119 0.101 0.193
AVERAGE 1.684 1.167 5.060 0.411 0.323 0.620 0.443 0.781
HIGH 3.571 3.379 9.576 1.065 0.608 0.855 0.735 1.521
Martin LOW 0.695 0.628 14.602 0.863 0.491 0.788 0.456 1.080
AVERAGE 7.107 4.802 17.595 3.061 1.896 4.470 3.234 5.068
HIGH 12.572 11.810 22.322 5.129 3.706 6.053 4.419 8.276
Miami-Dade LOW 0.557 0.523 17.726 0.672 0.323 0.795 0.352 0.589
AVERAGE 5.366 4.844 20.779 4.506 3.011 5.419 4.429 6.196
HIGH 12.705 13.196 54.710 18.041 12.009 20.916 14.121 24.772
Monroe LOW 1.339 1.298 26.031 3.489 1.628 2.773 1.651 2.582
AVERAGE 5.175 5.279 34.599 7.639 5.551 9.452 7.899 10.275
HIGH 10.607 9.858 44.352 12.265 9.275 15.554 10.794 17.664
Nassau LOW 0.054 0.048 1.470 0.024 0.021 0.031 0.071 0.062
AVERAGE 1.049 0.937 2.511 0.430 0.378 0.762 0.536 0.977
HIGH 2.524 2.372 5.891 0.789 0.684 1.037 0.745 1.572
Okaloosa LOW 0.113 0.103 2.430 0.069 0.055 0.114 0.175 0.193
AVERAGE 1.963 2.099 4.170 0.794 0.644 1.679 1.022 2.054
HIGH 5.057 4.748 10.629 1.996 1.513 2.338 1.781 3.142
Okeechobee LOW 0.595 0.542 12.853 0.528 0.413 0.899 0.505 1.439
AVERAGE 6.079 4.909 15.162 2.079 1.687 3.251 2.684 4.532
HIGH 9.245 8.751 19.532 3.043 2.346 3.643 2.828 4.732
Orange LOW 0.216 0.185 6.038 0.121 0.079 0.166 0.093 0.171
AVERAGE 2.150 1.955 7.099 0.539 0.456 0.708 0.593 1.154
HIGH 5.768 5.465 12.700 1.914 1.557 1.314 1.879 2.239
Osceola LOW 0.220 0.185 5.397 0.130 0.110 0.160 0.086 0.169
AVERAGE 1.930 1.789 8.155 0.561 0.482 0.639 0.433 1.179
HIGH 4.789 4.526 11.769 1.490 1.093 1.622 1.325 2.738
Palm Beach LOW 0.439 0.420 13.848 0.529 0.317 0.644 0.245 0.658
AVERAGE 4.973 3.670 19.588 3.066 2.000 3.953 2.897 4.901
HIGH 12.507 11.746 34.766 7.495 5.244 8.823 6.231 11.751
Pasco LOW 0.274 0.252 7.388 0.188 0.103 0.230 0.169 0.378
AVERAGE 2.315 2.276 8.735 0.748 0.605 1.136 0.982 1.815
HIGH 4.890 4.655 11.961 1.292 1.087 1.558 1.316 2.553
Pinellas LOW 0.267 0.246 7.331 0.191 0.156 0.234 0.140 0.232
AVERAGE 4.035 3.704 10.001 1.275 1.047 1.905 1.678 2.708
HIGH 8.439 7.971 19.852 5.683 4.029 6.713 5.401 9.239
®
257

County
Polk LOW 0.247 0.200 6.599 0.139 0.119 0.173 0.147 0.311
AVERAGE 2.764 2.197 8.345 0.813 0.648 0.957 0.866 1.597
HIGH 5.281 5.008 13.636 1.686 1.383 1.863 1.504 2.579
Putnam LOW 0.106 0.095 2.626 0.067 0.056 0.186 0.087 0.378
AVERAGE 1.313 1.265 3.810 0.364 0.318 0.570 0.393 0.866
HIGH 2.261 2.189 6.232 0.611 0.529 0.738 0.642 1.271
St. Johns LOW 0.094 0.086 2.594 0.068 0.054 0.083 0.066 0.152
AVERAGE 1.029 1.151 4.157 0.410 0.331 0.677 0.604 1.091
HIGH 3.174 2.974 7.290 1.033 0.798 1.225 0.955 1.849
St. Lucie LOW 0.513 0.466 11.431 0.460 0.358 0.628 0.411 0.806
AVERAGE 5.167 2.721 13.382 1.983 1.147 3.625 2.905 4.083
HIGH 8.875 8.327 29.373 7.028 4.664 8.211 5.536 10.303
Santa Rosa LOW 0.161 0.147 3.092 0.098 0.107 0.384 0.163 0.323
AVERAGE 2.047 2.200 5.637 1.050 0.896 3.270 1.358 2.845
HIGH 8.238 7.719 16.211 3.676 2.691 4.265 3.154 5.335
Sarasota LOW 0.335 0.307 8.707 0.256 0.189 0.313 0.161 0.338
AVERAGE 4.016 2.879 11.261 1.362 0.985 2.210 1.741 2.813
HIGH 8.343 7.896 27.723 5.418 3.854 6.389 4.592 8.856
Seminole LOW 0.210 0.159 5.904 0.108 0.068 0.099 0.083 0.159
AVERAGE 2.220 1.895 6.404 0.512 0.439 0.693 0.580 1.196
HIGH 4.964 4.696 10.938 0.983 1.347 1.185 0.995 2.043
Sumter LOW 0.202 0.187 5.844 0.135 0.113 0.175 0.148 0.276
AVERAGE 0.737 0.955 6.887 0.448 0.441 0.889 0.458 0.761
HIGH 3.434 3.247 9.299 0.952 0.820 0.984 0.844 1.793
Suwannee LOW 0.085 0.064 2.048 0.043 0.059 0.278 0.278

AVERAGE 0.745 0.748 2.386 0.215 0.199 0.278 0.573
HIGH 1.316 1.359 3.679 0.370 0.313 0.278 0.748
Taylor LOW 0.065 0.088 1.369 0.061 0.065 0.101 0.141 0.288
AVERAGE 0.930 0.923 2.797 0.277 0.246 0.310 0.233 0.612
HIGH 1.743 1.625 4.524 0.622 0.309 0.733 0.569 0.755
Union LOW 0.080 0.068 1.914 0.081 0.037 0.055 0.046 0.469
AVERAGE 0.676 0.662 2.272 0.213 0.179 0.055 0.046 0.495
HIGH 1.126 1.050 3.213 0.243 0.207 0.055 0.046 0.533
Volusia LOW 0.177 0.163 4.199 0.117 0.092 0.163 0.117 0.229
AVERAGE 2.631 2.055 6.551 0.830 0.616 1.574 1.310 1.965
HIGH 8.108 7.623 16.017 2.713 2.035 4.312 2.417 4.447
Wakulla LOW 0.124 0.106 2.292 0.097 0.071 0.475 0.371 0.185
AVERAGE 0.888 1.035 2.873 0.336 0.360 0.862 1.111 0.706
HIGH 3.567 3.346 7.810 1.324 0.991 1.551 1.174 2.145
®
258

County
Walton LOW 0.143 0.130 2.786 0.085 0.111 0.672 0.082 0.232
AVERAGE 1.942 1.687 4.668 0.989 0.771 2.039 1.065 2.157
HIGH 5.737 5.378 11.816 2.410 1.777 2.803 2.093 3.626
Washington LOW 0.099 0.092 2.260 0.095 0.156 0.140 0.195

AVERAGE 1.078 1.149 3.226 0.387 0.344 0.405 0.596
HIGH 1.688 1.580 4.504 0.563 0.442 0.670 0.715
Statewide LOW 0.049 0.047 1.257 0.024 0.021 0.031 0.024 0.043
AVERAGE 2.348 2.980 8.761 0.828 1.196 1.854 2.345 3.535
HIGH 14.240 13.369 54.710 18.041 12.009 20.916 14.121 24.772
®
259
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form A-5: Percentage Change in Output Ranges
Form A-5: Percentage Change in Output Ranges
A. Provide summaries of the percentage change in average loss cost output range data compiled
in Form A-4 relative to the equivalent data compiled from the previously accepted model in the
format shown in the file named “2011FormA5.xlsx.”
For the change in output range exhibit, provide the summary by:
 Statewide (overall percentage change),
 By region, as defined in Figure 4 – North, Central and South,
 by county, as defined in Figure 5 – Coastal and Inland.
B. Provide this Form in Excel format. The file name shall include the abbreviated name of the
modeling organization, the Standards year, and the Form name. A hard copy of all tables in
Form A-5 shall be included in a submission appendix.
C. Provide color-coded maps by county reflecting the percentage changes in the average loss
costs with specified deductibles for frame owners, masonry owners, frame renters, masonry
renters, frame condo unit owners, masonry condo unit owners, mobile home, and commercial
residential from the output ranges from the previously accepted model.
Counties with a negative percentage change (reduction in loss costs) shall be indicated with
shades of blue; counties with a positive percentage change (increase in loss costs) shall be
indicated with shades of red; and counties with no percentage change shall be white. The
larger the percentage change in the county, the more intense the color-shade.
Figure 4
State of Florida by North/Central/South Regions
North
Central
South
®
260
Figure 5
State of Florida by Coastal/Inland Counties
Inland
Coastal
The percentage change in the weighted average loss costs from the Output Ranges supplied last year
are shown in the file RMS11FormA5_20130311.xlsx at the link provided and appears below.
®
261
Table 29: Percentage Change in $0 Deductible Output Ranges
Frame Masonry Mobile Frame Masonry Frame Masonry Commercial

Region Owners Owners Homes Renters Renters Condo Unit Condo Unit Residential
Coastal -1.06% -1.36% -1.78% -1.18% -1.28% -1.45% -1.32% -1.14%
Inland -1.14% -1.05% -1.83% -0.78% -0.89% -0.98% -1.09% -1.03%
North 0.94% 1.06% 0.83% 0.18% 0.71% 0.41% 0.56% 0.98%
Central -1.82% -2.05% -2.22% -1.97% -2.08% -2.02% -2.37% -2.14%
South -1.42% -0.86% -1.41% -1.19% -0.88% -1.50% -1.08% -0.92%
Statewide -1.09% -1.31% -1.80% -1.16% -1.24% -1.40% -1.30% -1.16%
Table 30: Percentage Change in Specified Deductible Output Ranges
Frame Masonry Mobile Frame Masonry Frame Masonry Commercial

Region Owners Owners Homes Renters Renters Condo Unit Condo Unit Residential
Coastal -1.12% -1.33% -1.77% -1.13% -1.24% -1.45% -1.25% -1.11%
Inland -1.22% -1.09% -1.84% -0.71% -0.86% -0.82% -0.97% -0.98%
North 0.87% 1.01% 0.81% 0.00% 0.56% 0.37% 0.51% 0.98%
Central -1.82% -2.07% -2.24% -1.87% -2.15% -1.96% -2.33% -2.21%
South -1.43% -0.84% -1.37% -1.16% -0.89% -1.49% -1.05% -0.89%
Statewide -1.14% -1.29% -1.79% -1.19% -1.16% -1.44% -1.26% -1.12%
®
262
Specified Deductibles for Frame Owners from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted
Model
®
263
Specified Deductibles for Masonry Owners from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted
Model
®
264
Specified Deductibles for Mobile Home from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted Model
®
265
Specified Deductibles for Frame Renters from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted
Model
®
266
Specified deductibles for Masonry Renters from the Output Ranges from the Previously Accepted
Model
®
267
Specified Deductibles for Frame Condo Unit Owners from the Output Ranges from the Previously
Accepted Model
®
268
Specified Deductibles for Masonry Condo Unit Owners from the Output Ranges from the Previously
Accepted Model
®
269
Specified Deductibles for Commercial Residential from the Output Ranges from the Previously
Accepted Model
®
270
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form A-6: Logical Relationship to Risk (Trade Secret Item)
Form A-6: Logical Relationship to Risk (Trade Secret Item)
This form will be provided during the professional team on-site review as well as the closed meeting
portion of the commission meeting.
®
271
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form A-7: Percentage Change in Logical Relationship to Risk
Form A-7: Percentage Change in Logical Relationship to Risk
A. Provide summaries of the percentage change in logical relationship to risk exhibits from the
previously accepted model in the format shown in the file named “2011FormA7.xlsx.”
B. Create exposure sets for each exhibit by modeling all of the structures from the appropriate Notional
Set listed below at each of the locations in “Location Grid B” as described in the file
“NotionalInput11.xlsx.” Refer to the Notional Policy Specifications provided in Form A-6 for
additional modeling information. Explain any assumptions, deviations, and differences from the
prescribed exposure information.
Exhibit Notional Set

Deductible Sensitivity Set 1
Construction Sensitivity Set 2
Policy Form Sensitivity Set 3
Coverage Sensitivity Set 4
Building Code/Enforcement (Year Built) Sensitivity Set 5
Building Strength Sensitivity Set 6
Condo Unit Floor Sensitivity Set 7
Number of Stories Sensitivity Set 8
Models shall treat points in Location Grid B as coordinates that would result from a geocoding
process. Models shall treat points by simulating loss at exact location or by using the nearest
modeled parcel/street/cell in the model.
Provide the results statewide (overall percentage change) and by the regions defined in Form A-5.
C. Provide this form in Excel format. The file name shall include the abbreviated name of the modeling
organization, the standards year, and the form name. A hard copy of all tables in Form A-7 shall be
included in a submission appendix.
The results are provided in Excel format in the file RMS11FormA7_20130514.xlsx at the link provided
and appears below. The gross (non-zero deductible) loss costs have been calculated with the
assumption that an insurer will not elect to apply an all other perils deductible to subsequent hurricane
losses.
®
272
Table 31: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Deductible
Percent Change in Loss Cost

