Rates Are Easing, But Underwriting Remains Selective

Alera Group says for agents and

brokers, the market differentiator will be execution

By Justin Foa

The 2026 property and casualty market is finally offering something many insureds—and the agents and brokers who advise them—haven’t had in a while: more workable options. But the word “options” matters, because the market isn’t moving in a single direction.  

Alera Group’s 2026 Property and Casualty Market Outlook, based on our third-quarter 2025 Market Survey of insurers, wholesalers, and industry vertical experts, points to selective moderation in rates across many lines, alongside improving coverage availability and meaningful capacity expansion. At the same time, several casualty-driven segments remain pressured, and the broader environment (e.g., social inflation, regulatory constraints, and catastrophe loss trends) continues to complicate both underwriting and buyer expectations.

That combination is precisely what makes this year a pivotal one for frontline renewal work.

When pricing is rising everywhere, renewal strategy often defaults to damage control. When the market begins to open, the work shifts: It becomes less about whether a client can get a quote and more about whether their submission, story, and program structure are positioned to earn the best terms available.

The survey data supports a measured sense of relief. Projected rate changes indicate average decreases in several major lines, but the range of rate changes remained wide:

• Commercial property (including business interruption): -4.6% average (range: -20% to +5%)
• Directors and officers (private): -3.8% average (range: -10% to +5%)
• Directors and officers (public): -11.7% average (range: -20% to 0%)
• Workers compensation: -5.6% average (range: -20% to +10%)

Meanwhile, most lines that are still increasing are projected to do so at more moderate levels, generally in the single digits, though a few remain meaningfully pressured:

• Commercial auto: +10.6% average (range: +5% to +15%)
• General liability: +6.7% average (range: 0% to +15%)
• Umbrella/excess liability: +7.0% average (range: 0% to +15%)
• Medical malpractice: +10% average (range: +5% to +20%)
• Cyber: +1.4% average (range: -15% to +10%)
• Professional liability: +0.1% average (flat)

Those averages are helpful for understanding the direction of travel, but they can also mislead if they’re treated as a guarantee. Account pricing will vary with fundamentals such as industry sector, risk quality and proximity to catastrophe-prone areas.

Additionally, nuanced variables such as highly specialized risk factors applicable to niche business types, local legal/legislative trends and leverage with vendors with regard to risk transfer are now driving underwriting decisions. Underwriters have more data than ever and some are determined to use it, even when its applicability may be unproven.

Availability and capacity trends reinforce that the marketplace is opening in many areas, though not uniformly. Coverage availability is strengthening in most major lines, with especially notable gains in personal lines/private risk, and a more mixed picture in cyber and professional liability. Capacity results for 2026 vs. 2025 include:

• Personal lines/private risk availability: 27% broader, 64% same, 9% more limited
• Professional liability availability: 100% same (0% broader, 0% more limited)
• Cyber availability: 18% broader, 73% same, 9% more limited

Capacity is one of the clearest signals that competition is returning, particularly in commercial property and personal lines/private risk. In the survey, respondents forecast increased capacity most dramatically in:

• Commercial property capacity: 53% increasing, 47% same, 0% decreasing
• Personal lines/private risk capacity: 64% increasing, 18% same, 18% decreasing

Increased capacity doesn’t automatically translate into better outcomes for every insured, but it does change the negotiating landscape. It creates room to revisit long-standing constraints that, in prior years, were simply accepted like how towers are built, which layers are placed where, whether limits are efficiently purchased, and whether the program still reflects the insured’s balance sheet and risk appetite rather than last year’s scarcity.

Underwriting scrutiny is where the market’s unevenness becomes most apparent. The survey suggests underwriting is becoming more flexible in several lines:

• Commercial property underwriting: 40% more flexible, 60% same, 0% stricter
• D&O (public) underwriting: 67% more flexible, 33% same, 0% stricter
• Personal lines/private risk underwriting: 45% more flexible, 45% same, 9% stricter
• Surety underwriting: 33% more flexible, 67% same, 0% stricter
• Workers compensation underwriting: 38% more flexible, 62% same, 0% stricter

Yet the same data shows tightening standards in casualty-driven segments:

• Umbrella/excess underwriting: 46% stricter, 46% same, 7% more flexible
• General liability underwriting: 36% stricter, 55% same, 9% more flexible
• Commercial auto underwriting: 29% stricter, 57% same, 14% more flexible
• Medical malpractice underwriting: 33% stricter, 67% same, 0% more flexible

Medical malpractice underwriting: 33% stricter, 67% same, 0% more flexible

That split is one reason the “soft/hard” debate misses what matters in the field. In a selectively moderating market, the technical work becomes more important, not less. For accounts that can qualify as preferred risks, better outcomes are more achievable but only if the submission is built to match the sophistication of the underwriting process.

That means starting early enough to produce a clear and defensible picture of the risk: accurate valuations and exposure schedules, a straightforward explanation of operational changes, and evidence of how the insured’s controls reduce the frequency and severity of loss. It also means closing the gap between what the insured believes about their risk and what the data suggests, particularly as underwriting relies more heavily on imagery, analytics, and localized catastrophe modeling.

For agents and brokers, the differentiator will be execution—

early renewal planning, high-quality underwriting presentations,

active claims and reserve hygiene, and a willingness to

revisit program structure when the market provides the room to do so.

The opportunity this year is also structural. When capacity is expanding in property and certain management and employment-related lines, it can become feasible to rethink program design rather than simply renewing last year’s architecture.

The Outlook highlights alternative approaches—including captives, structured programs, and quota-share arrangements—as solutions where traditional capacity is restricted or expensive, and also points to tools like parametrics to address gaps where traditional policies may not respond as expected. In periods of changing conditions, structure can be as important as rate: The most effective programs are often those that align retained risk, transfer risk, and claims predictability with how the business actually operates.

The author

Justin Foa is leader of Alera Group’s Property and Casualty (P&C) practice. He is responsible for unifying the practice’s nationwide strategy, ensuring consistency in service delivery while equipping both the sales and service teams with the tools needed to address complex client challenges. Justin has more than 30 years of insurance industry experience, including more than 10 years with multinational brokerage firms before he joined his family’s firm, Foa & Son, and becoming its president in 2006. He is a graduate of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in insurance and risk management.