UNIVERSAL INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC. - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

or

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number 001-33251

UNIVERSAL INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

1110 West Commercial Blvd., Suite 100, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309

(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (954) 958-1200

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    ☒  Yes    ☐  No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    ☐  Yes    ☒  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    ☒  Yes    ☐  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    ☒  Yes    ☐  No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    ☐  Yes    ☒  No

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was sold as of June 30, 2017: $813,691,897.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of Common Stock of Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. as of February 14, 2018: 34,863,056

Table of Contents

UNIVERSAL INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Information called for in PART III of this Form 10-K is incorporated by reference to the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement to be filed within 120 days of the close of the registrant’s fiscal year in connection with the registrant’s annual meeting of shareholders.

NOTE ABOUT FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

In addition to historical information, the following discussion may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The forward-looking statements anticipate results based on our estimates, assumptions and plans that are subject to uncertainty. Forward-looking statements may appear throughout this report, including without limitation, the following sections: “Business,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and “Risk Factors.” These forward-looking statements may be identified by their use of words like “plans,” “seeks,” “expects,” “will,” “should,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “intends,” “believes,” “likely,” “targets” and other words with similar meanings. These statements may address, among other things, our strategy for growth, catastrophe exposure management, product development, investment results, regulatory approvals, market position, expenses, financial results, litigation and reserves. We believe that these statements are based on reasonable estimates, assumptions and plans. However, if the estimates, assumptions or plans underlying the forward-looking statements prove inaccurate or if other risks or uncertainties arise, actual results could differ materially from those communicated in these forward-looking statements. A detailed discussion of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from such forward-looking statements is included in the section titled “Risk Factors” (Part I, Item 1A of this report). We undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. (“UVE,” and together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, “we,” “our,” “us,” or “the Company”) is the largest private personal residential homeowners insurance company in Florida by direct written premium in-force, with a 10.1% market share as of September 30, 2017, according to the most recent data reported by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (the “FLOIR”). We perform substantially all aspects of insurance underwriting, policy issuance, general administration and claims processing and settlement internally through our vertically integrated operations. Our two wholly-owned licensed insurance subsidiaries are Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“UPCIC”) and American Platinum Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“APPCIC” and together with UPCIC, the “Insurance Entities”). UPCIC currently writes homeowners insurance policies in 16 states (Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia), with $1,049.5 million in direct written premium for the year ended December 31, 2017. UPCIC is also licensed to issue policies in Iowa, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. APPCIC currently writes homeowners and Commercial Residential (as defined herein) insurance policies in Florida, with $6.4 million in direct written premium for the year ended December 31, 2017. We believe that our longevity in the Florida market and our resulting depth of experience will enable us to continue to successfully grow our business in both hard (i.e., periods of capital shortages resulting in a lack of insurance availability, relatively low levels of price competition, more selective underwriting of risks and relatively high premium rates) and soft markets (i.e., periods of relatively high levels of price competition, less restrictive underwriting standards and generally low premium rates). Our business outside of Florida represents approximately 26% of our total insured value as of December 31, 2017.

We generate revenues primarily from the collection of premiums. Other sources of revenue include: commissions paid by our reinsurers to our reinsurance intermediary subsidiary on reinsurance it places for the Insurance Entities; policy fees collected from policyholders by our managing general agent subsidiary; service revenue from claims handling on ceded claims; and financing fees charged to policyholders who choose to defer premium payments. We also generate income by investing our assets.

Over the past several years, we have grown our business both within Florida and elsewhere in the United States through our distribution network of approximately 8,800 licensed independent agents. In writing business, we adhere to a disciplined underwriting approach – writing risks that are priced adequately and meet our underwriting standards – designed to achieve profitable growth as opposed to merely increasing the total number of policies written. We believe we are better positioned than many of our competitors to expand profitably and service our policyholders due to our established internal capabilities; protection afforded us by our reinsurance program; our experienced management team that successfully navigated prior active hurricane seasons, including 2017, 2016, 2005 and 2004; our strong surplus and capital base; our success in growing organically in Florida without relying on the

3

Table of Contents

assumption of policies from Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”), the Florida state-sponsored insurer of last resort; and our growing geographic diversification. We also believe that our reinsurance program is structured such that, in the event of an active hurricane season, we are able to pay policyholder claims, maintain sufficient surplus to grow profitably and take advantage of the resulting market dislocation that could potentially follow.