Construction
Region
/ Policy
$0 $500 1% 2% 5% 10%
Coastal -1.9% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.1%

Inland -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.3% -1.4% -1.4%
North 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3%
Frame Owners
Central -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.2%
South -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.1% -2.1% -2.2%
Statewide -1.8% -1.9% -1.8% -1.9% -1.9% -2.0%
Coastal -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.1% -2.1%
Inland -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% -1.3% -1.4%
Masonry North 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%
Owners Central -2.1% -2.2% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1%
South -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -2.1% -2.1% -2.2%
Statewide -1.9% -1.8% -1.9% -1.9% -1.9% -2.0%
Coastal -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4%
Inland -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4%
North 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%
Mobile Homes
Central -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1%
South -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.1%
Statewide -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4%
Coastal -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1%
Inland -1.5% -1.3% -1.5% -1.3% -1.3% -1.3%
North 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.4%
Frame Renters
Central -2.2% -2.1% -2.2% -2.1% -2.2% -2.1%
South -0.7% -0.6% -0.7% -0.6% -0.7% -0.7%
Statewide -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1%
Coastal -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1%
Inland -1.3% -1.1% -1.3% -1.1% -1.3% -1.6%
Masonry North 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Renters Central -2.1% -2.2% -2.0% -2.2% -2.1% -2.3%
South -0.9% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8%
Statewide -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.1% -1.1%
Coastal -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.0% -1.0% -1.1%
Inland -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.5% -1.5%
Frame Condo North 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.3%
Unit Central -2.2% -2.2% -2.2% -2.2% -2.1% -2.2%
South -0.7% -0.7% -0.7% -0.7% -0.7% -0.7%
Statewide -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.0%
®
273

Construction
Region
/ Policy
$0 $500 1% 2% 5% 10%
Coastal -1.2% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.0% -1.1%

Inland -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.3%
Masonry North 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4%
Condo Unit Central -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.0% -2.2% -2.0%
South -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8%
Statewide -1.2% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2%
Construction
Region
/ Policy
$0 2% 3% 5% 10%
Coastal -1.2% -1.2% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1%

Inland -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% -1.6% -1.5%
Commercial North 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Residential Central -2.2% -2.2% -1.9% -2.1% -2.3%
South -0.9% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8%
Statewide -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.1%
®
274
Table 32: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Construction

Policy Region
Masonry Frame
Coastal -2.0% -1.9%

Inland -1.3% -1.4%
North 0.7% 0.6%
Owners
Central -2.1% -2.1%
South -2.0% -2.0%
Statewide -1.9% -1.8%
Coastal -1.1% -1.0%
Inland -1.3% -1.5%
North 0.3% 0.0%
Renters
Central -2.1% -2.2%
South -0.9% -0.7%
Coastal -1.2% -1.1%
Inland -1.3% -1.4%
North 0.3% 0.2%
Condo Unit
Central -2.1% -2.2%
South -0.8% -0.7%
Policy Region
Concrete
Coastal -1.1%
Inland -1.5%
Commercial North 0.0%
Residential Central -2.3%
South -0.8%
Statewide -1.1%
®
275
Table 33: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Policy Form

Region
Frame Owners Masonry Owners Mobile Homes
Coastal -1.9% -2.0% -1.4%
Inland -1.4% -1.3% -1.3%
North 0.6% 0.7% 1.0%
Central -2.1% -2.1% -2.1%
South -2.0% -2.0% -1.2%
Statewide -1.8% -1.9% -1.4%
Table 34: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Coverage

Construction /
Region
Policy Coverage Coverage Coverage Coverage
A B C D
Coastal -1.8% -2.0% -2.7% -2.4%
Inland -1.4% -1.3% -1.2% 0.0%
North 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Frame Owners
Central -2.1% -2.3% -2.3% -2.0%
South -1.8% -1.7% -3.2% -2.4%
Statewide -1.7% -2.0% -2.7% -2.9%
Coastal -1.8% -1.8% -2.9% -1.3%
Inland -1.4% -1.4% -1.3% 0.0%
North 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Masonry Owners
Central -2.1% -2.0% -2.5% -2.2%
South -1.8% -1.8% -3.4% -1.8%
Statewide -1.8% -1.7% -2.9% -3.2%
Coastal -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.3%
Inland -1.3% -1.4% -1.5% -0.7%
North 1.0% 0.9% 0.7% 1.0%
Mobile Homes
Central -2.1% -2.0% -2.2% -1.7%
South -1.3% -1.3% -1.1% -1.3%
Statewide -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.6%
Coastal -1.0% -1.5%
Inland -1.3% -1.4%
North 0.0% 0.0%
Frame Renters
Central -2.1% -1.7%
South -0.6% -1.2%
®
276

Construction /
Region
Policy Coverage Coverage Coverage Coverage
A B C D
Coastal -1.1% -1.7%
Inland -1.5% -1.8%
North 0.3% 0.0%
Masonry Renters
Central -2.1% -2.2%
South -0.8% -1.4%
Coastal -1.0% -1.0% -1.8%
Inland -1.0% -1.3% -1.4%
North 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Frame Condo Unit
Central -1.8% -2.1% -1.6%
South -0.8% -0.6% -1.3%
Statewide -1.2% -1.0% -1.4%
Coastal -0.8% -1.1% -1.6%
Inland -1.1% -1.5% -1.8%
Masonry Condo North 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Unit Central -2.1% -2.1% -2.2%
South -0.5% -0.8% -1.3%
Statewide -1.0% -1.2% -1.4%
Coastal -1.2% 0.0% -2.7%
Inland -1.4% -12.5% 0.0%
Commercial North 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Residential Central -2.1% 0.0% 0.0%
South -0.9% -2.7% 0.0%
Statewide -1.3% -5.3% 0.0%
®
277
Table 35: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Building Code / Enforcement (Year Built)
Sensitivity

Construction /
Region Year Built Year Built Year Built
Policy
1980 1998 2004
Coastal -1.5% -1.6% -1.6%
Inland -1.3% -1.5% -1.4%
North 0.9% 0.4% 0.2%
Frame Owners
Central -2.0% -2.2% -2.2%
South -1.3% -1.4% -1.5%
Statewide -1.4% -1.6% -1.6%
Coastal -1.5% -1.5% -1.6%
Inland -1.3% -1.4% -1.3%
North 1.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Masonry Owners
Central -2.0% -2.1% -2.2%
South -1.3% -1.3% -1.4%
Statewide -1.4% -1.5% -1.6%

Construction /
Policy
1974 1992 2004
Coastal -1.1% -1.1% -1.1%
Inland -1.3% -1.3% -1.3%
North 1.1% 1.1% 0.9%
Mobile Homes
Central -2.0% -2.0% -2.1%
South -0.8% -0.7% -0.7%
Statewide -1.1% -1.1% -1.1%

Construction /
Policy
1980 1998 2004
Coastal -0.9% -1.2% -1.2%
Inland -1.4% -1.5% -1.5%
North 0.5% -0.3% -0.5%
Frame Renters
Central -2.2% -2.1% -2.1%
South -0.6% -0.8% -0.8%
Statewide -1.0% -1.2% -1.4%
Coastal -1.1% -1.3% -1.4%
Inland -1.4% -1.6% -1.2%
North 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Masonry Renters
Central -2.1% -2.2% -2.3%
South -0.7% -1.0% -1.1%
Statewide -1.1% -1.3% -1.5%
®
278

Construction /
Policy
1980 1998 2004
Coastal -1.0% -1.2% -1.2%
Inland -1.5% -1.5% -1.7%
Frame Condo North 0.4% -0.3% -0.4%
Unit Central -2.2% -2.2% -2.0%
South -0.6% -0.8% -0.8%
Statewide -1.0% -1.3% -1.3%
Coastal -1.1% -1.3% -1.4%
Inland -1.4% -1.6% -1.5%
Unit Central -2.1% -2.3% -2.2%
South -0.7% -0.9% -1.0%
Statewide -1.1% -1.4% -1.5%
Coastal -1.1% -1.3% -1.3%
Inland -1.3% -1.3% -1.3%
Commercial North 0.5% 0.0% -0.8%
Residential Central -2.1% -2.2% -2.5%
South -0.8% -1.0% -1.1%
Statewide -1.2% -1.5% -1.4%
®
279
Table 36: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Building Strength
Construction / Percent Change in Loss Cost

Region
Policy Weak Medium Strong
Coastal -1.1% -1.4% -1.7%
Inland -1.2% -1.4% -1.3%
North 1.3% 0.4% 0.0%
Frame Owners
Central -1.9% -2.2% -2.3%
South -0.8% -1.2% -1.5%
Statewide -1.1% -1.4% -1.8%
Coastal -1.1% -1.4% -1.6%
Inland -1.2% -1.5% -1.5%
North 1.4% 0.3% 0.0%
Masonry Owners
Central -1.9% -2.1% -2.0%
South -0.8% -1.1% -1.6%
Statewide -1.1% -1.4% -1.8%
Coastal -1.1% -1.1% -1.1%
Inland -1.1% -1.3% -1.3%
North 1.3% 1.1% 0.9%
Mobile Homes
Central -1.9% -2.0% -2.1%
South -0.8% -0.7% -0.7%
Statewide -1.1% -1.1% -1.1%
Coastal -1.0% -1.5% -1.5%
Inland -1.5% -1.3% -1.9%
North 0.3% -0.6% -1.4%
Frame Renters
Central -2.2% -2.3% -2.1%
South -0.7% -1.3% -1.6%
Statewide -1.1% -1.4% -1.9%
Coastal -0.9% -1.3% -1.4%
Inland -1.4% -1.7% -2.3%
North 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Masonry Renters
Central -2.1% -2.1% -2.7%
South -0.5% -1.2% -1.4%
Statewide -1.0% -1.3% -1.8%
Coastal -0.9% -1.3% -1.7%
Inland -1.3% -1.7% -2.0%
Frame Condo North 0.8% -0.3% -0.6%
Unit Central -2.1% -2.3% -2.1%
South -0.5% -1.1% -1.4%
Statewide -1.0% -1.4% -1.6%
®
280

Region
Policy Weak Medium Strong
Coastal -0.9% -1.4% -1.4%
Inland -1.3% -1.5% -1.6%
Unit Central -2.1% -2.2% -2.0%
South -0.5% -1.0% -1.3%
Statewide -0.9% -1.2% -1.4%
Coastal -1.2% -1.3% -1.4%
Inland -1.4% -1.3% -1.0%
South -0.8% -1.0% -1.1%
Statewide -1.2% -1.5% -1.3%
Table 37: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Condo Unit Floor

Region
Policy 3rd Floor 9th Floor 15th Floor 18th Floor
Coastal -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.3%
Inland -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4%
North 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Condo Unit A
Central -1.9% -1.9% -1.9% -1.9%
South -1.1% -1.1% -1.1% -1.1%
Statewide -1.3% -1.3% -1.3% -1.3%
Coastal -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.2%
Inland -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.2%
North 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
Condo Unit B
Central -2.2% -2.2% -2.2% -2.2%
South -0.9% -0.9% -0.9% -0.9%
Statewide -1.2% -1.2% -1.2% -1.2%
®
281
Table 38: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Number of Stories

