RLI - Earnings Call - Q1 2025

Executive Summary

• Q1 2025 delivered strong underwriting profitability (combined ratio 82.3%) with underwriting income of $70.5M, while GAAP net EPS fell to $0.68 due to $42.3M of unrealized equity losses; operating EPS was $0.92.
• EPS beat normalized/operating consensus, but consolidated revenue missed Street estimates as equity market marks reduced GAAP revenue; management highlighted investment income up 12% and comprehensive EPS of $1.01. EPS Normalized consensus: $0.85* vs actual $0.92 (beat); Revenue consensus: $0.442B* vs actual $0.408B (miss). Values retrieved from S&P Global.
• Segment strength: Property (57.1% combined) and Surety (68.5%) offset Casualty (99.1%) amid cautious stance on wheels/auto severity; favorable prior-year reserve development added $27.4M to underwriting income, partially offset by $12.0M catastrophe losses.
• Capital return continues: regular dividend raised to $0.15 in Q1 and further to $0.16 for Q2 2025, marking the 50th consecutive year of increases; book value per share rose 6% from year-end.
• Near-term stock reaction catalysts: operating EPS beat vs Street, strong property margins, cautious commentary on auto severity and competitive E&S property pricing, and ongoing dividend growth.

What Went Well and What Went Wrong

What Went Well

• Property and Surety margins drove profitability: Property combined ratio 57.1% (underwriting income $56.9M); Surety combined ratio 68.5% (underwriting income $11.5M).
• Investment engine contributed: Net investment income +12% YoY to $36.7M; portfolio total return +1.3% for the quarter.
• Management confidence in diversified, niche portfolio: “...combined ratio of 82%. A very good start... Our narrow and deep underwriting and claim expertise... allows us to underwrite with discipline...” — CEO Craig Kliethermes.

What Went Wrong

• Consolidated GAAP revenue declined YoY (-8.4%), primarily due to $42.3M unrealized equity losses; GAAP net EPS fell to $0.68 vs $1.39 in Q1 2024.
• Casualty markets pressured: Casualty combined ratio rose to 99.1%; management remains cautious on wheels-based businesses as auto severity persists.
• Competitive E&S property environment: MGAs and unrated carriers aggressively expanding terms and cutting rates in Florida wind; earthquake rates trending lower as more insureds take risk net.

Transcript

Operator (participant)

Good morning and welcome to the RLI Corp first quarter earnings teleconference. After management's prepared remarks, we will open the conference up for questions and answers. Before we get started, let me remind everyone that through the course of the teleconference, RLI management may make comments that reflect their intentions, beliefs, or expectations for the future. As always, these forward-looking statements are subject to certain factors and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially. Please refer to the risk factors described in the company's various SEC filings, including in the annual report on Form 10-K, as supplemented in Form 10-Q, all of which should be reviewed carefully. The company has filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission that contains the press release announcing fourth quarter results.

During the call, RLI management may refer to operating earnings and earnings per share from operations, which are non-GAAP measures of financial results. RLI's operating earnings and earnings per share from operations consist of net earnings after the elimination of after-tax realized gains or losses and after-tax unrealized gains or losses on equity securities. RLI's management believes these measures are useful, gauging core operating performance across reporting periods, but may not be comparable to other companies' definitions of operating earnings. The Form 8-K contains a reconciliation between operating earnings and net earnings. The Form 8-K and press release are available at the company's website at www.rlicorp.com. I will now turn the conference over to RLI's Chief Investment Officer and Treasurer, Mr. Aaron Diefenthaler. Please go ahead.

Aaron Diefenthaler (Chief Investment Officer and Treasurer)

Thank you, Adam, and good morning. Thank you, Adam, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to RLI's first quarter earnings call of 2025. We'll be following our typical agenda today with opening remarks from Craig Kliethermes, President and CEO, followed by a summary of the financial results from Todd Bryant, Chief Financial Officer, and an update on the insurance market landscape and our product portfolio from Jen Klobnak, our Chief Operating Officer. After prepared commentary, the operator will queue up any questions, and Craig will close with some final observations. Craig.

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

Thank you, Aaron, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to report that we begin our 61st year in business with continued growth in book value and top-line premiums while reporting a combined ratio of 82%. A very good start and something to build on as we move through 2025. RLI is a unique franchise built on a foundation of customer service, ownership, and talented people who value making a difference. Our narrow and deep underwriting and claim expertise, combined with a very diverse portfolio of specialty products, give our underwriters the license to lean into disrupted markets, underwrite with discipline, select risks discerningly, and take remedial action in underpriced or underperforming markets if needed. We have a healthy balance sheet that enables us to navigate and thrive through periods of market disruption. As respected coaches often advise their teams, act like you've been here before. In our case, we have.