Below is an organization chart that summarizes our corporate structure:

The Insurance Entities are our insurance operating subsidiaries. Most of our policies are written by UPCIC. Universal Risk Advisors (“URA”) is our managing general agent and manages our distribution network and negotiates our reinsurance. Universal Inspection Corporation (“UIC”) conducts inspections as part of our underwriting process, and Universal Adjusting Corporation (“UAC”) manages our claims processing and adjustment functions. Blue Atlantic Reinsurance Corporation (“BARC”) is our reinsurance intermediary. These service companies are vertically aligned with our Insurance Entities to maintain quality throughout the policy origination and claim settlement process. In addition, our servicing subsidiaries help reduce the costs typically associated with outsourced business functions, enhance our ability to expand geographically due to economies of scale in our operations and allow us to expand our business incrementally and more effectively.

OUR STRATEGY

Pursue Profitable Growth with a Focus on Organic Development

We continue to pursue profitable growth both within Florida and through expansion into other states, while continuing to expand Universal Direct^SM and adding new products when prudent (such as the Fire, Commercial Multi-Peril, and Other Liability (collectively, “Commercial Residential”) lines of business in Florida that we introduced in late in 2016). Each of these areas is discussed further below.

4

Table of Contents

5

Table of Contents

Optimize our Reinsurance Program as our Risk Profile Changes

We will continue to obtain what we believe to be appropriate reinsurance limits, coverage and terms so that our policyholders and shareholders are adequately protected in the event of an active hurricane season. Significant additional new capital entering portions of the reinsurance marketplace has afforded us the opportunity to obtain favorable pricing and contract terms in recent years. Our dedicated reinsurance team at BARC includes seasoned industry professionals whom we hired from Willis Re almost 12 years ago, as well as additional key personnel more recently from leading global reinsurance intermediaries. BARC differentiates us from our competitors by enabling us to act as our own reinsurance intermediary, developing a bespoke reinsurance program tailored to our needs in both soft and hard reinsurance markets. This team has developed and enhanced existing strong long-term relationships with world leading reinsurance companies, providing better efficiency in the manner in which we buy reinsurance. We had in excess of 60 reinsurance partners for the 2017-2018 reinsurance year from companies in the United States, Bermuda, London, Continental Europe and Asia. BARC works in conjunction with URA in providing these services. We also receive reinsurance intermediary services from Guy Carpenter and thereby benefit from its depth of experience and knowledge of market standards. Guy Carpenter works closely with our teams at BARC and URA in designing our reinsurance program and allowing us to obtain favorable pricing. Our internal team and Guy Carpenter continually evaluate prevailing costs and the level of coverage that we determine is necessary in order to proactively capitalize on favorable market conditions.

Effective June 1, 2015, we eliminated our quota share reinsurance arrangements; purchased additional excess of loss catastrophe cover; and converted from a two-tower reinsurance program to a single tower reinsurance program covering our nationwide business based on our improving financial condition, our evaluation of market conditions and our changing coverage needs. We also supplemented this nationwide reinsurance program with a stand-alone supplemental non-Florida catastrophe reinsurance program for the 2017-2018 period, which provides coverage for catastrophic events affecting states outside of Florida in which we write policies. We believe that restructuring our reinsurance program in this manner and continuously re-evaluating that structure has allowed us to take advantage of attractive reinsurance pricing and terms and to retain profitable business by eliminating our quota share program, while still maintaining reinsurance coverage that we believe is sufficient to protect our policyholders and shareholders. As an example, our reinsurance program generally performed as designed following Hurricane Irma in 2017, limiting the net loss and loss adjustment expenses (“LAE”) to our net retention levels. Further, fees generated from our service subsidiary companies produced income after Hurricane Irma, and this, combined with other benefits derived from our reinsurance program, helped to offset losses and reduce the overall effect that Hurricane Irma had on our consolidated financial statements. See Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - “Overview” for further discussion about Hurricane Irma.