Region
Policy 1 Story 2 Story
Coastal -1.8% -1.8%
Inland -1.3% -1.4%
North 0.7% 0.6%
Frame Owners
Central -2.1% -2.2%
South -1.8% -1.8%
Coastal -1.8% -1.8%
Inland -1.4% -1.4%
North 0.7% 0.6%
Masonry Owners
Central -2.1% -2.2%
South -1.8% -1.8%
Coastal -1.3% -1.3%
Inland -1.5% -1.4%
North -0.4% 0.2%
Frame Renters
Central -2.4% -2.2%
South -1.1% -1.0%
Coastal -1.3% -1.2%
Inland -1.4% -1.5%
North 0.0% 0.6%
Masonry Renters
Central -1.9% -2.1%
South -0.9% -0.9%
Region
Policy 5 Story 10 Story 20 Story
Coastal -1.1% -1.2% -1.2%
Inland -1.4% -1.5% -1.3%
South -0.8% -0.8% -0.9%
Statewide -1.2% -1.2% -1.2%
®
282
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form A-8: Probable Maximum Loss for Florida
Form A-8: Probable Maximum Loss for Florida
A. Provide a detailed explanation of how the Expected Annual Hurricane Losses and Return Periods are
calculated.
B. Complete Part A showing the personal and commercial residential probable maximum loss for
Florida. For the Expected Annual Hurricane Losses column, provide personal and commercial
residential, zero deductible statewide loss costs based on the 2007 Florida Hurricane Catastrophe
Fund’s aggregate personal and commercial residential exposure data found in the file named
“hlpm2007c.exe.”
In the column, Return Period (Years), provide the return period associated with the average loss
within the ranges indicated on a cumulative basis.
For example, if the average loss is $4,705 million for the range $4,501 million to $5,000 million,
provide the return period associated with a loss that is $4,705 million or greater.
For each loss range in millions ($1,001-$1,500, $1,501-$2,000, $2,001-$2,500) the average loss
within that range should be identified and then the return period associated with that loss calculated.
The return period is then the reciprocal of the probability of the loss equaling or exceeding this
average loss size.
The probability of equaling or exceeding the average of each range should be smaller as the ranges
increase (and the average losses within the ranges increase). Therefore, the return period
associated with each range and average loss within that range should be larger as the ranges
increase. Return periods shall be based on cumulative probabilities.
A return period for an average loss of $4,705 million within the $4,501-$5,000 million range should be
lower than the return period for an average loss of $5,455 million associated with a $5,001- $6,000
million range.
C. Provide a graphical comparison of the current submission loss curve Residential Return Periods to
the previously accepted submission Residential Return Periods loss curve. Residential Return Period
(Years) shall be shown on the y-axis on a log 10 scale with Losses in Billions shown on the x-axis.
The legend shall indicate the corresponding submission with a solid line representing the current year
and a dotted line representing the previously accepted submission.
D. Provide the estimated loss and uncertainty interval for each of the Personal and Commercial
Residential Return Periods given in Part B. Describe how the uncertainty intervals are derived.
E. Provide this Form in Excel format. The file name shall include the abbreviated name of the modeling
organization, the Standards year, and the Form name. A hard copy of Form A-8 shall be included in
a submission appendix.
To calculate the expected annual hurricane losses, the loss for each event in the range is multiplied by
its annual rate of occurrence, and the products are summed across the range. The return time is
calculated as the reciprocal of the exceedance probability of the average loss in each range. The return
time is rounded to the nearest year.
The 5%/95% uncertainty interval for each return period was derived from the beta distribution of the
event with the mean loss closest to the ―estimated loss level‖ for that return period.
The results of the calculations are shown in the file RMS11FormA8.xlsx at the link provided and appear
in the following tables.
®
283
10,000
2012 Submission
2010 Submission
1,000
Return Time (Years)
100
10
1
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120
Average Loss (Billions)
Figure 78: Comparison of Current Submission Return Times to the Prior Year’s
Submission Return Times
®
284
Part A – Personal and Commercial Residential Probable Maximum Loss for Florida
Table 39: Distribution of Hurricanes by Size of Loss for the 2007 FHCF Combined Personal and
Commercial Residential Aggregate Exposure Data
EXPECTED
LOSS RANGE TOTAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF ANNUAL RETURN
(MILLIONS) LOSS LOSS HURRICANES HURRICANE PERIOD
(MILLIONS) LOSSES* (YEARS)
$ - to $ 500 $ 745,589 $ 109 6,861 $ 56,712,183 2
$ 501 to $ 1,000 $ 907,941 $ 728 1,247 $ 66,037,331 3
$ 1,001 to $ 1,500 $ 993,665 $ 1,230 808 $ 64,484,337 3
$ 1,501 to $ 2,000 $ 1,079,295 $ 1,744 619 $ 67,912,853 4
$ 2,001 to $ 2,500 $ 1,337,326 $ 2,248 595 $ 65,421,117 4
$ 2,501 to $ 3,000 $ 1,499,409 $ 2,741 547 $ 50,980,422 4
$ 3,001 to $ 3,500 $ 1,670,586 $ 3,244 515 $ 71,964,386 5
$ 3,501 to $ 4,000 $ 1,598,327 $ 3,743 427 $ 43,137,899 5
$ 4,001 to $ 4,500 $ 1,829,796 $ 4,255 430 $ 56,412,754 5
$ 4,501 to $ 5,000 $ 1,617,647 $ 4,744 341 $ 38,038,417 6
$ 5,001 to $ 6,000 $ 3,653,742 $ 5,470 668 $ 102,398,486 6
$ 6,001 to $ 7,000 $ 3,605,476 $ 6,485 556 $ 123,239,462 7
$ 7,001 to $ 8,000 $ 3,648,318 $ 7,491 487 $ 142,437,689 7
$ 8,001 to $ 9,000 $ 4,058,737 $ 8,491 478 $ 170,718,535 8
$ 9,001 to $ 10,000 $ 3,670,572 $ 9,485 387 $ 99,404,831 8
$ 10,001 to $ 11,000 $ 3,625,798 $ 10,479 346 $ 113,354,219 9
$ 11,001 to $ 12,000 $ 3,323,109 $ 11,459 290 $ 107,962,230 10
$ 12,001 to $ 13,000 $ 3,037,733 $ 12,501 243 $ 93,387,838 11
$ 13,001 to $ 14,000 $ 2,710,131 $ 13,483 201 $ 63,885,396 11
$ 14,001 to $ 15,000 $ 2,694,777 $ 14,488 186 $ 48,566,785 12
$ 15,001 to $ 16,000 $ 3,412,351 $ 15,511 220 $ 115,792,213 13
$ 16,001 to $ 17,000 $ 2,786,102 $ 16,486 169 $ 52,859,563 14
$ 17,001 to $ 18,000 $ 3,147,399 $ 17,486 180 $ 88,658,730 15
$ 18,001 to $ 19,000 $ 2,610,223 $ 18,512 141 $ 93,873,982 16
$ 19,001 to $ 20,000 $ 2,593,570 $ 19,501 133 $ 71,017,498 17
$ 20,001 to $ 21,000 $ 2,829,484 $ 20,504 138 $ 86,339,656 18
$ 21,001 to $ 22,000 $ 2,791,568 $ 21,474 130 $ 59,324,341 19
$ 22,001 to $ 23,000 $ 3,217,766 $ 22,502 143 $ 86,112,628 20
$ 23,001 to $ 24,000 $ 3,051,522 $ 23,473 130 $ 55,514,393 21
$ 24,001 to $ 25,000 $ 2,649,012 $ 24,528 108 $ 45,270,121 23
$ 25,001 to $ 26,000 $ 2,675,020 $ 25,476 105 $ 60,703,176 24
$ 26,001 to $ 27,000 $ 2,601,881 $ 26,550 98 $ 47,485,828 25
$ 27,001 to $ 28,000 $ 2,942,828 $ 27,503 107 $ 52,438,077 27
$ 28,001 to $ 29,000 $ 2,622,679 $ 28,507 92 $ 54,719,103 28
$ 29,001 to $ 30,000 $ 2,210,710 $ 29,476 75 $ 36,710,890 30
$ 30,001 to $ 35,000 $12,863,157 $ 32,483 396 $ 243,949,774 34
$ 35,001 to $ 40,000 $10,230,650 $ 37,475 273 $ 131,413,307 44
$ 40,001 to $ 45,000 $ 9,206,804 $ 42,428 217 $ 109,873,144 55
$ 45,001 to $ 50,000 $ 8,785,633 $ 47,490 185 $ 109,665,580 68
$ 50,001 to $ 55,000 $ 7,222,702 $ 52,720 137 $ 107,101,843 83
$ 55,001 to $ 60,000 $ 6,484,990 $ 57,389 113 $ 92,103,620 99
$ 60,001 to $ 65,000 $ 6,645,708 $ 62,695 106 $ 77,660,519 120
$ 65,001 to $ 70,000 $ 5,657,552 $ 67,352 84 $ 66,551,059 141
$ 70,001 to $ 75,000 $ 4,273,840 $ 72,438 59 $ 28,626,698 166
$ 75,001 to $ 80,000 $ 5,815,638 $ 77,542 75 $ 65,785,277 194
$ 80,001 to $ 90,000 $ 9,488,994 $ 84,723 112 $ 70,416,992 240
$ 90,001 to $ 100,000 $ 7,123,821 $ 94,984 75 $ 36,172,820 315
$ 100,001 to $ Maximum $59,323,687 $ 160,769 369 $ 329,792,351 1,214
Total $242,573,268 $ 11,890 20,402 $ 4,122,390,352 10
*Personal and commercial residential zero deductible statewide loss using 2007 FHCF personal and commercial residential
exposure data—file name: hlpm2007c.exe.
®
285
Part B – Personal and Commercial Residential Probable Maximum Loss for Florida
Table 40: Estimated Loss for Each of the Return Periods Given for the 2007 FHCF Combined
Personal and Commercial Residential Aggregate Exposure Data
Return Period Estimated Loss

(Years) Level Uncertainty Interval
Top Event 586,164,614,524 397,106,345,205 to 795,996,255,060

1,000 149,779,834,619 81,006,417,968 to 237,591,512,414
500 114,607,065,504 72,856,948,194 to 163,756,148,883
250 86,254,508,038 64,976,811,262 to 109,974,272,604
100 57,608,659,157 31,972,882,993 to 89,272,699,209
50 40,435,968,292 17,685,699,891 to 70,605,812,982

20 22,369,368,662 6,650,175,525 to 45,558,145,334
10 11,649,897,270 2,720,343,464 to 25,615,733,312
5 3,814,857,216 1,463,504,724 to 7,058,424,124
®
286
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form S-1: Probability and Frequency of Florida Landfalling Hurricanes per Year
Form S-1: Probability and Frequency of Florida Landfalling

Hurricanes per Year
Complete the table below showing the probability and modeled frequency of landfalling Florida hurricanes
per year. Modeled probability shall be rounded to four decimal places. The historical probabilities and
frequencies below have been derived from the Base Hurricane Storm Set as defined in Standard M-1.
If the data are partitioned or modified, provide the historical probabilities and frequencies for the
applicable partition (and its complement) or modification as well as the modeled probabilities and
frequencies in additional copies of Form S-1.
The table below provides the probability and frequency of landfalling Florida hurricanes per year, for
the period 1900 to 2011. One year with no landfalling Florida hurricanes has been added to the
historical frequencies to account for the 2011 season,
Table 41: Model Results—Probability and Frequency of Hurricanes per Year
Number
Of Hurricanes
Probabilities Probabilities Frequencies Frequencies
Per Year
0 0.5982 0.5824 67 65
1 0.2589 0.3148 29 35
2 0.1161 0.0851 13 10
3 0.0268 0.0153 3 2
4 0.0000 0.0021 0 0
5 0.0000 0.0002 0 0
6 0.0000 0.0000 0 0
7 0.0000 0.0000 0 0
8 0.0000 0.0000 0 0
9 0.0000 0.0000 0 0
10 or more 0.0000 0.0000 0 0
®
287
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form S-2: Examples of Loss Exceedance Estimates
Form S-2: Examples of Loss Exceedance Estimates
Provide projections of the aggregate personal and commercial insured losses for various probability
levels using the notional risk data set specified in Form A-1 and using the 2007 Florida Hurricane
Catastrophe Fund aggregate personal and commercial residential exposure data set provided in the file
named “hlpm2007c.exe.” Provide the total average annual loss for the loss exceedance distribution. If
the modeling methodology does not allow the model to produce a viable answer, please state so and
why.
Part A
Table 42: Examples of Loss Exceedance Estimates
Return Estimated Loss Estimated Personal and

Probability of
Period Notional Risk Commercial Residential
Exceedance
(years) Data Set Loss FHCF Data Set
Top Event N/A 229,021,381 571,736,230,743

10,000 0.01% 116,953,300 291,995,929,643
5,000 0.02% 98,794,262 242,864,265,958
2,000 0.05% 76,430,085 182,104,407,186
1,000 0.10% 61,164,605 141,400,695,415
500 0.20% 48,303,481 107,146,231,760
250 0.40% 37,689,273 79,774,278,903
100 1.00% 26,327,830 52,425,463,017
50 2.00% 19,108,804 36,265,635,705
20 5.00% 11,098,118 19,463,257,751
10 10.00% 6,147,631 9,721,640,237
5 20.00% 2,240,850 2,933,427,138
Part B
Table 43: Average Annual Loss for Loss Exceedance Distribution
Mean (Total Average Annual Loss) 2,049,911 3,566,865,165
Median 26,259 15,345,280
Standard Deviation 5,727,878 12,013,705,467
Interquartile Range 1,322,694 1,509,210,870
Sample Size 100,000 Years of 100,000 Years of

Simulated Events Simulated Events
®
288
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form S-3: Distributions of Stochastic Hurricane Parameters
Form S-3: Distributions of Stochastic Hurricane Parameters
Provide the probability distribution functional form used for each stochastic hurricane parameter in the model. Provide a summary of the rationale
for each functional form selected for each general classification.
Table 44: Distributions of Hurricane Parameters
Stochastic Hurricane Year

Functional Form of
Parameter (Function Data Source Range Justification for Functional Form
Distribution
or Variable) Used
Storm Frequency Poisson HURDAT 1900-2011 The Poisson assumption is supported by historical
data.
Central Pressure at Smoothed empirical HURDAT 1900-2008 The distribution of central pressure at landfall is
Landfall distribution by landfall region calibrated to match historical data.
Inland Filling Rate Gaussian, with mean that HURDAT 1988-2008 The distribution of the filling rate is in good
depends on intensity, size, and agreement with historical data. The methods used
proportion of the storm over NHC Reports to estimate, select and validate the model are
different types of terrain. described in Colette et al. (2010)
Numerical
simulations
Vmax Log-normal with mean that HURDAT 1900-2011 The dependence of Vmax on central pressure, far
depends on central pressure, field pressure and latitude is documented in
far field pressure, and latitude. scientific literature (e.g., Knaff and Zher 2007).
The form of the relationship has been chosen to

match historical data.
Vmax is further calibrated at landfall to ensure the

historical distribution is reproduced well.
Translational Speed Translational speed and HURDAT 1950-2007 The model for the zonal and meridional track steps
and Heading heading follow empirical is based on Hall and Jewson (2007). The resulting
distributions that derive from distribution of translational speed and heading
the modeling of zonal and agree with the historical data.
meridional track steps.
®
289
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form S-3: Distributions of Stochastic Hurricane Parameters
Stochastic Hurricane Year

