Key findings at a glance
HTML Table Generator
|
Post-pandemic (Jan 2022 - May 2024) |
Last 12 months (Jun 2024 - May 2025) |
| Total approved premium Δ |
Hartford ≈ $671M vs Chubb ≈ $129M |
Hartford ≈ $423M vs Chubb ≈ $ 62M |
| Weighted avg. rate impact |
Hartford 4.3% • Chubb 4.1% |
Chubb 10.7% • Hartford 4.8% |
| Filings (states data) |
Hartford 2,852 • Chubb 2,246 |
Hartford 751 • Chubb 625 |
| Largest regional divergence |
West (+7.1% vs 3.7%) |
West (+16.3% vs 4.0%) |
| LOB with strongest push |
Comm. Auto (both) |
Property/CMP (Chubb 19% vs 4 %) |
Figures are drawn from your four proprietary CSV extracts; weighted averages use premium as the weight.
Post‑pandemic positioning(Jan 2022 → May 2024)
Market context Inflation, supply‑chain pressure on auto‐physical‑damage, and a five‑year high in catastrophe losses kept combined ratios elevated. Both carriers sought to restore margin, but their playbooks differed:
HTML Table Generator
| Strategic lever |
Hartford |
Chubb |
| Growth appetite |
“Large‑front door” strategy — maximise written premium while keeping individual rate actions politically palatable. 5× Chubb’s premium growth over the period. |
“Selective profit capture” — willing to sacrifice volume for margin; 80% fewer WC filings than Hartford and modest premium growth. |
| Rate cadence |
High frequency, low magnitude filings (≈2,900 filings; mean impact 4–6%). |
Lower filing count, bigger step changes where loss trends justified (CMP 10.5%, CA 11.4%). |
| Geographic focus |
Strongest pressure in the East (6.3% vs Chubb 5.4%); mild in the South. |
Notable push in the West (7.1%), anticipating wildfire and convective storm loss costs. |
| Line of business bet |
Commercial Auto the work horse (12.6%), leveraging telematics/segmentation gains. |
Property/CMP the major lever (10.5%); continued willingness to lower WC rates (10.2%) to defend share in low severity classes. |
What changed in the last 12 months(Jun 2024 → May 2025)
The charts above show the inflection vividly:
- Chubb pivoted from cautiously inflationary to aggressively margin‑restorative
- West region CMP filings averaged 16%—quadruple Hartford’s 4%—after the 2023‑24 wildfire and convective‑storm season reset catastrophe load expectations.
- National weighted rate impact jumped to 10.7%, eclipsing Hartford for the first time in five years.
- Hartford steadied the tiller rather than accelerate
- Weighted rate impact held near 4.8%, signaling that management believes earlier cumulative increases, loss‑control tech (Camera‑based telematics, SmartHaul), and re‑underwriting have closed the margin gap.
- Commercial Auto remains Hartford’s pressure point (14.3%), but CMP increases slowed sharply (to ~4%), helping preserve retention among middle‑market BOPs.
- Workers’ Compensation bifurcation widened
- Chubb actively reduced rates (‑9.5%) to hold on to low‑severity, low‑limit accounts—a deliberate loss‑leader to cross‑sell Property and Excess.
- Hartford cut rates modestly (‑2.3%), signaling confidence in its loss‑cost forecasting and the benefit of its claims/medical‑management investments.
- Filing behavior diverged
- Hartford still filed 20% more state‑level changes than Chubb, but the gap is shrinking as Chubb ramps property‑heavy filings in CAT‑exposed states (CA, OR, WA, CO, TX).
Interpretation—strategy vs implementation
HTML Table Generator
| Theme |
Hartford |
Chubb |
Competitive implication |
| Risk appetite & capital |
Volume driven; spreads risk across a very wide book, leaning on reinsurance for cat volatility. |
Return on risk capital centric; willing to walk away from non target risks. |
Expect Hartford to stay price competitive on core SMP/BOP, while Chubb will be pricier but pickier—especially on property limits. |
| Regulatory positioning |
Frequent, moderate filings maintain a “steady hand” image with DOI staff and avoid headline spikes. |
“Lumpy” increases require more justification, but Chubb pairs them with detailed catastrophe analytics that regulators increasingly accept. |
Clients needing multiline bundles may see Hartford as less volatile; catastrophe exposed insureds might face sharper jumps with Chubb. |
| Product innovation |
Telematics driven Auto, loss prevention services (IoT leak detection) locked into filings as credits. |
Cyber and parametric add ons included in CMP filings; bigger schedule rating ranges for risk engineered accounts. |
Implementation differences mirror carrier strengths: Hartford’s real time data vs Chubb’s engineering expertise. |
| Expense structure |
Scaled SMB digital intake offsets lower per policy rate rises. |
Higher per policy expense offset by higher margins on mid market/large loss exposed accounts. |
Rate impact gap may persist unless Chubb scales digital or Hartford pushes larger increases. |
What to watch through 2026
- Cat re‑insurance costs — If 1 Jan 2026 renewals stay hard, Chubb’s property‑heavy stance may force further mid‑term filings; Hartford can absorb more via quota‑share deals.
- WC medical inflation pick‑up — Should medical CPI stay above 4 %, Hartford’s smaller WC decreases could prove prescient.
- Commercial Auto verdict trends — Both are still pushing double‑digit increases; sustained social‑inflation relief could let Hartford pull ahead on competitiveness.
- Digitally submitted micro‑SMB business — Hartford’s self‑service quote‑bind engine is two years ahead; watch if Chubb accelerates acquisitions/partnerships to catch up.
Take‑aways for clients & brokers
- Budget impact: Expect Chubb‑insured property accounts in the West/South to absorb the largest single‑year hikes (~15 – 20 %); Hartford’s CMP clients will see mid‑single‑digit renewals but continued auto pressure.
- Broker strategy: Present Hartford as the stability option for broad‑based portfolios; position Chubb for CAT‑sensitive insureds that value high‑touch engineering credits and are willing to trade premium swings for coverage breadth.
- Negotiation leverage: Use Hartford’s higher filing frequency to time marketings—many states have >3 approved filings in 18 months, creating opportunities to slot into more favorable versions. For Chubb, leverage WC as a bargaining chip when negotiating CMP/AUTO renewals.
Bottom line
Hartford is winning on scale and steadiness—lots of smaller, regulator‑friendly increases that compound over time—while Chubb is executing a margin‑first, property‑centric pivot, especially visible since mid‑2024. Understanding which playbook better fits an insured’s risk tolerance and balance‑sheet objectives is now the critical differentiator.