Continue to Build and Enhance Our Claims Operations

Over the last decade, we have developed a proprietary claims administration system that allows us to efficiently process nearly all aspects of claims resolution for our policyholders. Our technology system has shortened claims handling and processing times, reduced associated claims resolution costs and has generated positive feedback from our policyholders and independent insurance agents. In addition, we launched our Fast Track (“Fast Track”) initiative in 2015, which expedites the claims settlement process to close certain types of claims in as little as 24 hours. The initiative sends select field adjusters to make on-site evaluations, with authorization to make payments to policyholders for certain types of claims. Our internal claims operation allows us to identify any trends or problems that may become apparent as claims are processed such that we can revise and bolster our underwriting guidelines as necessary in order to continue adequately pricing risks. Further, we continue to retain select third-party Florida claims administrators and adjusters as well as one national administrator to perform field services for and adjust a portion of our claims in order to maintain our relationships with them so that they can assist us during periods of high claims volume in providing high quality and timely service to our policyholders. We recognize the importance of claims processing and will continue to invest in this functionality.

Maintain an Emphasis on Underwriting Discipline

We seek to generate a consistent underwriting profit on the business we write in hard and soft markets through carefully developed underwriting guidelines informed by our experience in evaluating risks and in handling and processing claims. By focusing on identifying and assessing key risks and exposures in the market, we believe we are able to accurately price eligible risks and generate consistent profits. We assumed only one small group of policies from Citizens’ predecessor in 1998 when we first began our operations. Since then, we have grown our business by leveraging our network of approximately 4,300 independent agents in Florida, and by expanding to other geographic areas that present market opportunities. We periodically review the renewal rates and quality of business generated by our independent agents to ensure underwriting profitability and work with agents where we believe improvement is warranted. As a result of this organic expansion and our vertically integrated structure, all of our operating units possess extensive knowledge of the personal residential homeowners insurance market.

6

Table of Contents

Provide High Quality Service to our Policyholders

We strive to provide excellent customer service to each of our policyholders throughout every aspect of our business. We believe our vertically integrated business model provides a superior level of customer service for our policyholders, enhancing our reputation and increasing the likelihood that our policyholders will renew their policies with us. We believe that when policyholders have high levels of customer satisfaction with our Company, we are able to strengthen our reputation and relationships with our independent insurance agent network. We are committed to managing our losses, loss adjustment expenses and claims administration procedures through prudent underwriting and the use of internal claims adjustment services. We believe our personnel growth and commitment to an in-house claims handling process has improved the policyholder experience and, therefore, our relationship with the policyholders agents, which we believe increases retention of policies in-force. Our monthly weighted average renewal retention rate for the year ended December 31, 2017 was 88.1%.

OUR COMPETITIVE STRENGTHS

We believe that our success, historical growth and ability to capitalize on our future growth prospects are a result of the following competitive strengths of our business and management team.

Experienced Leadership Team

We have a deep and experienced leadership team with extensive experience in the Florida personal residential homeowners insurance market. Our Chief Executive Officer, Sean P. Downes, has more than 25 years of experience in the insurance industry. Prior to Mr. Downes’ arrival, all of our claims processing was outsourced to third parties. When Mr. Downes joined our company in 1999, he oversaw our claims operations and later oversaw the development of our vertically integrated structure. Mr. Downes has worked in the Florida insurance industry during all of its most recent active hurricane seasons. In particular, Mr. Downes led the claims team of a multi-line insurance claims adjusting corporation following Hurricane Andrew and served as Chief Operating Officer of UPCIC during the 2005 and 2004 active hurricane seasons. Jon W. Springer, our President and Chief Risk Officer, has over 25 years of experience in the insurance industry, including nine years leading a team of reinsurance specialists for Willis Re before joining us to implement and oversee our reinsurance program. Prior to becoming our President and Chief Risk Officer, Mr. Springer was Chief Operating Officer and an Executive Vice President of URA and BARC.