Functional Form of
Parameter (Function Data Source Range Justification for Functional Form
Distribution
or Variable) Used
Rmax Truncated log-normal. Extended Best 1988-2008 The distribution is fitted to historical data.
Track
The mean depends on Truncation is necessary to avoid unrealistic values
pressure and latitude. of Rmax in simulations, especially when
extrapolating beyond the range of observed data.
Wind Profile Shape parameters X1 and N: H*Wind 1998-2008 The distributions are chosen to match historical
Parameters gamma distribution data.
Angle to maximum winds Truncation of Amax ensures that the simulated

(Amax): truncated Gaussian values are between 0 and 2.
®
290
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form S-4: Validation Comparisons
Form S-4: Validation Comparisons
A. Provide five validation comparisons of actual personal residential exposures and loss to modeled
exposures and loss. These comparisons must be provided by line of insurance, construction type,
policy coverage, county or other level of similar detail in addition to total losses. Include loss as a
percent of total exposure. Total exposure represents the total amount of insured values (all coverages
combined) in the area affected by the hurricane. This would include exposures for policies that did
not have a loss. If this is not available, use exposures for only those policies that had a loss. Specify
which was used. Also, specify the name of the hurricane event compared.
B. Provide a validation comparison of actual commercial residential exposures and loss to modeled
exposures and loss. Use and provide a definition of the model’s relevant commercial residential
classifications.
C. Provide scatter plot(s) of modeled vs. historical losses for each of the required validation
comparisons. (Plot the historical losses on the x-axis and the modeled losses on the y-axis.)
Rather than using directly a specific published hurricane windfield, the winds underlying the modeled loss
cost calculations must be produced by the model being evaluated and should be the same hurricane
parameters as used in completing Form A-2.
®
291
Example A1: Comparison of a Company’s Personal Residential Modeled and Actual Loss as a
Percent of Total Exposure
Hurricane = Charley (2004)
Exposure = Manufactured Homes—Total exposure (modeled and actual losses include demand
surge)
Table 45: Example A1 Portfolio Comparison of Modeled and Actual Loss
Company Actual Modeled

Construction Loss / Exposure Loss / Exposure Difference
Manufactured
Home 6.25% 5.89% 0.36%
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
Modeled Loss
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
Actual Loss
Figure 79: Example A1 Comparison of Modeled and Actual Losses by ZIP Code
®
292
Exposure = Single Family Residential—Total exposure (modeled and actual losses include demand
surge)

Wood Frame 1.73% 1.41% 0.33%
Masonry 2.77% 2.40% 0.37%
Total 2.59% 2.23% 0.36%
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
Modeled Loss
10,000
Wood
Masonry
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Actual Loss
®
293
surge)

Wood Frame 1.64% 1.20% 0.44%
Masonry 1.66% 1.57% 0.08%
Total 1.65% 1.52% 0.13%
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
Modeled Loss
100,000
10,000 Wood
Masonry
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
Actual Loss
®
294
Hurricane = Andrew (1992)
Exposure = Total exposure (modeled and actual losses include demand surge)

Coverage Loss / Exposure Loss / Exposure Difference
A&B 6.91% 7.07% -0.16%
C 4.46% 3.08% 1.38%
D 3.40% 1.96% 1.45%
Total 5.72% 5.19% 0.52%
1,000,000,000
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
Modeled Loss
100,000
10,000
A&B
C
D
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000 1,000,000,000
Actual Loss
®
295
Hurricane = Wilma (2005)
surge)

Wood 0.70% 0.79% -0.08%
Masonry 0.98% 0.95% 0.04%
Total 0.97% 0.94% 0.03%
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
Modeled Loss
100,000
10,000
1,000
Wood
Masonry
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
Actual Loss
®
296
Example B1: Comparison of a Company’s Commercial Residential Modeled and Actual Loss as a
Hurricane = Wilma (2005)
Exposure = Condominium—Total exposure (modeled and actual losses include demand surge)
Table 50: Example B1 Portfolio Comparison of Modeled and Actual Loss

Line of Business Loss / Exposure Loss / Exposure Difference
Condo Unit Owner 0.57% 0.45% 0.12%
Condo Association 1.13% 2.02% -0.89%
Total 1.02% 1.71% -0.69%
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
Modeled Loss
100,000
10,000
1,000
Condo Owners
Condo Association
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
Actual Loss
Figure 84: Example B1 Comparison of Modeled and Actual Losses by ZIP Code
®
297
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form S-5: Average Annual Zero Deductible Statewide Loss Costs – Historical versus Modeled
Form S-5: Average Annual Zero Deductible Statewide Loss Costs –

Historical versus Modeled
A. Provide the average annual zero deductible statewide personal and commercial residential loss
costs produced using the list of hurricanes in the Base Hurricane Storm Set as defined in
Standard M-1 based on the 2007 Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund’s aggregate personal and
commercial residential exposure data found in the file named “hlpm2007c.exe.”
Average Annual Zero Deductible Statewide Personal and

Commercial Residential Loss Costs
Table 51: Average Annual Zero Deductible Statewide Personal and Commercial Residential Loss
Costs
Time Period Historical Hurricanes Produced by Model
Current Submission $3.08 billion $4.12 billion

Previously Accepted $3.20 billion $4.17 billion
Submission
Percentage Change Current -3.80% -1.21%
Submission/Previously
Accepted Submission
Second Previously Accepted N/A N/A
Submission
Percentage Change Current N/A N/A
Submission/Second Previously
Accepted Submission
B. Provide a comparison with the statewide personal and commercial residential loss costs
produced by the model on an average industry basis.
C. Provide the 95% confidence interval on the differences between the mean of the historical and
modeled personal and commercial residential loss.
The RMS Hurricane model calculated historical annual average zero deductible loss for the 2007
Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Funds’ (FHCF) personal and commercial residential aggregate exposure
database is $3.08 billion per year. The RMS Hurricane model simulated annual average zero
deductible loss for the same exposure database is $4.12 billion per year. The 95% confidence interval
on the difference between the mean of the historical and the modeled loss is -$2.8 billion to +$720
million.
D. If the data are partitioned or modified, provide the average annual zero deductible statewide
personal and commercial residential loss costs for the applicable partition (and its complement) or
modification as well as the modeled average annual zero deductible statewide personal and
commercial residential loss costs in additional copies of Form S-5.
The data has not been partitioned or modified.
®
298
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms Form S-6: Hypothetical Events for Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis
Form S-6: Hypothetical Events for Sensitivity and Uncertainty

Analysis
This form was provided and found acceptable in the previous model submission. The form will not be
provided in the current submission unless requested as outlined in Disclosure S-2.4.
®
299
Appendix A—FCHLPM Forms
®
300
Appendix B—RMS Technical Staff
APPENDIX B—RMS TECHNICAL STAFF
Shobana Azariah, Manager, Director, QA Engineering
Ms. Azariah joined RMS in March 2002, taking a position in the Quality Assurance department. She is currently
the manager of the RiskLink software quality assurance group. She graduated from University Of Madr as, India
with MA in Public Administration and spent an additional two years doing research work at the University of
Madras in Tamil Nadu, India.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Manages the quality assurance group that tests the RiskLink user
interface.
Ramani Balijepalli, Senior QA Engineer
Ramani received a MCA (Masters in Computer Application) from Andhra University, India. Before joining RMS
she worked for a consulting firm in India where she was involved in testing software related projects. For R MS,
Ramani is involved in regression testing of DLM Analysis for various country peril models on supported
environments.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Regression testing of DLM analysis for various country peril models.
Victoria Babina, Principal Software Engineer
Mrs. Babina has a BS in Computer Science and BS in Psychology from Moscow State University. She has over
10 years of extensive experience in software release management and installer development for Windows -
based applications. Mrs. Babina joined RMS in June 2008. She is responsible for the software release cycle,
build/release automation and installer development.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Release management, design and implementation of software and data
installer changes related to the hurricane model.
Enrica Bellone, PhD, Principal Modeler
Dr. Bellone is responsible for researching and implementing advanced modeling techniques. Prior to joining
RMS, she conducted postdoctoral research in statistics as applied to the atmospheric sc iences, first at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and then at University College London. Dr.
Bellone received a PhD in Statistics from the University of Washington.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: (1) Development of the stochastic tracks set; (2) Review of the model
from a statistical point of view.
Aman Bhardwaj, Director, SW Engineering
Mr. Bhardwaj has a BS in General Science from CCS University - Meerut, India and an MS degree in Computer
Applications from the Institute of Management & Technology, India. Mr. Bhardwaj joined RMS in 2000 and has
been involved with designing and developing software for RiskLink, RiskBrowser, and RiskSearch products. For
®
301
RiskLink, he is responsible for implementation of geotechnical hazard lookup components and libraries, as well
as general technical and project leadership.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Maintenance and upgrades to the core hazard libraries and components,
as well as general technical and project leadership.
Suman Kumar Bhattacharya, Manager, Software Engineering
Suman has a Diploma in Electrical Engineering from RK Mission Shilpamandira, Kolkata, India and has worked
for many well-known software technology companies for more than 12 years. For RMS, Suman works on
RiskLink performance, unit tests for improving code quality, TFS administration, and various tools and
technology for the application development team. Suman’s experience includes user interface, business
components, and database programming.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: RiskLink performance, unit tests for improving code quality, TFS
administration, and various tools and technology for the application development team.
Auguste Boissonnade, PhD, Vice President, Probabilistic Modeling
Dr. Boissonnade was the original architect of the RMS hurricane catastrophe models and has over 20 years of
professional experience in structural analysis and design, natural hazard modeling, and risk assessment of
natural hazards in the U.S., Europe, Africa, and Asia. His expertise includes developing risk assessment models
for natural hazards (earthquakes, extreme winds, floods and other weather phenomena) for applications in risk
assessment of critical facilities and insurance exposures. Dr. Boissonnade has a BS degree from Ecole
Superieure des Travaux Publics (France) and a PhD from Stanford University where he has been a Consulting
Professor. While at Stanford, Dr. Boissonnade performed research on damage estimation with application to the
insurance industry. Prior to joining RMS, Auguste was a project leader at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory with responsibilities for developing probabilistic seismic hazard guidelines for the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and guidelines on natural phenomena hazards for the D epartment of Energy. He is a
member of several organizations including the American Meteorological Society and the American Society of
Civil Engineers and a reviewer for the National Science Foundation. Dr. Boissonnade has authored more than
50 publications, including one book.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Loss amplification modeling, and advisor on science and technical issues.
Jim Bull, Senior QA Engineer
Mr. Bull has a BS in Mechanical Engineering and MS in Computer Science from Washington Univers ity in St.
Louis. He has 18 years experience in software quality assurance, and 13 years software development before
that. The last 15 have been with RMS, currently focusing in the geospatial area.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Responsible for software testing and quality assurance for geocoding and
site hazard lookup functionality.
®
302
Stan Buyanov, PhD, Principal Software Engineer
Stan has over 25 years of experience in advanced Software Engineering including web, multi -tier, and client-
server technology. Currently Stan is developing tools for RiskLink and RiskBrowser to assist with test
environment and test results analysis.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Internal tools to assist with test environment and test results analysis.
Jordan Byk, Director, Product Management
Jordan is responsible for the planning, acquisition, documentation, marketing and high level support for RMS
geocoding software and data. He joined RMS in 2006 to manage the RMS Weather Risk business, taking the
role managing Geocoding in 2008. Before joining RMS, Jordan worked with several large telecom and computer
firms and several start-up companies managing infrastructure and leading edge technology product lines. He is
a graduate of Carnegie Mellon with a BS in Computer Science and Administrative Management Science, and of
Rutgers University with an MBA in Marketing and Finance.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Functional specification, data acquisition, documentation, and got to
market responsibilities for geocoding software and data.
Chris Campbell, Lead Geospatial Modeler
Chris has a Diploma in Geography from the University of Texas San Antonio, San Antonio, TX and has worked
in the Geospatial Industry for over 16 years. For RMS, Chris works on the Geospatial Data Application s team
responsible for Geocoding and Mapping for RMS products.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Updating geocoding capabilities for all hurricane states.
David Carttar, Senior Director, Geospatial Modeling
Mr. Carttar has BA degrees in Geography and Architectural Studies from the University of Kansas, and a
Master of City Planning degree from the University of California at Berkeley. For RMS, Mr. Carttar coordinates
geocoding and mapping applications for the company's core technology. Mr. Carttar's exper ience revolves
around the application of geographic modeling at a variety of technical levels.
Monisha Chahal, Manager (GIS)
Ms. Chahal received a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture and a Master’s in Computer Programming from IBM
Education, New Delhi. She has over 10 years of experience in geospatial data development, including five
years focused specifically on data design and development. She leads the developmen t of the base map for the
RMS Global Location Module, and has contributed to ZIP-Code data updates in the U.S.
®
303
Steven Chau, Manager Quality Assurance
Steven obtained his Bachelor degrees in Management Information Science and in Finance, minor in Computer
Science from University of Iowa. He has been at RMS for 10 years, in the Quality Assurance Department
working on RiskLink and RiskBrowser testing-related projects. Steven’s main responsibilities are functional and
automation testing.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: QA testing of RiskLink software components.
Deval Chauhan, Principal Software Engineer
Mr. Chauhan has an MS degree in Computer Science from Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago. He has
worked as Software Engineer/Developer for more than three years with specialization in GIS technology. Mr.
Chauhan has been with RMS over a year and has worked with the mapping component.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Worked on logo and mapping areas of RiskLink.
Han Chen, PhD, Principal Architect
Dr. Chen has an MS in Computer Science from California State University at Hayward and a PhD in Geophysics
from the Institute of Geophysics at SSB in China. For RMS, Dr. Chen has worked in the Research and
Development Division and is primarily responsible for the detailed design and implementation of enhancements
to the RiskLink Detail Loss Model software.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Detailed design and implementation of enhancements to the RiskLink
Detail Loss Model software, with an emphasis on optimization.
Tommy Chou, Manager Quality Assurance
Tommy joined RMS in February of 2007. He received a BA in Developmental Studies of Industrial Societies
from the University of California at Berkeley.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: His primary responsibilities include: certify RMS Catastrophe models on
EGC/HPC and RDP platform. Apply QA principles and methodology to develop test cases and detail test
scenarios for High Performance Computing solutions for RMS core next generation technology; run stress
testing on the HPC solutions stack and determine the impact on performance during stress testing; maintain
and set up testing environments with several hundred compute-node clusters; assist in on-going process
improvement efforts to ensure test planning, execution and reporting is effective and efficient; and analyze and
certify the catastrophe DLM loss and geocoding and hazard lookup results on RMS EGC and RDP platfo rms.
Kay Cleary, Director, Regulatory Practice
Ms. Cleary joined RMS in October of 2006. She has over 25 years experience in Property/Casualty insurance
with a focus on personal property lines catastrophe risk. She has worked in both the public and private sectors,
with stints at Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation and Florida Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. She
spent 10 years with Allstate at their Research and Planning Center and several years with Aon Re Services.
®
304
Ms. Cleary is an ex-Chair of the American Academy of Actuaries’ Property/Casualty Risk-Based Capital
Committee, was on the Academy Task Force authoring Actuarial Standard of Practice #38 and co -authored
―Reserving for Catastrophes,‖ summarizing a proposal for pre-event tax-deferred catastrophe reserves in the
Fall 2002 Forum. She served on the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology 2001 -2002.
Ms. Cleary is a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society, a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries and
has a Bachelor of Arts from Northwestern University.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Review of model from an actuarial viewpoint and lead contact for RMS
with the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodologies.
Karishma Dambe, Manager, Software Engineering
Mrs. Dambe has a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Engineering from Pune University, India and has worked for
software technology companies. For RMS, Mrs. Dambe works on various software components of the RiskLink
product. Her experience includes multithreading, process synchronization and database design.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Detailed design and implementation of Detailed Loss Model software
components.
Ravisher Dhillon, Senior Software Engineer
Ravisher has been with RMS in the RMS Newark office for two years on the user interface development team.
His primary responsibilities include working on RiskLink 10.0 refactoring the hazard retrieval process for the
hurricane model, he also designed/implemented a configuration file as a substitute for UI when one was not
available.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Refactoring the hazard retrieval process software for the hurricane model.
Mark Dixon, PhD, Lead Modeler
Mark joined RMS in February 2010, in the London model development team. He has worked on the 2011
European Windstorm Model; the RMS tropical cyclone rain model; and is currently responsible for historical
reconstructions both for the RMS Japan Typhoon model upgrade, and the North Atlantic Hurricane model. Prior
to RMS, Mark was at the UK Met Office for 10 years, where he developed data assimilation methods for
numerical weather prediction models. Before this he performed post -doctoral research at the University of
Reading (UK) on extra-tropical cyclones. Mark has a PhD in physics, and has numerous peer-reviewed
publications in data assimilation, meteorology, and condensed-matter physics.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Historical reconstructions
Michael Drayton, PhD, Consultant
Dr. Drayton holds a PhD in Applied Mathematics from the University of Cambridge and a first class honors
degree in Civil Engineering from New Zealand. Dr. Drayton is primarily involved in the research and
development of hazard models. Since joining the RMS London office in early 1996 he has worked on the
European windstorm model, the Atlantic hurricane models and the U.K. flood project. He has extensive
®
305
experience of insurance-related hazard modeling and has also worked as a researcher investigating river
flooding and pollution dispersion in the environment. Currently, Dr. Drayton consults to RMS full-time.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Review of the hazard model.
Weimin Dong, PhD, Chief Risk Officer
Dr. Dong is a co-founder of RMS. He has over 30 years of industrial, teaching, and research experience
specializing in seismic hazard evaluation and insurance and financial risk assessment. He is the chief architect
of the RMS catastrophe models, and has overseen the company’s research and development efforts since its
inception. Dr. Dong is currently focusing his efforts on further developing the P&C RAROC methodologies,
including the RAROC ASP development and various optimization routines. Prior to founding RMS, Dr. Dong
served as the Director of Earthquake Research for the General Research Institute, Ministr y of Machine Building
in China. Dr. Dong received his PhD from Stanford University, and his Master of Engineering Mechanics from
Shanghai Jiao Tong University. During his career, he has published books, technical reports, and over 100
papers.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Advisor on science and technical issues.
Anjali Garg, Technical Specialist
Ms. Garg received her Master’s Degree in Computer Applications (MCA) from the Institute of Management
Studies, Uttar Pradesh, India. She has over 9 years of experience in software designing, development, and
management of software solutions.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Involved in software development, focusing on the international

