A property natural-peril score is a compact starting point, not an underwriting conclusion. To use it well, read the score together with the factors, property inputs, source context, and the limits of the method.
PerilScore presents hurricane, wildfire, hail, flood, tornado, and earthquake results on a 0–10 scale. Crime is presented separately as area context and trend, not as a seventh natural-peril score.
Do not read the number by itself
First confirm what the scale represents. Do not assume that a 6 means a 60 percent probability of loss, that the distance between every two scores is economically equal, or that scores from different vendors use comparable definitions.
Within a report, use the number to locate the perils and properties that deserve closer attention. Then open the factors that moved the result. The explanation is often more useful than the rank.
Separate hazard from property response
Natural-peril review commonly combines two broad kinds of information:
- Hazard context: the location’s exposure to an event, such as wind, wildfire, hail, flood, tornado, or ground shaking.
- Property context: characteristics that may affect how the building responds, such as construction, roof, age, elevation, surrounding vegetation, or nearby exposure.
A location can have meaningful hazard exposure while a building has features that may change its expected response. The reverse is also possible. Keep those layers distinct so the reviewer can see whether a result is driven primarily by geography, building attributes, or both.
Check the inputs before debating the output
A score can only reflect the inputs available to it. Review the address match and the fields most relevant to the peril. Depending on the result, that may include construction, occupancy, year built, roof age and covering, number of stories, elevation, surrounding vegetation, terrain, or distance to mapped features.
If an important input is missing, estimated, or contradicted by the submission, flag it. Correcting a building field should produce a new review state, not erase the prior output. Preserve the original value, the override, its evidence, and the updated result.
For a structured approach, see how to review property data sources, dates, and confidence.
Use the factors to ask peril-specific questions
The next question should follow the factor, not just the score.
For hurricane and wind review, questions may involve roof age, roof covering, building code era, opening protection, construction, and proximity to the coast. For wildfire, they may involve vegetation, slope, access, nearby structures, and defensible-space context. For flood, they may involve mapped flood context, elevation, drainage, water proximity, and building-level characteristics.
Hail and tornado review may call for roof and construction details plus local event context. Earthquake review may call for structural system, age, height, soil or shaking context, and retrofit information.
These are prompts for evidence, not a universal checklist. Carrier appetite, policy terms, engineering standards, catastrophe models, and underwriting guidelines determine what additional review is required.
Compare properties carefully
Scores can help triage a schedule when they share the same method, version, and input definitions. Before comparing rows, confirm:
- the same peril and scoring scale are being used;
- source coverage is reasonably comparable;
- critical property fields are present;
- overrides have been applied consistently; and
- the scores were produced under the same methodology version.
A lower score with weak or missing inputs is not necessarily a cleaner risk. It may simply require a different kind of review.
Keep separate tools in their proper roles
A transparent property score can organize address-level evidence and help prioritize follow-up. It does not replace a catastrophe model, flood determination, engineering report, inspection, carrier guideline, or underwriting judgment.
Those tools may use different event sets, financial assumptions, geographic resolutions, vulnerability functions, and policy terms. Differences are not automatically errors. They may reflect different questions.
When results diverge, compare the property match, inputs, definitions, dates, and intended use before choosing which evidence applies.
Document the review, not just the result
A useful file records:
- the score and peril;
- the material factors shown;
- missing, estimated, or overridden inputs;
- relevant source dates and limitations;
- conflicts with the submission or another tool; and
- the next underwriting question.
For example: “Wildfire is the highest-scored peril. Vegetation and slope factors warrant review, but current defensible-space evidence is unavailable. Request recent site photographs.”
That note gives the next reviewer a reason and an action. A screenshot of the score alone does not.
Use scores to focus attention
The most productive use of a natural-peril score is to make the review path clearer: confirm the property, inspect the factors, correct material inputs, compare relevant evidence, and document what still needs judgment.
The score should help the team find the next useful question. It should never be presented as a prediction, guarantee, or binding decision.
Use the sample report reading guide to review a report in context, then record the factors, source limits, and next question in the submission checklist.
Worked example: turn a factor into a question
The PerilScore developer documentation includes a representative API response with a hurricane score of 8.5/10 and a coast-distance factor of 2.1 km. These figures illustrate the response format. They are not values from the linked sample report or a customer property’s underwriting result.
Read the score as a signal to inspect the factors, not as an 85% chance of loss. The coast-distance value gives the reviewer something concrete to validate: does the result match the intended building, and does the source describe distance from the right point? Then review the other factors in that response and compare material details with the submission. If the property match or factor basis is unclear, document a follow-up rather than converting the score into a coverage conclusion.