Catastrophe models have become increasingly precise at identifying where disasters occur and what properties are exposed. Parcel-level geocoding, detailed vulnerability information and high-resolution terrain data have improved insurers’ understanding of catastrophe losses. A major gap remains, however: models often lack a continuous record of how an event developed over time.
Wildfires highlight the problem. Existing satellites, aerial imagery and ground sensors can provide useful snapshots, but they may not capture the progression from ignition through spread, suppression and containment. Continuous geostationary remote sensing could create a timestamped record of those changes, giving insurers and modelers more information about how a fire actually produced its eventual loss footprint.
That distinction has direct implications for claims. Hours clauses and occurrence definitions can require insurers and reinsurers to determine when an event began and ended and which losses should be aggregated. When separate wildfire ignitions eventually merge, incomplete timing information can leave those determinations dependent on incident reports, agency records and later reconstruction. A continuous record could provide additional evidence for aggregation decisions, retention attachment and reinsurance disputes.
Better temporal data could also affect parametric insurance. Wildfire triggers commonly rely on burned-area measurements produced after an event. Tracking the catastrophe while it is occurring could support triggers tied to ignition, duration or other measurable characteristics rather than relying only on the resulting burn footprint.
Mitigation is another potential application. Insurers and regulators increasingly want catastrophe models to recognize wildfire hardening measures such as defensible space, vegetation management and building improvements. Pairing parcel-level mitigation information and claims outcomes with observations of actual fire behavior could provide stronger evidence about whether those measures reduced losses under comparable conditions.
For claims adjusters, the broader issue is evidence. A detailed record of when a catastrophe started, how it progressed and when conditions changed could supplement traditional post-loss inspections and incident records. That information could become particularly valuable when adjusters, insurers and reinsurers face questions involving causation, event boundaries, aggregation and mitigation.