geocoding component in RiskLink and product.
Garrett Girod, Senior Architect
Mr. Girod has a BS degree in Computer Science from Louisiana Tech University. Mr. Girod worked for six years
with a USGS scientist studying the effects of hurricanes on wetlands. Mr. Girod also worked two years for K2
Technologies in the development of Catalyst, a catastrophe loss modeling product. For RMS, Mr. Girod
develops software enhancements and fixes for various aspects of RiskLink.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Maintenance of database, analysis settings, and user-interface software
components.
Olga Goldin, QA Engineer
Olga has a Diploma in Power Engineering and in Economics from Azerbaijan University of Oil and Chemistry,
Baku, Azerbaijan. She has about 15 years of extensive experience in software quality assurance for Windows -
based applications. Olga joined RMS in April 1996 as a contractor and became full time employee in September
1996. She is responsible for the testing different aspects of RiskLink and RiskBrowser applications including
user interface, business components, functionalities and databases.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Testing of the software related to the hurricane model.
®
306
David Glaubman, Principal Architect
Mr. Glaubman joined RMS in October 2004 as a lead software developer. His responsibilities have included
management of the team responsible for application infrastructure. Prior to joining RMS, he led development of
several financial software products for Barra, Inc. Mr. Glaubman graduated from Northeastern University in
Boston with a BS in Mathematics. He is a member of IEEE and the Association for Computing Machinery
(ACM).
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Mr. Glaubman is involved in the design and implementation of software
libraries and components used by the loss model engine.
Nathalie Grima, Principal Software Engineer - Web Services
Ms. Grima joined RMS in November 2004 as a financial modeler. Her responsibilities include development and
quality assurance of new financial model related features. Prior to joining RMS, she was a mathematics
graduate student at San Jose State University. Ms. Grima is a graduate of the University of Paris IX Dauphine
with a degree in Mathematics.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Ms. Grima is involved in the design, documentation, and quality
assurance of the financial model.
Timothy Hall, PhD, Consultant
Dr. Hall is a Senior Scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, where he conducts
research in ocean and atmospheric science. He has worked in diverse areas, including upper atmosphere
dynamics, ocean transport and carbon cycle studies. Hall received a PhD in physics from Cornell University and
performed post-doctoral work in atmospheric science at Columbia University in New York and Monash
University in Melbourne, Australia.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: He worked as a scientific consultant for RMS, helping to construct
components of the North Atlantic tropical cyclone model.
Atin Jain, Senior Software Engineer
Mr. Atin Jain has an MS degree in Physics with specialization in Electronics from Awadhesh Pratap Singh
University Rewa, India and has 7 years industry experience. For RMS, Mr. Atin Jain works on geocoding and
hazard software components of the RiskLink and RiskBrowser products.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Development and modification of spatial hazard software component,
design and implementation of upgrades to the geocoding software component.
Pratiksha Kadam, Senior Software Engineer
Ms. Kadam has completed her master of science from University of Central Florida, Orlando, F lorida and
Bachelor of Engineering from Mumbai, India. For RMS, Ms. Kadam has worked on different software
components which include designing new features and bug fixing for RiskLink.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Design, implementation and bug fixing for RiskLink software.
®
307
Vidya Karthigeyan, Principal Software Engineer
Mrs. Karthigeyan has a Master of Science in Business Administration degree in Computer Information Systems
from California State University, East Bay and MS in Software Systems from Birla Institute of technology and
Science, Pilani, India. In the past she has worked for Geometric Software Solutions Co. Ltd. in India for 4 years.
At RMS, Mrs. Karthigeyan works on software components of RiskLink product.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Enhancements to the software components associated with data
generation for the Hurricane model.
Shree Khare, PhD, Director, Modeling
Shree has been working in the London model development group since 2006, and in that time has worked on a
variety of projects, including hurricane wind model development, uncertainty quantification, catastrophe
response, correlation calibration, and clustering in the North Atlantic hurricane and European windstorm
models. Currently, Shree is leading hazard development for the RMS Japan Typhoon Model upgrade. Prior to
joining RMS, Shree completed two postdoctoral research fellowships: one at the Statistical and Applied
Mathematical Sciences Institute (SAMSI) in Research Triangle Park, NC, and the second at the National Cen ter
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO. Shree has a BS in honors physics from the University of
British Columbia, and a PhD from the atmospheric sciences program at Princeton University with specialization
in ensemble data assimilation. He has numerous peer reviewed journal publications on data assimilation and
risk modeling.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Wind model development and clustering.
Joseph Kim, Vice President, Software Engineering
Mr. Kim has a MS in Computer Science from University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Ca, and BS in
Information and Computer Science from UC Irvine, Irvine, CA. He has over 20 years as software engineering
architect and senior technical manager with a successful track record of developing products a nd building
technology infrastructure to support both start-up and fortune 500 firms. Mr. Kim joined RMS in September
2008. He is responsible for overseeing development of key RMS products, including RiskLink, RiskBrowser,
Data Quality Tool Kit, Risk Manager, and Treaty Manager. He is also responsible for overseeing key new
product development initiatives.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Software development management, design and implementation of