We believe this leadership team has led us in a strategic direction that has realized many benefits for our shareholders and policyholders, evidenced in part by the 155.0% increase in our stockholders’ equity and the 136.1% increase in policyholders’ surplus that we have realized since their tenure began. Further, they are supported by a group of highly qualified individuals with industry expertise and extensive operational experience, which enables us to capitalize on our experience of having emerged from the 2004, 2005, and 2017 active hurricane seasons in sound financial condition, whereas many of our competitors are new to the market and have not experienced the challenges of an active Florida hurricane season.

Vertically Integrated Structure

We are vertically integrated with substantially all aspects of insurance underwriting, policy issuance, general administration and claims processing and settlement performed internally. Our ability to provide these services ourselves allows us to compress the cycle time of claim resolution in order to promptly pay valid claims and to control claims handling costs. In particular, by performing our own claims adjustment processes, we can better expedite meritorious claims as well as devote attention to potentially suspicious or inflated claims. As a result, we are generally able to begin the adjustment and mitigation process much earlier than if we relied more heavily on third parties, thereby reducing LAE and ultimate loss payouts. Our statutory net loss and LAE ratio for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 was 53.0%, lower than most of our peer companies. We are also able to retain a significant portion of the management and service fees that we and, indirectly, our reinsurers would otherwise pay to third parties for rendering such services. We do, however, intend to continue having a small portion of claims handled by select third parties, as we believe that maintaining relationships with third-party service providers will benefit us in the event we need their assistance in handling claims due to a catastrophic event.

In the future, we will continue to capitalize on our vertically integrated structure by retaining certain fees that we pay to our subsidiary service providers for, managing general agent, reinsurance brokerage, adjusting and other services. We currently administer 100% of all claims and outsource 35% of on-site field adjustment assignments, and thereby retain a corresponding portion of fees that would have otherwise been paid to external adjusters. These cost efficiencies will help us better withstand the financial impact of potential catastrophic storms. We also continue to retain select third-party claims adjusters to perform field services and adjust the remaining portion of our claims in order to maintain our relationships with them, so they can assist us during periods of high claims volume in providing high quality and timely service to our policyholders. Accordingly, we believe we are able to reduce expenses during non-catastrophe years while providing a high level of customer service during all years.

7

Table of Contents

Robust Independent Agent Distribution Network

We have developed long-term relationships with a network of approximately 8,800 licensed independent insurance agents – with approximately 4,300 in Florida and approximately 4,500 outside of Florida. Of our 4,300 independent Florida agents, approximately 1,600 have written business with us for over a decade. Our relationships with our Florida independent agents are critical to our success in growing our business in the future and are key differentiators when compared with competitors that have relied upon assumptions of policies from Citizens for their growth and, as a result, may not have developed the same degree of loyalty with as large a group of independent agents in Florida. We believe we have been able to build this network due to our reputation, commitment to the Florida market, experience, and integrity in the underwriting process, as well as our consistency in offering our products through hard and soft markets. Further, the responsiveness of our operating units due to our vertically integrated structure enhances our relationships with our independent agents. By developing and controlling our proprietary technology system, we can rapidly respond to enhancement requests from our independent agents regarding our policy processing system.

Strong Balance Sheet, with a Proven Capital Return Strategy

We have a strong balance sheet, including a stable investment portfolio, a conservative reserve position, a strong and growing capital base, and a proven capital return strategy. Our investment portfolio is largely fixed maturities with a modest allocation of equities and real estate. Our fixed maturities portfolio is ~99% investment grade securities with a AA- average credit rating. We have a strong and growing capital position that contains minimal goodwill, no intangible assets, and minimal debt. We take a conservative approach to loss reserving, and have made substantial efforts in recent years to improve our claims operation, including the addition of our Fast Track team (which has reduced claim resolution time) and an intensified effort to collect subrogation. Since the Company was formed in 1997, we have posted substantial growth in stockholders’ equity and book value per share. We have demonstrated an ability and willingness to return capital to our shareholders, paying both a regular dividend and, over each of the past six years a special dividend, as well as repurchasing shares of our common stock in the open market and in private transactions.