Whether it was the soft market years at the turn of this millennium, the financial stress and credit crunch of 2008, or the economic supply chain and contract uncertainty we faced during the COVID pandemic, RLI continued to grow profitably while delivering exceptional service to our customers. The insurance industry is now faced with the rising challenges of legal system abuse, trade disruption, and economic uncertainty. We have owners who are empowered to execute and confidently manage through whatever the market presents. As Todd and Jen will go into in a minute, we remain focused on opportunities where we have the expertise to differentiate ourselves and the market supports adequate returns. It is never easy, and there is always room for improvement. What sets RLI apart is that in our ownership culture, there is no place to hide.

We tackle our challenges with a sense of urgency and try to keep them from becoming outsized. We are committed to pushing ourselves by raising the bar in pursuit of excellence and continuously building on our strengths. We are playing the long game. I will let Todd and Jen share more detail on the financials and the market in general. Todd, you're up.

Todd Bryant (CFO)

Thanks, Craig. Good morning, everyone. Last evening, our first quarter release reflected operating earnings of $0.92 per share, supported by solid underwriting performance and a 12% increase in investment income. As a reminder, per share data reflects the two-for-one stock split that was due to shareholders at the end of 2024 and payable in January. Underwriting income benefited from continued growth in earned premium and favorable prior years' reserve development across all three segments. The total combined ratio of 82.3% was up from last year's 78.5% on lower levels of favorable prior years' reserve releases and a slight increase in the underlying combined ratio. Although top-line growth was mixed across segments, total gross premiums written increased 5% when compared to last year. On a GAAP basis, the first quarter net earnings totaled $0.68 per share versus $1.39 in Q1 2024.

This comparison is heavily influenced by the relative price performance of equity securities between periods and saw $45 million of unrealized equity gains of last year turn to $42 million of unrealized losses this quarter. The Property segment experienced a 6% decline in gross premium due largely to rate decreases in E&S Property, which were modestly offset by continued growth in Marine and Hawaii Homeowners. Jen will have some additional color on subsegment market conditions. Contributing to Property's bottom line was $17.6 million of favorable prior years' reserve development, largely attributable to Marine, E&S Property, and Hawaii Homeowners offering a 13-point loss ratio benefit. Storm losses and catastrophe events totaled $12 million, which was comparable to last year. Losses from the California wildfires account for about half of that total. This quarter's catastrophe losses are almost entirely captured in this segment with very little attributable to package business and casualty.

While property loss ratio declined modestly, the expense ratio increased two points driven by changes in our reinsurance compared to Q1 2024 and a higher amount of acquisition-related expenses. That influenced the comparison between periods. All in, property had a great start to the year with a 57% combined ratio. For the Casualty segment, we posted a 99% combined ratio for Q1 and remained cautious regarding wheels-based businesses, including commercial Transportation and auto exposure in Personal Umbrella, something we discussed at length during the fourth quarter call. Although growth continues, with gross premium up 14% over last year, our measured reserve approach influenced the level of overall favorable development in the segment, which totaled $5.1 million during Q1 compared to $18.1 million last year. General Liability, Commercial Excess, and subsegments within Professional Liability were the strongest contributors to favorable prior years' experience.

This was partially offset by an increase in our wheels business reserves I referenced previously. We continue to approach more challenged coverages with rate increases and underwriting action to address casualty's current loss environment. Surety gross premium was relatively flat to last year, and the first quarter combined ratio came in at 68.5%, below the 80.9% combined ratio in 2024. Underwriting profitability benefited from $8.3 million of favorable development, which had a significant influence on the loss ratio. As a reminder, we recorded $2 million in reinsurance reinstatement premiums last year, which weighed on the net earned premium in the comparable period. Operating cash flow for Q1 totaled $103 million, up $33 million from last year, and giving us a basis for portfolio activity that remains accretive. Although treasury rates moderated during the quarter, fixed income purchases averaged 5.1% or 120 basis points above our book yield.

Recent market volatility has not dampened our focus on putting money to work in investment-grade fixed income, but the strength of our balance sheet allows us to also consider risk assets as valuations improve. Bond price improvements through March 31 were enough to overcome the decline in equities, resulting in a positive 1.3% total return for the entire portfolio. Away from our traditional invested assets, our invested earnings turned positive again, totaling $3 million in the quarter as Prime's results were more stable than in the fourth quarter. Incorporating comprehensive earnings of $1.01 per share and adjusting for dividends, book value per share increased 6% from year-end 2024. Additionally, we announced an increase in our ordinary quarterly dividend to $0.15 per share, our 50th year of paying and increasing dividends. All in, we are very pleased with the start to the year.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Jen.

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

Thank you, Todd. We had an excellent start to the year with 5% growth and an 82 combined ratio for the first quarter. Increased competition in several areas of our portfolio has led to slower top-line growth. However, our underwriting team continued to explore where competitors are pulling back, and we have found opportunities in the business they leave behind. We are being more selective on providing auto coverage as we have seen continued increased severity across our auto portfolio. Our Property Insurance segments performed very well in the quarter given manageable loss activity. Let me provide more detail by segment. Casualty segment premiums were 14%, which included a positive 9% rate change overall. Auto liability coverages provided within this segment achieved a 17% rate increase. Growth was once again driven by Personal Umbrella, where premium grew by 34%, which included a 15% rate increase in the quarter.