software related to the hurricane model.
Swaminathan Krishnamoorthy, Director, Software Engineering
Swami has an MS degree in Computer Applications from the University of Madras, India and has worked for
many well-known software technology companies for nearly 12 years. For RMS, he works on various software
components of the RiskLink product. Swami’s experience includes designing, developing software modules, and
technical lead for software projects.
®
308
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Detailed design and implementation of secondary modifiers for flood,
vulnerability by floor, vulnerability by height, and alternate BI down time; providing technical direction for hazard
and vulnerability software component development.
Veena Krishnamoorthy, Engineer, Model Certification
Veena received her Master’s of Science in Physics from Madurai Kamaraj University. She has been with RMS
in the analytics QA department for two years working on the financial model QA team.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Verified the results with baseline for EUWS, USHU analyses in the
RiskLink 10.0 release.
Punit Kumar, Senior Software Engineer
Punit received his Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and Engineering from Karnataka University in India.
He has been with RMS for more than three years. His primary responsibilities include develo ping and designing
the framework for NAHU (WI and Surge). Punit was the key developer of the North Atlantic hurricane model.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Development of wind model software framework. Responsibility for
development of event generation, ground-up loss calculation, loss amplification, and hazard retrieval modules.
Tanmay Kumar, Senior Software Engineer
Tanmay received his Masters in Computer Applications from the Allahabad University in India. He has been
with RMS for two years. Tanmay’s primary responsibilities are maintaining and enhancing post analysis treat
edit functionality, performance tuning, and enhancing RDP and EGC platform software.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Enhancing and maintaining job distribution and job management
software, and software performance tuning.
Nereida Lark, Director, Program Management
Nereida has a Masters in Computer Information Systems from University of Phoenix. She has extensive
technical experience including software development, technical management and 10+ years in project
management. Nereida joined RMS in November of 2009 and works in the PMO organization.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Software Project Management
Thomas Loridan, PhD, Senior Catastrophe Risk Modeler
Thomas received a PhD in physical Geography from King’s College London for his research on boundary layer
modeling in urban environment. Thomas also holds an MSc in Weather, Climate and Modeling from the
University of Reading (UK) and an MSc in applied Mathematics from MATMECA, University of Bordeaux
(France). He joined RMS in December 2011 and has been applying the wind field model and site coefficients
from the hurricane model to the Pacific Basin.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Site coefficients, wind field model
®
309
Siyuan (Terry) Liu, Senior Software Engineer
Ms. Liu has an MS in Computer Science from the University of Tennessee and an ME of Computer Science &
Engineering from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
After she graduated, Ms. Liu started working for RMS in 2006. She worked mainly on developing software for
business workflow and application logic modules in RiskBrowser, RiskLink, RiskTools and RiskOnline. Ms. Liu
also worked on database design, programming and maintenance. For example, she ha s worked on Reinsurance
Platform financial model design and implementation, RiskBrowser Account Access Restriction design and
implementation, RiskLink Windstorm Converter, and Event Rate Converter annual update.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Maintains EDM/ RDM database scripts including upgrade and downgrade,
and RiskLink Event Rate Converter annual update.
Sonja Liu, Senior Software QA Engineer
Sonja has a Masters of Computer Engineering from Santa Clara University and Masters of Business
Administration from Schiller International University. She has been working as software analyst and quality
assurance engineer in software technology companies for 10 years. She joined RMS since Dec 2005 and
worked as financial model quality assurance engineer.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Testing and validating financial model results.
James Lord, Senior Manager Cloud Operations
Based in California, James manages performance requirements and technology issues for RMS’ software
products. He works with clients in the installation, deployment, and configuration of RMS software and
incorporates client needs into the design of new releases. James came to RMS from a combined technology
and civil engineering background. As vice president of product management and tech nology at Visual Network
Design, he was responsible for the success of the startup’s enterprise data center management software,
Rackwise. Prior to that, he was a senior structural engineer at URS Corporation. A licensed California civil and
structural engineer, James holds a BS and MS in civil engineering from the University of California Berkeley,
and Carnegie Mellon University, respectively. James also holds the Certified Catastrophe Risk Analyst
(CCRA®) designation.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Technology, deployment and performance product management for the
RiskLink software.
Reenal Mahajan, Manager, Software Engineering
Ms. Mahajan has an MS degree in Computer Science from Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg VA and has 6
years industry experience. For RMS, Ms. Mahajan works on geocoding and hazard software components of the
RiskLink product and the RiskOnline web site.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Re-architecture of spatial hazard software component, and design and
implementation of upgrades to the geocoding software component.
®
310
Manabu Masuda, P.E., Director, Modeling
Mr. Masuda has a BS and an ME degree in Engineering from Kobe University, and an MS in Civil Engineering
from Stanford University. For RMS, Mr. Masuda has been engaged in multiple risk models including Japan
Earthquake, Mexico Earthquake and China Typhoon. Specifically for the version 11.0 U.S. hurricane update, he
developed the Industrial Facility Model and the Builders Risk Model. He is also responsible for the maintenance
of complex relational databases, client services, and QA of various data layers.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Development and QA of the vulnerability module.
Joss Matthewman, PhD, Senior Catastrophe Risk Modeler
Joss joined the RMS London model development team in March 2012. In his role as senior catastrophe risk
modeler Joss has worked on the RMS North Atlantic and North West Pacific tropical cyclone models. Prior to
starting at RMS, Joss held a postdoctoral research associate position in the depa rtment of meteorology at the
University of Reading, before spending two years researching physical climate mechanisms as a postdoctoral
scholar at the University of California, Irvine. Joss holds an MSci in Mathematics and a PhD in Applied
Mathematics from University College London.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Updating the modeled hurricane landfall statistics.
Rohit P. Mehta, Principal Modeler
Mr. Mehta has a BE degree in Civil Engineering from Delhi College of Engineering, India and an MS in Stati stics
from California State University Hayward. He joined RMS in 2000 and is primarily responsible for
implementation, validations and data management for various models. Prior to joining RMS, he gained four
years experience in the testing, validation, and vulnerability implementation for various models.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Implementation, validation, testing, quality assurance, and data
management.
Charles Menun, Consultant to RMS Model Development
Dr. Menun joined RMS as a Lead Vulnerability Engineer in 2005 after spending five years as a faculty member
in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, where his research focused on
the development of probabilistic methods for safety and performance assessment in earthquake engineering.
Prior to joining Stanford, he worked for six years as a licensed structural engineer in Canada, where he
supervised the structural design of residential and commercial high-rise buildings in the Greater Vancouver
area. His responsibilities at RMS include overseeing the development of hurricane and earthquake vulnerability
models. Since July 2009, Dr. Menun has provided his services to RMS as a full -time consultant. Dr. Menun
holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of British Columbia and earned
his doctoral degree in Structural Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Dr. Menun was responsible for the development and calibration of the
vulnerability module in RiskLink 11.0.
®
311
Bruce Miller, Senior Director, Software Product Management
Bruce’s charter is to oversee the development of products for the RiskLink software platform. Currently based in
Hawaii, he has been at RMS since 1995, starting as an account manager in the client development organization
focused on our reinsurance clients (primarily the Bermuda market). Bruce then managed the product support
organization when it was centralized in California, and for the last nine years has been in the product
management group. Prior to joining RMS, Bruce was an underwriter and loss control engineer with Kemper
Insurance in the highly protected risk department. He holds a BS in engineering physics from the University of
Colorado.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: General software product management; oversight of user interface
updates for defining hurricane analysis options; generation of functional specifications.
Nayna Mistry, Senior QA Engineer
Nayna has a BS in Civil Engineering from Gujarat University in India and is an ISTQB Certified QA Engineer.
She joined the RMS Newark office in September 2009. Prior to RMS, Nayna worked as a Software Engineer at
HP for about 10 years. There she worked on SNA on Non Stop Kernel System. She worked about 10 years at
Bechtel Power Corporation for 10 years as Civil Structural Engineer. At RMS she is working as a Senior QA
Engineer. She worked on Model QA-testing RiskLink and RiskBrowser.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Finishing RiskTools functional testing project starting from writing test
plan, coordinating with India team and other groups, and executing the test cases.
Venkat Morampudi, Principal Software Engineer
Mr. Morampudi has an MS in Computer Science from the University of Alabama and a B.Tech in Computer
Science & Engineering from Acharya Nagarjuna University, India. After he graduated, he started working for
RMS in 2006. Mr. Morampudi has worked mainly on developing software for business workflow and application
logic modules in RiskLink. He also worked on database design, programming and maintenance.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Maintain EDM/RDM database scripts including upgrade and downgrade
of RiskLink databases; developing software for business workflow and application logic modules.
Robert Muir-Wood, PhD, Chief Research Officer
Robert Muir-Wood heads the Model Product Management group within RMS, with the mission to specify the
technical and validation requirements of Catastrophe models. He has more than 20 years of experience in
developing probabilistic catastrophe models covering earthquake, tropical cyclone, windstorm, and flood for
Europe, North America, Australia, and Japan. Author of six books, many scientific publications, and more than
150 articles, he has been the technical lead on a number of catastrophe risk securitization transactions, and is
Lead Author on Insurance, Finance and Climate Change for the 2007 (4th) IPCC Assessment Report. He is also
a member of the OECD High Level Advisory Board of the International Network on Financial Management of
Large-Scale Catastrophes.
®
312
Roopa Nair, Senior Engineer, Model Certification
Roopa has over two years of experience in catastrophe risk model QA. She has done her MS and BS degrees
in Statistics from Delhi University, India. She was involved in the creation of regression datasets for testing in
RiskLink and QA of the tool for the Aggregate Loss Model during its development phases. Roopa was also
involved with the Europe EQ model QA.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Roopa was involved in model implementation and QA of geocoding,
hazard and vulnerability files.
Hans Nelsen, Senior Software Architect
Hans has a BA in Philosophy from Creighton University. He has 15 years of both database development and
architecture, ranging from production database administration to logical architectural blueprints for enterprise
information systems. For RMS, Hans is primarily focused upon the high level application and da ta model
designs for the NextGen platform and analytics applications. Hans also uses his extensive performance
background to help enhance the current RiskLink and EGC product lines.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Enhance software and database performance.
Matthew Nielsen, Senior Manager, Product Marketing
Mr. Nielsen holds an MS degree in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University and a BA degree in
Physics from Ripon College in Wisconsin. He supports the product marketing and business developm ent
activities for RMS’ U.S. and Canada climate hazard peril models and derivative products, and has served as
lead contact for RMS in the submission to the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodologies.
He is a member of the American Meteorological Society (A.M.S.) and has authored and presented technical
papers at several A.M.S. conferences. He has been with RMS since September of 2005.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Support of North Atlantic Hurricane Model management.
Geoffrey R. Overton, Geospatial Modeler
Geoffrey has a Diploma in Geography from University of Nebraska, Omaha. For RMS, Mr. Overton develops,
manages, and tests data for the geocoding module and related components.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Geocoding data implementation and management, testing of related
software and data issues in support of the hurricane model.
Narvdeshwar Pandey, Senior Engineer, Model Certification
Mr. Pandey has over five years of experience in RMSI. He has completed MS in Future Studies and Planning
from Devi Ahilya University, Indore, India and another MS in Mathematics from Gorakhpur University, India. He
was involved in creating regression dataset for testing in RiskLink, Profile generation and internal tool
development for creating regression dataset. He has also performed model QA for India Earthquake model and
currently involved with Europe EQ model QA.
®
313
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Mr. Pandey was involved in model implementation and QA of geocoding,
hazard and vulnerability file s.
Ghanshyam Parasram, Senior Manager, Geospatial Software, RMSI
Mr. Parasram has a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Jawahar Lal Nehru Technological
University, India. He has over 10 years of experience in design and development of soft ware applications using
object oriented technologies. Prior to joining RMSI in 2006, Mr. Parasram worked as Software Manager for
Business Services group at RMS, managing software development for the application logic and workflow layer
in RiskLink and RiskBrowser products. Between August 1997 and June 2000, Mr. Parasram worked as a
Development Manager at Liquid Software Inc., building enterprise application integration systems that provide
integration solutions to PeopleSoft and SAP. Prior to that, he worked at CMC India, developing financial
applications for the banking industry. At RMSI, Mr. Parasram's primary role is to manage software and data
development for the international geocoding component in RiskLink and RiskBrowser products.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Managing software development for the geocoding component in
RiskLink and RiskBrowser products.
Rupesh Parikh, Senior Vice President, Information Technology
Mr. Parikh is the Vice President of Information Technology and Global Facilities fo r Risk Management Solutions
(RMS) where he has been employed since 2005. Rupesh has been in the IT industry since 1985 and has
worked for EDS, IBM, SGI and Applied Materials with multiple leadership roles around technology. He
graduated in 1985 with a BS in Engineering Sciences – Chemical from the University of California, San Diego.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Rupesh is responsible for all the infrastructure and security related to the
building of the model.
Rahul Patasariya, Manager, Quality Assurance
Mr. Patasariya has 9 months of experience in Catastrophe Risk Model QA in RMSI. He graduated in Civil
Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India. He was involved in creation of regression
dataset for testing in RiskLink and QA of tool for Aggregate Loss Model during its development phases. He is
currently involved with Europe EQ model QA.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Mr. Patasariya was involved in model implementation and QA of
geocoding, hazard and vulnerability files.
Chris Juliana Peter Perianayagam, Senior QA Engineer
Chris has a BS degree in Information Technology and Electronics and Communication Engineering from
Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai and a Masters degree in Information Technology
and Management from Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago. Chris joined RMS in Feb 2009 as a QA
Software Engineer and is involved in planning, executing and automating tests related to Platform and
Installation verification of the RMS products RiskLink and RiskBrowser. Prior to RMS, Chris did her internship in
JC Consulting Group, Chicago as a Junior Software Engineer involved in the design, implementation and
maintenance of Pension Benefit software for Cook County.
®
314
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: QA for install and platform verification of RMS products RiskLink and
RiskBrowser.
Lekshmi Prakash, Senior QA Engineer
Ms. Prakash has an MS degree in Computer Engineering from San Jose State University and has been working
for RMS for the past two years. She works on providing data access layers for the databases in RiskLink, and
various software components of the next generation platform product. Ms. Prakash’s experience includes
databases, Microsoft WPF and Microsoft WCF.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Provide data access layer for the databases used in the project.
Sudha Raghavan, Principal Software Engineer
Sudha is a senior SQL server database administrator and developer at RMS. She is involved in database data
model implementation and database optimization, performance and scalability efforts. Sudha has 11 years of
industry experience working on various database technologies.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Data model implementation and database optimization,