MARKET

Florida

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, at June 30, 2017, Florida was the third largest state in terms of population, with approximately 21 million people. The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research estimates that Florida is expected to reach a population of approximately 26 million people by 2040, an increase of 41% from 2010. Property ownership and development represent key drivers of the Florida economy. Because of its location, Florida is exposed to an increased risk of hurricanes during the entire six months of the Atlantic hurricane season, which spans from June 1 through November 30. Eight hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, including Hurricanes Charley, Katrina, Rita and Wilma, caused combined estimated nationwide property damage of over $127 billion, a significant portion of which occurred in Florida. In September 2017, Hurricane Irma caused an estimated $17.2 billion in property damage, the majority of which occurred in Florida. Given the potential for significant personal property damage, the availability of personal residential insurance and claims servicing are vitally important to Florida residents.

The Florida residential insurance market is highly fragmented and dominated by in-state insurance companies, and the state’s residual insurance market, Citizens. Significant dislocation in the Florida property insurance market began following Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and accelerated following the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. National and regional insurers significantly reduced their share of the market in Florida between 1999 and 2012. As national and regional insurance companies reduced their exposure in Florida, Citizens, which was at the time and remains today, by law, an insurer of last resort, increased efforts to provide affordable residential insurance to those residents unable to obtain coverage in the private market. As a result, Citizens’ policy count grew from roughly 800,000 policies in 2005 to a peak level of approximately 1.5 million policies in late 2011. To reduce Citizens’ risk exposure, beginning in 2010, Florida’s elected officials encouraged Citizens to focus on reducing the size of its portfolio by returning policies to the private market. Depopulation efforts have been successful, as Citizens’ policy count at September 30, 2017 was approximately 452,000. To be eligible for a Citizens policy, an applicant must either be denied comparable coverage offers from the private insurance market or have received coverage offerings from the private insurance market requiring premium payments that are more than 15% higher than a comparable Citizens policy.

According to data compiled by the FLOIR, Citizens was the second largest residential insurer in Florida as of September 30, 2017, with a market share of approximately 8.1% based on total direct premiums written in-force for personal residential insurance (excluding mobile homeowners and farmowners). As of December 31, 2017, less than 1,000 of our 618,280 Florida in-force policies, or 0.1%, were assumed from Citizens’ predecessor, as compared to some of our competitors that collectively have assumed more than 785,000 policies from Citizens since January 1, 2014. We believe we have the opportunity to significantly expand the size of our personal residential homeowners insurance business both inside and outside of Florida by pursuing organic growth, and have demonstrated this ability within Florida since 1998 and outside of Florida since 2008.

8

Table of Contents

All residential insurance companies that write business in Florida, including the Insurance Entities, are required to obtain a form of reinsurance through the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (the “FHCF”), a state-sponsored entity that provides a layer of reinsurance protection at a price that is typically lower than what would otherwise be available in the general market. The purpose of the FHCF is to protect and advance the state’s interest in maintaining insurance capacity in Florida by providing reimbursements to insurers for a portion of their catastrophe hurricane losses. Currently, the FHCF provides $17 billion of aggregate capacity annually to its participating insurers, which may be adjusted by statute from time to time.

Other States

While we are concentrated in Florida, part of our strategy is to continue our geographic expansion outside of Florida primarily, to take advantage of opportunities to write profitable business as well as to diversify our revenue and risk. We are targeting states with underserved homeowners insurance markets where we believe there is price adequacy for our products and where policyholders would benefit from our market knowledge and integrated service model. We currently write homeowners insurance policies in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia, and are also licensed to issue policies in Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. We look to expand to markets that have opportunities for reasoned, profitable growth and that allow us to position ourselves to take advantage of market dislocation opportunities similar to what we capitalized on in Florida (e.g. following the 2017, 2005 and 2004 hurricane seasons).