The rate increase is down slightly from last quarter as some of last year's higher rate filings have worked their way through the book. We do have additional approved rate filings effective mid-year that will help us continue to address loss cost trends. Due to the loss severity we have seen in this book, we are making several changes beyond rate. For example, we raised required underlying coverage limits in several geographic areas. We are also working with our producer partners to slow growth in problematic areas as we continue to focus on underwriting profitability. The E&S Casualty and Brokerage Group grew premium by 25%. This includes 18% growth in primary general liability business and 32% growth in excess liability. Rate increases are in the mid to upper single digits. We do have a long track record of underwriting profitability in the construction industry.

Based on that starting point, our rate change may not be comparable to what other carriers disclose. There are admitted and non-admitted markets who are pulling back in this business. Submissions have increased almost 20% for these lines. We're doing a good job of collaborating internally and offering an excess quote to support a primary liability opportunity and have been successful in binding more construction business in all regions of the country. The top line for other casualty products was fairly flat. The actions we are taking on auto are impacting our package businesses with rate increases staying ahead of loss trends. Our Transportation Division grew by 6% while achieving a 15% overall rate increase. Our Executive Products Group achieved a 3% increase in premium due to our producer outreach, even though rates continued to decrease by 4% in the quarter.

Finally, we exited a couple of captive relationships that reduced premium by $6 million in the first quarter. The market for casualty business varies significantly by product. While we are seeing carrier competitors increasing rates for most coverages, introducing some exclusions or exiting certain classes or geographies, we still see new markets and MGAs in particular who are willing to write business at lower rates with broader coverage. We rely on our local specialty underwriting teams to stay abreast of their producers' needs and to continuously remind them of our risk appetite. We are ready to take their call and provide a quick quote or quick decline so they can move on. Based on our underwriters' efforts and deep relationships, we are well positioned to take advantage of opportunities for long-term profitable growth in the Casualty segment.

The Property segment's premium declined by 6% while producing a 57 combined ratio. Our Marine and Hawaii Homeowners' businesses continue to find opportunities for growth. Marine premium was up 10% with a positive 3% rate change. The Marine market is challenging, but our underwriters have developed the ability to sift through a growing number of submissions to find the opportunities that make sense. Submissions were up 10% for the quarter, with growth driven primarily by Inland Marine. Hawaii Homeowners' premium grew by 37%, which includes a positive 18% rate increase. We continue to benefit from our competitors pulling back in this market after the Hawaii wildfires. More recently, we are seeing a change in appetite with some markets re-entering this space to varying degrees. E&S Property is experiencing the most competitive market conditions in our product portfolio, with premium down 14% in the quarter.

The Property insurance market is known for large catastrophes and short memory, and the current market conditions reflect this. Competitors, particularly MGAs who are compensated on top-line growth, are very aggressive in the Florida wind market. They have increased line capacity and expanded terms and conditions while slashing rates. We continue to refine our underwriting guidelines to provide our underwriters the flexibility to compete on the best accounts. Although we saw a 14% decrease in capped wind rates in the quarter, we believe this business is still very well priced. The earthquake market is also challenging given the increasing tendency of insureds to take this risk net. Our rates were down 6% in the quarter on the earthquake business.

New business is hard to win in the E&S Property space, but we are continuing to stay in front of our producers and letting them know we are a consistent, long-term, reliable market for their customers. As I mentioned, the Property segment performed well with a 57% combined ratio despite a heavy quarter of catastrophe losses for the industry. We will continue to look for areas to grow in the segment despite the increased competition. Surety segment's premium was down 1% in the quarter while posting a 69% combined ratio. The bottom line improvement was due to benign loss activity in the quarter this year compared to one large commercial energy loss posted in the first quarter last year. The top line was challenged because Contract Surety premium decreased by 10%.

As this business focuses on public construction projects, we saw a slowdown in bid activity for larger multi-year projects influenced by tariff uncertainty. Our bond count actually increased, which means we're still seeing plenty of opportunity on smaller, quick-turning jobs, which is our target appetite. Our commercial and transactional businesses were able to grow due to some new regional bonding requirements and our continued marketing efforts. Overall, we're very pleased with this quarter's results. In a quarter of elevated catastrophe loss activity for the industry and continued auto severity, we were able to post an 82% combined ratio. We are continuously improving our portfolio while focusing on bottom line results.

Our underwriting teams are navigating increasingly difficult market conditions by regularly interacting with our producers in person to address their needs and by working with our claim and analytical teams to incorporate the trends and feedback they're hearing to ensure we continue to maintain discipline and write profitable business where available. This is what we do. I will now turn the call over to the moderator to open it up for questions.

Operator (participant)

Thank you. The question and answer session will begin at this time. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing any numbers. Should you have a question, please press star one on your telephone. If you wish to withdraw your question, please press star two. The questions will be taken in the order that it is received. Please stand by for your first question. The first question comes from Bill Carcache from Wolfe Research. Bill, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Bill Carcache (Senior Equity Research Analyst of Financials)

Thank you. Good morning. Craig, following up on your comments around having managed the business through many business cycles, if uncertainty caused by tariff policy were to push the U.S. economy into recession, could you give a little bit of insight into the RLI playbook? What would you adjust? What stays the same? Where would you expect to see greater opportunities? Any color would be helpful.