performance and scalability efforts.
Mohsen Rahnama, PhD, Senior Vice President, Head of Model Development
Mohsen leads the model development team responsible for the creation of catastrophe models at RMS. He has
participated in and been project lead in the development of many RMS models. Mohsen is currently involved
with the translation of all RiskLink models to the NextGen environment as well as the development of new
models using the NextGen simulation based approach. During the past 14 years at RMS, Mohsen was involved
with the development of several major models, including RiskLink 11.0 models, Offshore Platform, IFM and
Builder’s Risk models. He oversaw the development of the 2009 earthquake models for North, Central, and
South America. Mohsen has over 25 years of experience in the field of earthquake engineering, seismic
structural analysis and design, building performance evaluation, catastrophe modeling, and risk assessment. He
earned his MS, Engineer’s degree, and PhD from Stanford University specializing in earthquake and structural
engineering.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Advisor on development and upgrade of hurricane vulnerability and
inventory models.
Ambica Rajagopal, PhD, Senior Product Manager
Dr Rajagopal is a member of the Actuarial and Financial Modeling team. Since joining RMS in 2007, she has
been involved in the research and development of new features in the RiskLink financial model as well as the
Simulation Platform. Most recently, she has researched alternatives to the Beta distribution. Prior to joining
RMS, Dr Rajagopal modeled asset-backed securities at KPMG LLP. She holds an MS in Mathematics from
BITS, Pilani, India and PhD in Mathematics from Purdue University, where she studied continuity properties of
symmetric stable processes.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Design and development of the RiskLink financial model.
®
315
Edida Rajesh, Assistant General Manager (Modeling)
Rajesh has a Masters of Technology in Geophysics from Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India and has
been working with RMS / RMSI for over 13.5 years. For RMS, Rajesh works on providing GIS based analysis,
developing hazard data products consumed by both natural catastrophe models and underwriting solutions.
Rajesh’s experience includes analyzing the requirements, project specification, coordination, and providing
industry-standard GIS-based solutions in developing hazard data products.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Developing Land Use Land Cover (LULC) data for study area using
Satellite Images and GIS analysis. This data (roughness data) is the base for site coefficients and IED
distribution.
Pranav Raval, Director, Software Engineering
Mr. Raval has an MS degree in Computer Science from Illinois Institute of Technol ogy, Chicago, and has been
working in the field of GIS Software Development for more than 6 years. For RMS, Mr. Raval works on various
GIS software components. Mr. Raval's development experience includes map server, core spatial library,
geocoding components, and job distribution components.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Design and implementation of geocoding and job distribution
components.
Venkata (Subba) Ravilisetty, Senior Architect
Mr. Ravilisetty has an MS degree in Computer Information Sciences from University of South Alabama, and a
BS degree in Electrical Engineering from Osmania University, Hyderabad in India. For RMS, Mr. Ravilisetty is
primarily responsible for the detailed design and implementation of software components in the RiskLink
Detailed Loss Model.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Detailed design and implementation of software components in the
RiskLink Detailed Loss Model.
Rhoderick Rivera, Senior QA Engineer
Mr. Rivera joined RMS in June of 2005, taking a position as a Config uration Release Engineer. Currently he is
handling order fulfillment and QA duties. He graduated from the University of Illinois, Urbana -Champaign with a
degree in Computer Engineering. Previously he has worked 2 years as a hardware engineer for Arise Comp uter
and 2.5 years as an account manager at Washington Mutual.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Fulfillment of client orders, and quality assurance.
Agustín Rodríguez, Lead Wind Vulnerability Modeler
Mr. Rodríguez joined RMS in July 1999 as a model developer. His responsibilities include development and
implementation of various models, including windstorm, severe convective storm, earthquake, and terrorism.
Mr. Rodríguez joined RMS after earning his MS degree from the University of California at Berkele y and his BS
degree from Stanford University, both in Civil Engineering.
®
316
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Implementation of U.S. hurricane vulnerability model.
Ricardo Ruiz, Senior Software Engineer
Mr. Ruiz has a BS degree in Computer Science from De La Salle University, Manila and has worked for
software development companies for nearly 13 years. For RMS, Mr. Ruiz works on the distributed processing
functionality of the RiskLink product. Mr. Ruiz’ experience includes distributed, database and object o riented
programming.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Maintenance of the distributed processing functionality of RiskLink.
Shraddha Sahay, Manager, Geospatial Software Development
Ms. Sahay has a Bachelor’s of Electrical Engineering from Visvesvaraya Technological University, Karnataka,
India. She has worked for nearly 7 years for software companies developing various enterprise applications. For
RMS, Ms. Sahay works mainly in the geospatial area where she is involved in different aspects of hazard
retrieval for RiskLink.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Detailed design and implementation of hazard retrieval for RiskLink.
Majid Khadem Sameni, Principal Software Engineer
Majid has a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from University of Waterlo o in Canada with a focus on
software development for concurrent systems. He has worked in several world class companies focusing on
primarily software design, architecture, implementation and algorithm design for more than 6 years. He has
been in RMS for about a year and he is currently the development lead for EGC distribution system. He has
expertise in several software development practices including Object -Oriented Design, Design Patterns,
Domain Driven Design, Actor Oriented Design, Event Driven System s Design, Test Driven Development, Agile
Software Development and Service Oriented Design, Cluster Computing, Cloud Computing. Also, he is expert in
several software technologies including .NET 3.5, WCF, Silverlight, Linq, Linq to Sql, Windows Server, XP, High
Performance Computing, Microsoft SQL Server, CCR, DDS.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Development lead for Enterprise Grid Computing job distribution system.
Chris Sams, Senior Geospatial modeler
Joining RMS in 2003, Chris develops RMS geospatial data that covers the entire world. He has also participated
in many RMS catastrophe model implementation features. Chris holds a BA in Geography from the University
Kansas and specialized in geographic information systems, remote sensing and cartography.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Chris is the geocoding development liaison to the model development
team.
Pooya Sarabandi, PhD, P.E., Director
Dr. Sarabandi holds a PhD degree in Structural Engineering from Stanford University as well as MS degrees in
Earthquake Engineering and Electrical Engineering. Dr. Sarabandi is a licensed civil engineer in the state of
California and currently serves as a consulting faculty at Stanford University where he established the
®
317
Advanced Global Risk Assessment Laboratory (AGRAL.) Prior to joining RMS in 2007, Dr. Sarabandi was
involved in research and development of wireless sensing devices for measuring structural response of
buildings and bridges, used in early earthquake warning systems as well as structural health mo nitoring. Prior to
that, he served as a consultant to number of risk and disaster management companies, specializing in
application of remote sensing and statistical inference techniques in modeling and assessing risk to urban area.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Dr. Sarabandi was responsible for the business interruption model as well
providing data and requirements for inventory and exposure development in the model.
Pooja Sayal, Manager Model Certification
Ms. Sayal joined RMS, California in December 2008. She graduated in Civil Engineering from Delhi College of
Engineering, New Delhi, India. Before joining RMS, California she had worked for six years at RMS, London
and RMS, India offices in Model Development and Model QA departments. During this re lease her primary
responsibilities include validation of hazard and vulnerability implementation. Her prior experience includes
developing historical storm wind fields and their reconstruction for the previous generation of hurricane model.
She also supported the development of surface roughness data. She had also validated many Earthquake and
Windstorm peril models in earlier releases.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Ms. Sayal is involved with validation tests for hurricane hazard and
vulnerability implementation.
Emilie Scherer, PhD, Senior Catastrophe Risk Modeler, Model Development
Dr. Scherer has been involved in various components of the hazard model including historical reconstructions
and model validation. Prior to joining RMS, she conducted postdoctoral research in geophysical fluid dynamics
applied to the atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique in Paris,
France and at the Laboratoire des Ecoulements Geophysiques et Industriels in Grenoble, France. Dr Scherer
received a PhD in Meteorology, Oceanology and Environment from the University Pierre and Marie Curie in
Paris, France.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Development of historical footprints and hazard model validation.
Debjani Sen, Director, Technical Publications
Debjani has a Master’s in Liberal Arts from Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. She has worked in the
software industry for over 11 years, providing documentation, online help, and tutorials for enterprise level
software products. Debjani joined RMS in July 2007 and is responsible for the development and delivery of
software documentation, model documentation, and online help for RMS customers.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Debjani is responsible for the development and delivery of technical
software documentation, model documentation, and online help.
Neha Shah, Engineer, Model Certification
Neha joined Jonathan Moss’s team within the Quality Assurance Department of RMS in April 2007, after
completing her bachelor’s degree in Applied Mathematics at University of California, Los Angeles. She has
®
318
tested a number of different Financial Model features in few releases of RiskLink and RiskBrowser, and with her
team members, has recently updated the Financial Model Prototype, which is used to test the Event Loss
Tables. Neha is also currently pursuing her MS degree in Biostatistics from California State University, East
Bay.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Neha is involved with testing of the financial model features in the 11.0
release and developing of any necessary test tools.
Nilesh Shome, PhD, Director, Model Development
Nilesh joined RMS in 2009 as a director in the model development group. He is involved in developing and
reviewing vulnerability functions of residential and commercial structures for U.S. hurricanes as well as
vulnerability functions of tall buildings for western U.S. earthquakes. Nilesh has more than 10 years of
professional experience in loss estimation of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, winter storms, and o ther natural
hazard as well as man-made hazards like terrorism. Prior to joining RMS, he managed a number of projects to
develop and update models for earthquakes, hurricanes, and winter storms. He has also worked on several
projects for securitization of risks for earthquakes and hurricanes and a number of world-bank projects to
evaluate risks of different countries for earthquakes and hurricanes. Nilesh has also worked as a consultant to
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Applied Technical Cou ncil (ATC). He has authored a
number of publications in international journals and refereed conferences, and is a technical reviewer and editor
of a number of papers for several journals. He received the EERI award for the best journal paper in the year
1998. Nilesh earned his PhD in Structural Engineering from Stanford University.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Involved in developing vulnerability functions of residential and