COMPETITION

The market for personal residential homeowners insurance is highly competitive. In our primary market, Florida, there are approximately 127 licensed insurance companies that write residential homeowners insurance policies. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Our future results are dependent in part on our ability to successfully operate in a highly competitive insurance industry.”

The table below shows policy count, direct written premium in-force and total insured value by market share (excluding mobile homeowners and farmowners) for the top 20 personal residential homeowners insurance companies by direct written premium in Florida as of September 30, 2017, which is the most recent date that the information is publicly available. We compete to varying degrees with all of these companies and others, including large national carriers.

9

Table of Contents

We compete primarily on the basis of the strength of our distribution networks, high-quality service to our independent agents and policyholders, our reputation and commitment to the Florida market, claims handling ability, product features tailored to our markets and price, among other factors. Our successful track record in writing residential homeowners insurance in catastrophe-exposed areas has enabled us to develop sophisticated risk selection and pricing techniques that endeavor to identify desirable risks and accurately reflect the risk of loss while allowing us to be competitive in our target markets. This risk selection and pricing approach allows us to profitably offer competitive products in areas that have a high demand for property insurance yet are underserved by the national carriers. Each of the Insurance Entities is currently rated “A” (“Exceptional”) by Demotech, Inc. (“Demotech”), a rating agency specializing in evaluating the financial stability of insurers.

PRODUCTS AND DISTRIBUTION

Products

Our focus and our primary product is personal residential homeowner insurance, which accounts for the vast majority of business that we write. Our homeowners insurance products provide policyholders with the ability to receive homeowners, renters, condominium, dwelling, fire, other structures, personal property, personal liability and personal articles coverages. For the year ended December 31, 2017, we wrote an average of 19,829 new policies per month, an increase of 18.3% as compared to the prior year, and residential

10

Table of Contents

homeowners policies produced direct written premium of $982.4 million. Homeowners insurance policies accounted for 93.0% of our total direct written premium, with the remaining 7.0% comprised of Commercial Residential and fire and allied lines coverage.

The nature of our business, with respect to both claims and sales, tends to be seasonal over the course of a year, reflecting consumer behaviors in connection with the Florida residential real estate market and the need to be insured before the start of the hurricane season. The amount of written premium tends to increase just prior to the second quarter of our fiscal year and to decrease approaching the fourth quarter. We also face cyclicality resulting from hard and soft market cycles. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Our financial condition and operating results and the financial condition and operating results of our Insurance Entities may be adversely affected by the cyclical nature of the property and casualty insurance business.”

The geographical distribution of our policies in-force, in-force premium and total insured value for Florida by county were as follows as of December 31, 2017 (dollars in thousands, rounded to the nearest thousand):

11

Table of Contents

The geographical distribution of our policies in-force, in-force premium and total insured value across all states were as follows, as of December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 (dollars in thousands, rounded to the nearest thousand):

12

Table of Contents

Also see “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Because we conduct the substantial majority of our business in Florida, our financial results depend on the regulatory, economic and weather conditions in Florida” for discussion on geographical diversification.

Product Pricing

The premiums we charge are based on rates specific to individual risks and locations and are generally subject to regulatory review and approval before they are implemented. We periodically submit our rate revisions to regulators as required by law or as we deem necessary or appropriate for our business. The premiums we charge to policyholders are affected by legislative enactments and administrative rules, including state-mandated programs in Florida requiring residential property insurance companies like us to provide premium discounts when policyholders verify that insured properties have certain construction features or windstorm loss reduction features.

13

Table of Contents

The following table shows UPCIC’s most recently approved rate changes. All percentage increases and decreases are expressed as statewide averages.