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

Thanks, Bill. Yeah, I mean, we've also managed our way through recessions in the past as well. I mean, the big advantage we have, obviously, is a very diversified portfolio of products. Some are more impacted than others by recession. We do have a significant presence and percentage of our portfolio in the construction space. Obviously, if construction slows significantly, it would put some pressure on us. Although I would say construction is a big segment for most specialty companies. I'm not sure it would be outsized pressure on us, but certainly there would be pressure on exposure basis because sales and revenues would be going down of our underlying insurers, which would drive prices down or premiums down anyway. That, but also decreased activity also slows claims as well. From a profitability standpoint, I don't know that we've managed our way through these before.

I expect we would manage our way through them again. Certainly, that would create pressure on exposures. It's not limited to construction. It would be on the auto side as well, Transportation side, things like that. The insurance industry insures the economy. The way the economy goes is the way we go. I guess the offsetting that is if the end result of, I guess, the uncertainty that's being created today by tariff policy, if it would increase building more at home, investing more at home in America, since we are exclusively in the U.S., we would also be a proportioned, I guess, benefactor of that as well. Obviously, more building in the U.S. would create more opportunity for us. That's pretty much what I would have to offer there.

Bill Carcache (Senior Equity Research Analyst of Financials)

Is that inclusive of the impact of tariffs on loss cost inflation trends overall net?

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

Usually, loss cost inflation during recession drives loss cost inflation. That'd probably help to us. It would probably offset some of the inflationary things that are going on right now. However, from a legal system abuse standpoint, that's a little more isolated from materials and labor inflation. So that needs to be addressed in a different way through tort reform, as you've seen in Florida. We most recently saw in Georgia, although the impacts haven't been felt yet. You're seeing, I think, in Louisiana, they're trying to do that as well. I think that is what will help most mute the inflationary pressures on casualty businesses.

Bill Carcache (Senior Equity Research Analyst of Financials)

That's really helpful. Thank you. Then separately, Jen, following up on your commentary around seeing MGAs willing to more aggressively underwrite business at lower rates with broader coverages, are you viewing this as a bit of a harbinger of undisciplined market behavior that could lead to more widespread challenges for the industry down the road and ultimately something that could potentially present some more opportunities for your business?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

Yeah. Bill, we're very used to MGAs in our space. We deal with them every single year. I think it's more irritable in property because they're affecting the market so aggressively, and it was such a great market that was going on. To have them go so aggressively after the business is really putting a dent in what's available there. We do experience MGA competition on the Casualty and Property side on a regular basis every year. Our business model is we're a very consistent market, very strong financially. We're there for our producers and our insurers over time. They know what we offer. We stay in front of them. We have a pretty consistent risk appetite. We do tweak it over time.

Because of our results, we're able to stay consistent and not make drastic moves from a pricing or a terms and conditions standpoint. What happens is an MGA comes in, they start taking our business, they tend to blow up over time, and casualty takes a little longer. Property, sometimes you see that a little faster. After they blow up, the producer ends up shifting that business back to us because they know we're still here. That's why sometimes our top line is not as consistent and it can actually be reduced in some market conditions. Again, we're focused on the bottom line and the consistency and being there for our producers and insurers. That's kind of how the macro cycle plays out for us based on our business model.

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

I guess I would just add to that. We've seen it's beyond MGAs as well. You've seen some unrated carriers that have come back into the market, particularly in Florida. You've seen Lloyd's come back much more aggressively, or I'll say as aggressively as they were before. As someone sitting a little bit removed from this and getting the reports on the ground, I mean, it is a bit disheartening how quickly the discontent rises in the insurance marketplace. The market's full of people that seem to be too smart for their own good. Many were the same people that created the contraction and the loss capacity and withdrew from the market because they lost their capacity from their reinsurers just a couple of years ago.

They also were screaming that the sky was going to fall when Milton was, we thought Milton was going to hit possibly Tampa last year. That just happens to be the same market that's doing what I would say is dumb things right now. The lack of discipline is a bit disheartening for those companies that are a little more disciplined, I would say.

Bill Carcache (Senior Equity Research Analyst of Financials)

That's very helpful. Thank you so much for taking my questions.

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

Thank you, Bill.

Operator (participant)

The next question comes from Michael Phillips from Oppenheimer. Michael, please go ahead. Your line is open.

Michael Phillips (Investment Banking Analyst)

Thank you. Good morning. You talked, you mentioned a little bit this quarter and certainly last quarter, you expanded on the personal umbrella auto book, frequency flat, severity up, cautious view on that. Can you just kind of maybe hit that again? I assume frequency is still down. We've heard that before from others. Just remind us if that's still the case. What does severity look like in your personal umbrella book today?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

If I look at Personal Umbrella, we've been experiencing severity for a few years, increased severity, I'll say, for a few years now. It's not subsiding. I think from our standpoint, we are trying to address it in various ways. One is the obvious, which is rate. We continue to regularly go back to each state. This is a filed product. We have to go to each state and ask for a rate increase. We work through that process on at least an annual basis. If we need it and we can, we go and try to get it even within a year. That's what we're in the process of doing again. We've got our annual filing that's been approved in most states effective mid-year. We start with rates.