commercial structures.
Maulik Shukla, Manager, Software Development
Mr. Shukla has an MS degree in Computer Science from Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago. He has
worked with various companies in the capacity of Senior Engineer to Team Lead. At RMS Mr. Shukla works with
the Business Intelligence and Analytics team, leading the data integration efforts for the Next Generation
Platform Initiative.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Maulik had provided support to the development team as a Team
Foundation Server Administrator, and has implemented upgrades to the RiskLink exp osure data import and
export components.
Bronislava Sigal, Lead Financial Modeler
Ms. Sigal received BS degree (with honors) in Mathematics from Kiev State University in Ukraine and PhD in
Statistics from Stanford University.
She joined RMS in March of 2009.After joining RMS as a part of Model Development team Ms. Sigal worked on
projects related to terrorism, account fire and offshore platform RMS models. Currently Ms. Sigal is a part of a
Financial Modeling group. Prior to joining RMS she worked in the field of catastrophe modeling at K2
Technologies and after that at Stanford University as a biostatistician on stochastic modeling in cancer
research.
®
319
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Modified documentation and prototype and tested implementation of a
new interaction methodology for loss computation.
Rajesh K. Singh, PhD, P.E., Senior Director, Model Certification
Dr. Singh received his PhD from Stanford University, Master’s degree from the University of British Columbia,
and Bachelor’s degree from IIT Kanpur, all in Civil Engineering. Dr. Singh has worked on the development and
implementation of loss assessment models, design and implementation of engineering databases, and creating
derivative data layers for use with aggregate exposure and reinsurance applications. As a senior director of
analytics QA, Dr. Singh is responsible for quality of the model implementation and analytics with RiskLink. Prior
to RMS, Dr. Singh worked as a design engineer at J. K. M. Associates, a structural engineering consulting f irm
in Vancouver, Canada, on the seismic analysis and design of high-rise buildings. Dr. Singh is a registered
Professional Engineer (P.E.) in California, and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Model implementation and engineering quality assurance.
Ajay Singhal, PhD, Vice President, SW Engineering
Ajay leads the man-made cat and large commercial risk practice at RMS and has more than 10 years of
experience in catastrophe risk assessment for natural and man-made catastrophes. He has been involved in the
development of hazard, vulnerability, and financial models for these perils. At RMS, he has been leading teams
for the development of the various models such as the terrorism model for estimating losses fr om various man-
made catastrophes, offshore platforms model for hurricane loss analysis to offshore oil & gas platforms, fire risk
analysis for estimating losses from accidental and arson fires, and the fire following earthquake model. Ajay
holds a B.Tech. degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (India), an MS in Civil Engineering from
Rice University, Houston, Texas, and a PhD in Civil Engineering from Stanford University, California
specializing in probabilistic loss estimation.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Managing Financial Model development for RiskLink.
Puja Sinha, Senior Software Engineer
Ms. Sinha has a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Nagpur University, India. She has 5+ years of
experience in software development, which includes around 2 years at RMS. At RMS, Ms. Sinha works on
RiskLink, RiskBrowser, RiskTools and RiskOnline. Her responsibilities include software planning, designing and
implementation.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: EDM downgrade script.
Michael Smith, PhD, Senior Catastrophe Risk Modeler
Michael joined the RMS London model development team in November 2010. In his role as senior catastrophe
risk modeler Michael’s primary responsibility has been to support the capital markets group’s use of c atastrophe
models to transfer insured risk to capital markets in the form of catastrophe bonds. He has worked on several
different peril regions and his responsibilities include developing automated post -event processes for Paradex –
an index approximating insured industry losses. Michael has also worked on the historical reconstructions and
hazard aggregation for RiskLink 13. Prior to working at RMS, Michael spent five years working as an offshore
®
320
engineer, specializing in offshore installation projects an d then finite element analysis for offshore structural
design. Michael holds a BSci in Applied Mathematics from the University of St Andrews and a PhD in Civil
Engineering from the University of Dundee.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: RiskLink Event Rate Converter annual update.
Jayant Srivastava, Director, SW engineering
Mr. Srivastava has an MS in Computer Science from the Institute of Management and Technology, India. For
RMS, Jayant is managing the Business Services Development Group and develops s oftware enhancements
and fixes for various functionalities of core applications.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Primarily, contributing to the job distribution framework for RiskLink.
Beth Stamann, Senior Documentation Specialist
Ms. Stamann joined RMS in August of 1995. She worked within the Client Development Organization until
October 2007 when she moved to the Public Policy Group as Senior Documentation Specialist.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Production of RMS Submission.
Philippe Stephan, Chief Technology Officer
Philippe Stephan is the Chief Technology Officer of RMS. He was most recently Head of Business Development
for Sophis, a leading market risk technology vendor. Prior to Sophis, Philippe directed product development as
the CTO of San Francisco based Moody's KMV, the award winning credit risk analytics vendor. Philippe has
also held senior management positions at Internet startups, built derivatives risk management systems for
Societe Generale in Paris, and CA Lazard Financial Product Bank in London. Philippe started his career as a
key contributor to the development of the Eiffel programming language in the early 1990s, after obtaining his
MS in computer science from French Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de St Etienne.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: General management, product management and software development.
Cody Stumpo, Senior Product Manager
Based in California, Cody is responsible for managing the RMS financial model for RMS’ core software products
such as RiskLink and RiskBrowser. Prior to joining RMS, Cody worked in quantitative commercial credit risk
management with Moody’s KMV and as senior catastrophe analyst for the St. Paul Travelers Companies. He
holds a BA in applied mathematics from the University of California, Berkeley and an MS in engineering from
Purdue University.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Management of modeled hurricane losses in the financial model.
®
321
Shengjun (John) Su, PhD, Senior Software Engineer
Mr. Su has a PhD degree in Computational Analysis & Modeling from Louisiana Tech Univ. Mr. Su started
working with RMS in 2006, and his duties have mainly focused on development of financial modeling
components. Before joining RMS, Mr. Su worked with UGS for ten months as a software engineer.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Enhancement of the Exceedance Probability Engine for RiskLink.
William Suchland, Vice President, Geospatial Development
Mr. Suchland has a BA degree in Geography/Computer Assisted Cartography from the University of
Washington in Seattle, Washington. He has over 25 years of professional experience in software design,
development, and technical project management. Prior to joining RMS in 1996, Mr. Suchland worked for over 15
years as a software developer and software development manager in the geo-demographics industry, building
consumer marketing analysis systems and supporting GIS and mapping capabilities. At RMS, Mr. Suchland's
primary role is manager of geospatial software and data development for the RiskLink and RiskBrows er
products.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Management of software design and implementation.
Taronne Tabucchi, Senior Modeler
Taronne supports calibration/validation exercises for the model, mainly responsible for running RiskLink and
processing outputs from the model. She earned a BS in Engineering Science from Smith College and a MS in
Civil Infrastructure Systems from Cornell University, where her course work focused on risk analysis and
earthquake engineering. Taronne joined RMS in June 2007.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Calibration/validation of model; running RiskLink and processing outputs
into graphical formats.
Avinash Takale, Senior Software Engineer
Mr. Takale has a Masters of Computer Application from Shivaji University, Maharashtra, India. He has worked
for 7 years for software companies developing various desktop and enterprise applications. For RMS, Mr.
Takale works mainly in the geospatial area where he is involved in different aspects of hazard data
management and retrieval for RiskLink.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Implementation of migration of high resolution (spatial) hazard lookup
from C++ to C# .NET and migration of hurricane hazard tabular lookup from MS Access to SQL.
Joel Taylor, Senior Analyst, Model Product Management
Mr. Taylor has a BS degree in Mathematics from Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois. He joined RMS in April
2007. After completing the risk analyst program, he joined the Mitigation and Regulatory Affairs group. Mr.
Taylor participated in post-hurricane reconnaissance visits after Hurricanes Gustav (2008) and Ike (2008).
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Generation and QA of actuarial, statistical and vulnerability forms.
®
322
Monika Tomar, Project Lead, Application Development
Ms. Tomar completed her Master’s degree in Computer Applications in 2003 from Bundelkhand University,
Jhasi, India. Ms. Tomar has over 5 years of experience in software design and development of software
solutions.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Upgrading the RiskLink financial model software.
Yogesh Vani, Manager, Quality Assurance
Yogesh has an MS in Telecommunication Systems from California State University, Hayward. For RMS, he has
worked on RiskLink installation and platform testing. In the past, Yogesh has also worked on Remote
Distributed Processing testing. His responsibilities include testing RiskLink installation across multiple OS
platforms and SQL Server combinations.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Testing installation of RiskLink software and DLM data.
Mimi von Kugelgen, Vice President, Program Management
Mimi joined RMS in early 2003 and leads the program management function in model development. Her role is
to coordinate scoping, planning, and delivery of RMS’ multi-year modeling agenda. Mimi played a pivotal role as
the release manager responsible for cross-functional coordination and delivery of the version 9.0 product
release. Mimi earned a BS in genetics from the University of California, Berkeley and holds a PMP designation
from the Project Management Institute.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Coordinate product scoping, planning, and delivery.
Yen-Tin Yang, Manager, Model Certification
Ms. Yang received an MS degree in Management Science & Engineering from Stanford University, and an MS
in Structural Engineering and BS in Civil Engineering degrees from National Taiwan University. Ms. Yang joined
RMS in January 2005. She is responsible for model implementation quality assurance and data validation. Prior
to RMS, Ms. Yang worked on product verification at Autodesk, Inc.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Model implementation quality assurance, testing, and validation.
Michael Young, Senior Director, Model Product Management
Mr. Young holds a M.Sc. from the University of Western Ontario in Canada where he studied wind loading on
low rise buildings. He was worked in commercial wind tunnel laboratories doing studies on wind loads for a
variety of buildings. Before joining RMS, he worked as a modeler at Applied Research Associates on hurricane
vulnerability risk models. He was involved in the development of the HAZUS-MH software for hurricane risk
assessment and studies on mitigation cost-effectiveness for building codes, such as the 2001 Florida Building
Code and the North Carolina Building Code. Mr. Young has conducted post-hurricane reconnaissance visits
after Hurricanes Bonnie (1998), Isabel (2003), Charley (2004), Frances (2004), Ivan (2004), Jeanne (2004),
Gustav (2008), and Ike (2008). He is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the A merican
Association of Wind Engineers.
®
323
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Oversees product specifications for RMS climatic models including the
North Atlantic Hurricane Model. Oversees regulatory certification process.
Ji Zhang, Senior Software Engineer
Ms. Ji Zhang joined RMS in June 2006 as a software engineer in Software Peril Model Services. She is
responsible for software development for several peril models. She has an MS degree in Computer Science
from California State University, East Bay and BS degree in Mathematics from Xiamen University.
Hurricane Project Responsibilities: Maintain, develop and test peril model software.
Christine Ziehmann, PhD, Director, Model Product Management
Dr. Ziehmann received her PhD in meteorology from the Free University of Berlin in 1994 where she also
studied for her bachelor's and master's degrees in meteorology. Dr. Ziehmann joined RMS in 2001 from the
Institute of Physics at the University of Potsdam (Max-Planck-Institute for Nonlinear Dynamics), Germany,
where she held a post doc position with main research interest the predictability of weather and climate and
nonlinear systems in general. Dr. Ziehmann was also a lecturer at the University of Potsdam and previously the
University of Hamburg in theoretical meteorology, atmospheric boundary layer meteorology and non-linear time
series analysis. In October 2007 Dr. Ziehmann was appointed as product manager for the Atlantic Hurricane
model after having various roles in RMS' product management and weather derivatives b usiness units. She is a
member of the German Meteorological Society (DMG).
®
324
Appendix C—External Expert Review of Hazard Module
APPENDIX C—EXTERNAL EXPERT REVIEW OF HAZARD MODULE
®
325
®
326
®
327
®
328
®
329
®
330
Appendix D—External Expert Review of Vulnerability Module
APPENDIX D—EXTERNAL EXPERT REVIEW OF VULNERABILITY

MODULE
®
331
®
332
®
333
®
334
Appendix E—RiskLink User Interface Screen Shots
APPENDIX E—RISKLINK USER INTERFACE SCREEN SHOTS
Figure 85: Screen Shot of Model Location Input Form (Part 1)
®
335
®
336
®
337
Figure 91: Screen Shot of the About RiskLink Screen, Showing Model Name and Version Number
®
338
Appendix F—RiskLink Reports Analysis Summary Report for FCHLPM
APPENDIX F—RISKLINK REPORTS
Figure 92: Analysis Summary Report (Page 1 of 3)
®
339
®
340
®
341
®
342
Appendix F—RiskLink Reports Post Import Summary
Figure 95: Post Import Summary (Page 1 of 4)
®
343
®
344
®
345
®
346
Appendix F—RiskLink Reports Annual Aggregate Factors Table
Table 52: Example of Client Output Table Showing Application of Annual Deductible Factors
RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509)

Signature: _________________________________
Date: _____________________________________
Instructions:
In order to verify that the annual deductible factors have been applied to the model output, clients should report the following results as evidence of
appropriate application:
a.) portfolio level occurrence deductible gross AAL and the annual deductible gross AAL,
b.) selected return period losses for each of occurrence deductibles and annual deductibles, and
c.) for three sample locations in the portfolio, location level occurrence deductible gross AAL and the annual deductible gross AAL.
Client Information:
Client Name:
Model Version:
Annual Deductible Factors Used (AOP/Non-AOP):
Portfolio Level Model Output:

Ratio:
Number of Gross Occurrence Gross Annual
Portfolio Name (Annual AAL) /
AAL
Accounts/Locations Deductible AAL Deductible AAL

(Occurrence AAL)
Ratio:
100 year RPL with 100 year RPL with Annual
(Annual 100 RPL) /
year
RPL
Occurrence Deductible Deductible

100
(Occurrence 100 AAL)
Ratio:
250 year RPL with 250 year RPL with Annual
(Annual 250 RPL) /
year
RPL
Occurrence Deductible Deductible

250
(Occurrence 250 AAL)
Location Level Model Output:

LOB-Construction HU Deductible Gross Occurrence Gross Annual Ratio: Annual /
Location Identifier Postal Code
Type Amount AAL Deductible AAL Occurrence
®
347

RMS11StandardsDisclosures 20130514

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RMS11StandardsDisclosures 20130514

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

North Atlantic Hurricane Model

RMS® RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509)

Submitted in Compliance with the 2011 Standards of the

Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

7575 Gateway Boulevard, Newark, CA 94560 USA

Professionals having credentials and/or experience in the areas of meteorology, engineering,

MODEL SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

RiskLink 13.0 (Build 1509) 05/14/2013

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (CHECKLIST ITEM 3)

Name of Modeling Organization: Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

Street Address: 7575 Gateway Boulevard

City, State, ZIP Code: Newark, CA 94560

Mailing Address, if different from above: Same as above

Contact Person: Kay Cleary

Phone Number: 850-386-5292 Fax Number:

E-mail Address: kay.cleary@rms.com

Date: May 2013

Model Submission Checklist 5

Figure 3: Flow Diagram of Major Model Components 32

Figure 8: RMS Landfall Gates 66

Figure 17: As Figure 15 but for Hurricane Jeanne (2004) 77

Figure 19: As Figure 15 but for Hurricane Wilma (2005) 78

Figure 26: Process for Deriving and Implementing Vulnerability Functions 91

Figure 32: Uncertainty in Loss Costs due to Vmax 133

Figure 33: Uncertainty in Loss Costs Due to Rmax 134

Figure 34: Central Pressure Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 135

Figure 35: Vmax Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 136

Figure 38: Rmax Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) 139

Figure 39: Angle to Maximum Winds Histogram 140

Figure 42: RiskLink Top Level Data Flow 153

Figure 43: High-Level Description of Model-Revision Policy 161

Figure 44: Detailed Description of Model-Revision Policy 163

Figure 45: RMS Product Development Process Diagram 164

Figure 59: Frequency Histogram Central Pressure (hPa) 194

Figure 92: Analysis Summary Report (Page 1 of 3) 339

Figure 93: Analysis Summary Report (Page 2 of 3) 340

Figure 94: Analysis Summary Report (Page 3 of 3) 341

Figure 95: Post Import Summary (Page 1 of 4) 343

Figure 96: Post Import Summary (Page 2 of 4) 344

Figure 97: Post Import Summary (Page 3 of 4) 345

Figure 98: Post Import Summary (Page 4 of 4) 346

Table 1: Percentage Difference by Module 41

Table 2: Individuals Involved in Meteorological Aspects of the Model 47

Table 3: Individuals Involved in Vulnerability Aspects of the Model 47

Table 4: Individuals Involved in Actuarial Aspects of the Model 48

Table 5: Individuals Involved in Statistical Aspects of the Model 48

Table 6: Individuals Involved in Computer Science Aspects of the Model 49

Table 7: Individuals who are not Full-Time Employees 54

Table 8: Gust Factors for Typical Land Use Classes 64

Table 11: Post-Storm Reconnaissance Missions Conducted by RMS 95

Table 12: RMS Hurricane Primary Building Classification Options 97

Table 15: Geocoding Match Levels 119

Table 16: Example of Insurer Loss Calculation 122

Table 19: Sample Client Loss Data Comparison 146

Table 23: Hurricane Charley (2004) Percent of Losses 210

Table 24: Hurricane Frances (2004) Percent of Losses 215

Table 26: Hurricane Jeanne (2004) Percent of Losses 229

Table 27: Loss Costs per $1000 for 0% Deductible 248

Table 29: Percentage Change in $0 Deductible Output Ranges 262

Table 30: Percentage Change in Specified Deductible Output Ranges 262

Table 31: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Deductible 273

Table 32: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Construction 275

Table 33: Percent Change in Logical Relationship to Risk—Policy Form 276