January 6, 2017
Page 3
provide effective and affordable coverage for all parties having an insurable interest in the
properties, including lenders, and the applicable mandatory flood insurance regulations should take
into proper account all of those important interests. Any regulation in this arena should be slow to
limit or restrain lender acceptance of insurance products that sophisticated property owners deem
adequate to meet their needs, especially when those same private policies provide adequate
coverage for casualty or other losses.
For borrowers and lenders where the collateral is residential condominium buildings, proposed
Section 22.3(c)(3)(ii) imposes an impossible standard, because the lender is not an express loss
payee under those types of private policies, nor is the lender in a place to dictate policy terms. This
standard for acceptance should be expanded to recognize those circumstances as an exception,
perhaps simply by adding to that section "except where policy owner is a condominium association
and the property securing the loan is a residential condominium."
Section 22.3(c)(3)(iv), while recognizing needed discretion in the areas of deductibles and policy
terms and conditions, is potentially ambiguous and is likely too narrow in requiring an unduly
detailed comparison between a private policy and the appropriate SFIP policy. Requiring that the
private policy deductible be "similar" leaves open a variety of possibilities (e.g., similar in amount,
similar in proportionality to the coverage provided under the policy, similar in overall affordability for
a borrower, etc.). A crucial addition to that section should clearly allow the lender to accept
deductibles which are proportionally similar, and doing so would not seem to violate the intent of
BWA. For example, the existing maximum SFIP deductible for a nonresidential property (i.e., a
commercial building) is $50,000, and the maximum available coverage is $500,000. For a large
commercial loan where, for example a $1,000,000 maximum coverage flood private policy is
obtained, the lender should be allowed to apply its reasonable discretion to accept an approximate
$100,000 deductible where the lender considers the borrower financially able to pay that level of
deductible in the event of a loss. Likewise, a lender should be free to consider the presence of
higher deductibles in the borrower's hazard or other property insurance as additional grounds to
accept a higher, but appropriate deductible under the circumstances. The Agencies should
recognize the impact mandating smaller deductibles can have on the affordability of insurance and
allow lenders to use their credit and risk expertise to reasonably allow higher deductibles than those
available under NFIP policies.
We believe the proposed discretionary standard imposes an unnecessarily detailed comparison
of a private policy to the NFIP counterpart. As commonly interpreted in statutes and regulations,
the word "including" appearing in Section22.3(c)(3)(iv)(B) seems to require an exhaustive
comparison of an SFIP by not restricting the required areas of comparison. If the private policy
otherwise meets the standards in subsections (i) through (iii) of 22.3(c)(3), and in the sound
discretion of the lender has "reasonably determined that the private policy provided sufficient
protection of the loan secured by the property..." under subsection (iv)(2), then the private policy
should be deemed adequate without the need to compare the policy with the SFIP beyond
proportionally similar deductibles, exclusions and conditions. The Agencies should use care to not
impose on lenders a standard befitting an expert in the insurance industry merely to assess basic
regulatory adequacy of a private flood policy.
Respecting the obligation of the lender to properly document its findings under subsection
(iv)(B)(3), Wells Fargo encourages the Agencies to accept existing practices used by many lenders
today through a basic checklist as it reviews the private flood policy and avoid imposing extensive
and time-consuming or burdensome documentation efforts which may impact borrowers by