We also look at trends within what claims are we getting and what's driving those claims. That is where we've made some other changes. As I referenced, the increase in attachment. We see certain venues as being more problematic. We are working with our producer partners to not get as much new business in those venues, looking more at the quality of the underlying insured. Do they have prior accidents or other issues or larger exposures that we're not as comfortable with? Slowing down, insuring those new business opportunities in those particular venues. That feedback loop between claims, our analytical folks, and underwriting is critical in informing our marketing teams on where we want to target growth and where we want to pull back. We continue to do that. From a claim standpoint, we've ramped up our staffing.

If anybody knows any excellent Personal Umbrella claim examiners because we do specialize by product, we'd be happy to talk to them. We have hired a few folks and are ramping them up to train them in how we do claim handling, which is to thoroughly investigate the claims and make sure that we are paying what we owe, but also addressing the shenanigans that the plaintiff's attorneys put forth in the various claims that are presented to us. It is a number of factors that we work on with Personal Umbrella to stay ahead of it. We have regular conversations almost daily between those different groups to make sure that we're addressing things that come up as they do.

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

I guess I would just add that just to be clear that those conversations are going on between the underwriters that manage that business and the claim people that are dedicated to that business. I mean, obviously, we participate from time to time when we get reports out on what's going on. We are not driving that behavior. That's being driven from the ground up. These people own these products. They get paid based on the underwriting profit that's delivered in these products. They have a keen interest in trying to make sure that this product remains profitable. It's been one we've been in for a long time, 35-40 years. It's one that's been a very profitable product for us. Certainly, we have seen an increase in loss cost inflation in it.

I do think I would just expound upon Jen's point on the attachment points is that the attachment points come with the higher the attachment point, usually there's a credit associated with attachment point. A side benefit of having a higher attachment point is you have more skin in the game from your underlying claim examiners. When we're saying that about Personal Umbrella for us, obviously, that's a different company because ours is standalone Personal Umbrella. This is having other people that are writing the underlying coverages, their claim examiners having a lot more skin in the game in regards to outcomes when they have a bigger limit exposed than a smaller limit exposed. We think there's some additional benefits to that. I also would note on the new businesses, we have grown a lot over the last several years in this business.

We have seen great opportunity. We have leaned into this opportunity. We also know that in this business, particularly, there is a called a new business penalty associated with leaning in. We know that our new business has a higher loss ratio than our renewal business. If we were to slow new business growth, we will probably get a benefit from that over time as those accounts season, as those insurers season.

Todd Bryant (CFO)

I might add one more thing that comes with that. I think if we talk about the cautious approach on the Personal Umbrella side of the auto side in general, and Jen talked about the 17% rate that we're getting on the auto side, if you compare, I think in terms of caution, where we started last year, if you look at where casualty's underlying loss rate was about a point and a half higher than where we started last year, that increase is largely auto-related. So we've increased our auto-related loss booking ratio even while we're getting this rate increase and have been getting the rate increase now for a little bit. That goes to a bit of that caution as well.

Michael Phillips (Investment Banking Analyst)

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for all that detail. I guess, are you done with or, I mean, would you classify you're in with the Transportation books, non-renewable, or the accounts?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

The job is never done. I would say as we look at renewals, we're constantly looking at that loss experience. With Transportation, there's a benefit that they do have losses, you could say, because we do rate based on loss experience. The key there is understanding if those loss reserves are real. As we get new business in and we are looking at reserves from other carriers, we tend to be cautious and maybe pessimistic about if those reserves are accurate or enough. As we price up that new business, we try to understand what those claims that are already on the books look like to see what that premium should be going forward. On our own business, we try to get our reserves up as quickly as possible so that we can properly rate our renewals.

If those insureds are shopping coverage that our competitors see the real cost that could be coming with that insurance. We evaluate annually then each of our insured. The added benefit we have is we have in-house loss control where we have people who physically go out and visit our insureds and kick the tires, so to speak. They do understand what kind of maintenance are those insureds doing, what kind of training, how are they hiring their drivers. All those things that would indicate, is this an account that really values doing business well and trying to be safe and avoid losses? If they do, we want to be fairly aggressive to maintain those insureds.

If they do not, then we have to either charge for it or work with them to try to make sure that we are aligned in our view of the exposure there. We are never done. Having said that, we still have some large accounts on the books that we believe in and are supported. That rate change reflects what we think we need to make sure that our portfolio is still making an underwriting profit at the end of the day.

Michael Phillips (Investment Banking Analyst)

Okay. Thank you. Last one, if I could, I guess. Any change in your philosophy of viewing the opportunities in California residential homeowners?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

California residential. Oh, residential. Sorry. We have long-term rates here. We still go back to the Northridge earthquake, which is the last time we had an underwriting loss. At that time, we insured individuals. We had residential earthquake coverage. Dealing with individuals and dealing with the claim handling process, I mean, nobody thinks their house is perfect. You have an endless list of things to tweak. The claim handling process is extended and it's problematic. I think our long memories kind of skew our view of personal line business. We do obviously support personal lines in Hawaii. That's a little different case because we have local folks who work very closely with insureds. Those are not necessarily high-value dwellings. I think the California market from the wildfires, the largest disruptive piece is the high-value homeowners.

Those tend to be difficult claims to come to a good resolution on. We do not have a different view. I think we are still hesitant to get into that. We like to lean towards the commercial space.

Operator (participant)

Okay. Thank you, Jen. Appreciate it. The next question comes from Gregory Peters of Raymond James. Gregory, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Gregory Peters (Managing Director)

Hi. Good morning, everyone. I think in the prepared comments, you noted that there was some downward rate pressure on earthquake. I was wondering if you could go back and just give us some more color behind that. Also, can you talk about the reinsurance costs on quake? Is that coming down commensurate with any rate pressure you're seeing?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

Earthquake exposure in California, it's mainly in California, but it is in the other regions where the coverage is possible as well. I would say in California, it's fairly competitive. We have both carriers and MGAs that compete in that space. Because there hasn't been a loss in a long time, let's knock on wood, people see that premium to some extent as being free premium, right? I don't know that everyone appreciates the downside, particularly the MGAs. I don't think they appreciate the downside risk on that. The issue with California relates a bit to overall economic conditions where we're insuring small businesses who have felt pressure from a number of rising costs from employees to supplies to inventory, gas, everything that they do. This is another cost to them, this insurance. It has been going up over time.

When the loss does not happen, they think, "Maybe I should just take that net or buy less or increase my deductible to the point where I do not have to pay as much." All of those factors have caused that marketplace to be more competitive because more people are taking that risk net. There is less of a pot to fight over from the standpoint of the remaining carriers and MGAs. Those are the market dynamics that we are dealing with. Our underwriters are trying to stay ahead of it by getting communicating early on renewals, trying to put our best foot forward, and work with our producers to get that business in if we can. New business, though, is very difficult. What else makes it difficult is the words. I would say in all of these cases, words matter.

We're producing a policy that delineates what we're going to cover. For us, we actually consider that there could be a loss. When we look at the words, we want to be clear on definitions so that people know what's covered, what's not covered. We do have some sublimits, deductibles, things of that nature. It seems like other carriers and MGAs, they're a little looser with the words. Again, maybe they don't appreciate the fact that a claim will happen. When the claim happens, the only thing that matters is the words. We believe that having certainty in our wording and understanding what it says is going to help when a claim happens in the resolution of that claim and understanding what our downside exposure actually is. All that being said, I think your original question was about rate decreases.

I would say, given those market conditions, that that's probably where the market's going to be for a while. Oh, and you also asked about reinsurance.

Yeah. Also.

Gregory Peters (Managing Director)

Yeah. Right.

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

I was going to circle back on the reinsurance. The earthquake coverage is part of our overall catastrophe treaty. I mean, there are separate rates, but we look at it as a full purchase. I would say I don't know the earthquake rates. I mean, they kind of fluctuate based on what our exposure is. And our exposure has been coming down a bit over the last couple of years. We are paying less for that coverage at this point in time, a bit less. I don't know if it's commensurate with rate decreases on the primary side. I'd say those are to some extent disconnected because we do have the benefit of the wind and other perils within our cap treaty.

Gregory Peters (Managing Director)

Got it. Thanks for the detail. The other question I had just in your comments, Jen, you talked about the Inland Marine market. I mean, Inland Marine is a broad category. Can you get more specific about what you're doing in the Inland Marine market and where the opportunities are?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

Yeah. Inland Marine, we've grown that book for the last six or seven years very profitably. We have a larger team than we used to. Part of it is we've got better coverage around the country. We focus on hiring talent locally that knows that area, knows producers in that area to produce that business. Having a larger team is one item. In addition to that, I would say the construction market, the construction industry has been healthy. A lot of marine coverages do touch that space. From builders' risk to contractors' equipment to motor truck cargo, auto physical damage, all these coverages that we provide there are related to some extent to construction as well as other industries. Because of our local presence, we've been able to take advantage of those items.

We've also partnered a lot more with wholesalers in that space. They tend to get, I'll say, interesting risk. Our phone lines are open. We like to entertain those things and talk to our producers about the uniqueness of some of the things that come in and see if we can help them provide some coverage. We put out a lot of quotes and see what gets on that.

Gregory Peters (Managing Director)

Got it. Thanks for the answers.

Operator (participant)

Thanks, Greg.

The next question. Next question comes from Meyer Shields from KBW. Meyer, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Meyer Shields (Managing Director)

Great. Thanks so much. Two quick questions on transportation, if I can. First, when we talk about non-renewing some of the larger accounts, is that a definite decision by RLI to non-renew, or is it that you come in with a price increase and maybe terms and conditions that your insureds aren't willing to accept?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

It's both. You provided a good answer there, Meyer. I would say some of those larger accounts have loss experience that we don't think is acceptable anymore. We go ahead and actively non-renew them. In other cases, we think that they need an increase, and they start shopping and they find somebody who's willing to do it for a lot less. All kinds of scenarios happen.

Meyer Shields (Managing Director)

Okay. No, that's helpful. Maybe I should be on the other side of this phone. Second question, and I guess this is mostly for Todd. If you look at the reserve triangle in the 10-K, so Transportation has had some accident years where ultimate losses are down 20%-40% from the initial estimates. I'm wondering, when you do the reserve strengthening that you mentioned at this quarter, is it to get to sort of expected losses, or does the reserving now incorporate the same sort of push-in that we've seen in past years?

Todd Bryant (CFO)

I think we've factored all that in, Meyer. I mean, if you look at a quarter-over-quarter comparison to last year, I think Transportation was a little bit positive last year, not so much this year. You may have, I think 2023 was a year on Transportation this quarter that had some adverse to it. I think there is a measured approach to looking at all of that, factoring all of it in. Probably more recent, as we've talked about, we tend to try and jump on things that are having a bit of a challenge. That's what we're doing. No difference in that approach.

Meyer Shields (Managing Director)

Okay. That's perfect. Thank you so much.

Operator (participant)

Thanks, Meyer.

The next question comes from Casey Alexander from Compass Point. Casey, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Casey Alexander (Managing Director and Senior Equity Analyst)

Yeah. Two real quick questions. One is the tariff situation feels like it could cause a slowdown in port activity and delivery and receipt of goods coming in and out of ports. Would that impact any of your Transportation coverage? Then secondly, in construction, do you worry that a large increase in construction materials cost could slow down that construction market and impact your construction underwriting?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

That's a good question. I would say this tariff situation is kind of a replay of the COVID situation we had a few years ago. We just practiced what's going to happen here in terms of economic slowdown and reduced shipping. I would say in the first quarter, we did see some signs of increased shipping, I think trying to get ahead of what was rumored to be a tariff situation. We did see some increased shipping in our marine and our Transportation Divisions. That's where we see that mostly. We haven't necessarily seen a slowdown, but we anticipate it could. Again, that's where we would see most of the impact would be miles driven for trucks to deliver those items. For marine, we have a small cargo book in there where we are receiving things or shipping things elsewhere.

From a construction standpoint, again, it reminds me of COVID, where you had increased construction costs, which we build into the bidding process and how we quote business. A lot of our policies, particularly in our Casualty and Brokerage division, we can audit that premium to the end to see what did that construction project actually cost. So we already have all that in place. That is how we do it normally. It would just incorporate these issues. Our feeling is, from our underwriters, is that this time, the cost is going to be the issue. Last time, we had a scarcity issue as well. I'm not really thinking there'll be scarcity this time, except things are going to cost a lot more. We will build in again.

We're used to construction delays because of the time it takes to ship or getting your supplies lined up from a cost standpoint. We're pretty much used to this. I think we'll just do it, execute like we did during COVID.

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

Casey, this is Craig, so I'll just add to what Jen said. I mean, certainly, it's going to create bidding uncertainty for smaller contractors. They're more reluctant to bid on a project if they don't know what their costs are. In this case, the only difference is that we're talking about multipliers or multiples of it's not just a shortage of supply. And then maybe they can get it for paying a little bit more. Where supply and demand finally meet. I mean, this is a multiplier effect. Until this thing settles down, it could create some pressure on especially smaller, I'd say, contractors who are a little more reluctant to bid on something because if they've locked in the price of what materials are going to what's going to cost to build something, and then it goes up significantly. I mean, it could slow things down.

I think in the long term, obviously, if there were tariffs that drive increased costs, I mean, one, we're always on top of valuations and making sure—this is one thing that Jen was talking about—is maybe some of these less disciplined markets in MGAs, they do not care as much about valuations. They are willing to work off last year's submissions, things like that. We always look at valuations, whether it be the value of property, the value of the goods being moved. It is important to have great care of that because when you are offering business income coverage, you need to understand that those costs are rising. It also increases premiums. We actually get more premium from that increase.

If costs rise, the value of things rise, then that means when you're offering a bond for a certain amount, either to build or to move goods, that goes much higher, which means the premium goes a lot higher. We are going to benefit. You lose on the loss side. You do. You also benefit on the premium side. Over the long term, I think we view that as a relatively neutral thing. Certainly, in the short term, it can create uncertainty that could slow things down. I would lean on the diversity of our portfolio, that we have some products that are going to be more impacted than others. I think the others will be much more stable. Overall, we feel like we've been here before. We can get through this again, regardless of what happens.

Casey Alexander (Managing Director and Senior Equity Analyst)

Yeah. I appreciate that answer. I'm thinking as much from the standpoint that a significant increase in construction costs could cancel a lot of construction programs, which would reduce the volume opportunity that you might have. One other question is there's been a real loss of property capacity in California. Many people have suggested that it's similar to where Florida was a few years ago before Florida had some legislative changes that improved the profitability of the market. It was while there was that capacity was out of the market that you guys took advantage to build a really significant and profitable property book in Florida. Do you see any similarities to California? Are you sharpening your pencils at all on that market?

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

We certainly are looking at opportunities in California. This is Craig. I would say there's a much different environment in California than there was in Florida, even prior to tort reform in Florida. I mean, it was a much more inviting place to do business. As a publicly traded company who has to figure out ways to make money over time, I would say Florida was much more inviting in regards to capitalism than perhaps California.

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

Hold on. I would add to that.

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

California. I'm sorry.

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

I would add to that just an example of that is a rate filing. Even some of our Casualty businesses where we have to file rate to get a rate change in Florida, it is a process, but they are relatively easy to work with. Where California, we have experienced difficulties and delays in getting that rate that we need to stay in that marketplace. That is just one example. It is a more difficult place to work. We are not as optimistic that it will become a better place to navigate.

Casey Alexander (Managing Director and Senior Equity Analyst)

All right. Thank you.

Operator (participant)

As a quick reminder, that's star followed by one to ask a question today. The next question is from Andrew Andersen from Jefferies. Andrew, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Andrew Andersen (SVP of Equity Research)

Hey, good morning. Just looking at the Property segment cession ratio, it seemed to be up a couple of points year over year. I'm not sure if there was a change in reinsurance or business mix change. Should we think of a higher cession ratio for full year, year-over-year?

Todd Bryant (CFO)

This is Todd. Yeah. I think if you look compared to quarters, it is a couple of points. I think if you look across the year, we can have some variances in how much FAC has been used. We did add a second and third event coverage last year that we would not have had in a comparable period. If you look over the last two to three years, it has still been in that 72-73 range. We would think that is still pretty reasonable. First quarter of last year would have been the one that was a little bit higher.

Andrew Andersen (SVP of Equity Research)

Okay. Within casualty, some large cap peers are talking about some good opportunities within Small Commercial and the middle market. I think you provide a Small Commercial breakout, at least in the quarterly filings. It grew 10% last year. Are you seeing kind of good opportunities within that segment of the market? Could you just give us some color on what that Small Commercial segment is?

Jennifer Klobnak (COO)

Sure. This is Jen. Our Small Commercial operation really targets the other coverages for our architects and engineers and other miscellaneous professionals, where we lead with a Professional Liability coverage, but then we offer BOP, auto excess types of coverages. In addition, we have a program that targets small contractors. We offer them general liability and then some other coverages for their businesses. Those are our two main markets in that space. I would say we do see plenty of opportunities there. The issue has been that we've offered auto coverage in the past that has been challenging, just similar to the results we've seen within Transportation and Personal Umbrella. We want to be sure that we're being selective in what we're offering and what types of insurers we're offering that coverage to. We've been increasing rates in that book as well for the auto coverages.

We have been reducing coverage where we can. For example, where there is a required UM/UIM limit in a particular state, that is as much as we are going to offer. We are not going to match our other auto coverage limits. We are being a little bit careful in that space on certain coverages. We do appreciate the middle market business and are targeting to ensure more of those types of insurers over time.

Andrew Andersen (SVP of Equity Research)

Thanks. Maybe quickly, just on investment income, it was down a little bit quarter over quarter. Maybe it looks like last year that was in 1Q, maybe that's more of an issue. I guess, are you thinking of yield expansion from here on out for the rest of the year?

Aaron Diefenthaler (Chief Investment Officer and Treasurer)

Andrew, this is Aaron. We're always trying to be as accretive as we possibly can be cognizant of the risk profile of the asset side of the balance sheet. If you go back to the fourth quarter, we did return a fair amount of capital to shareholders in the form of our special dividend. Maybe that was a little bit of a headwind rolling into the new year. We still are finding very adequate, high-quality opportunities in fixed income, as Todd mentioned, to put money to work above our book yield, a fair amount above our book yield, frankly. We feel pretty good about that. Changing the makeup of the portfolio in terms of overall credit risk or duration is probably not a near-term change that we're talking about.

Andrew Andersen (SVP of Equity Research)

Thank you.

Operator (participant)

The final group of questions at star one. If there are no further questions, I will now turn the conference over to Mr. Craig Kliethermes for some closing remarks.

Craig Kliethermes (President and CEO)

Thank you all for joining today. We appreciate all your questions and your interest in our company. A solid quarter to begin our 61st year. Our uncommon underwriting discipline and diversified portfolio specialty products has translated into consistent financial outcomes over time and allows us to serve as a stable and consistent market for our customers. I would like to thank all of our RLI Associate owners for their contributions to our shared success and encourage them to keep being different because being different works. Thank you all again for participating today. We will visit again next quarter.

Operator (participant)

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to access the replay for this call, you may do so on the RLI homepage at www.rlicorp.com. This concludes our conference for today. Thank you all for participating and have a nice day. All parties may now disconnect.