Distribution

We market and sell our products primarily through our network of approximately 8,800 licensed independent agents, which we continue to build both in Florida and in other states. In addition to our independent agent force, we offer policies through our online platform Universal Direct^SM as described further below. Of our independent agents, the top 20% accounted for approximately 90% of our direct written premium for the year ended December 31, 2017. Currently, we have approximately 4,300 independent agents in Florida and approximately 4,500 independent agents outside of Florida. Our relationships with independent agents and their relationships with their customers are critical to our ability to identify, attract and retain profitable business. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Because we rely on independent insurance agents, the loss of these independent agent relationships and the business they control or our ability to attract new independent agents could have an adverse impact on our business.” We have developed our independent agency distribution channel since our inception, and we believe we have built significant credibility and loyalty within the independent agent community in the states in which we operate, particularly Florida. We actively participate in the recruitment and training of our independent agents and provide each agency with training sessions on topics such as submitting claims and underwriting guidelines, either over the phone or through an internet portal. We also engage a third-party market representative to assist in ongoing training and recruitment initiatives in all of the states in which we write business.

A key part of our distribution strategy is to utilize an attractive commission-based compensation plan as an incentive for independent agents to place business with us. We also attempt to provide excellent service to our independent agents and brokers, maintaining a

14

Table of Contents

long-standing partnership with our independent agents and a consistent presence in our target markets through hard and soft market cycles. Our internal staff and specialists provide support to our independent agents, including use of various technologies to assist with the delivery of service to our policyholders. Our independent agents have access to all policy and payment information through our online, proprietary system. This system allows our independent agents to provide quotes within minutes, and because we control our technology, we are able to quickly respond to agents who need troubleshooting assistance or who offer recommendations for improvement. This system has evolved into a highly valued tool that enables agents to quickly understand the status of a policy and assist their clients with any policy-related questions. We regularly monitor and enhance the system to provide the best point of sale tools possible. Agents are provided dedicated internal contacts should they need assistance, and agencies are proactively contacted on a quarterly basis to solicit feedback.

As a result of the superior service and compensation we provide, we have relatively little turnover among many of our key independent agents. Approximately 1,600, or 18%, of our independent agents have relationships with us that span a decade or more.

In addition to distributing our products through our independent agent network, we also utilize our unique direct-to-consumer platform, Universal Direct^SM, to sell products directly to consumers. In April 2016, the Company launched a direct-to-consumer online platform called Universal Direct^SM, which enables homeowners to directly purchase, pay for and bind homeowners policies online without the need to directly interface with any intermediaries. Universal Direct^SM was offered in all 16 states in which the Company offers policies as of December 31, 2017. During the year ended December 31, 2017, 7,361 policies were written representing $8.6 million in direct written premium, as compared to 1,320 policies written representing $1.4 million in direct written premium during the year ended December 31, 2016.

Services

We are vertically integrated with substantially all aspects of insurance underwriting, policy issuance, general administration and claims processing and settlement performed internally, which allows us to retain a majority of the economics associated with the issuance and administration of our insurance policies in-force. Vertical integration also maintains quality service throughout the policy life cycle. Below is a summary of the services we provide.

Underwriting

All underwriting is performed internally utilizing our state-approved underwriting manuals as the basis of our rate-making and risk assessment. Our manuals have been developed and enhanced over a number of years based on our deep knowledge of the homeowners insurance industry, and based on an ongoing analysis of our own loss experience. Initially, all new business must be submitted to us through our proprietary policy processing system and risk criteria, which allows our independent agent partners to generate quotes and bind policies subject to compliance with our binding authority guidelines and risk criteria. Policies that are bound by either independent agents or through Universal Direct^SM are further reviewed by our underwriting staff for accuracy of data, including reports of on-site inspections. Our underwriting process is constantly evolving as new and different type of risks and claim types become prevalent. However, see “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—The failure of the risk mitigation strategies we utilize could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.”

Policy Administration

We have developed a proprietary suite of applications that provide underwriting, policy and claim administration services, including billing, policy maintenance, inspections, refunds, commissions and data analysis. Our proprietary rating engine aligns with various state requirements to support our geographic expansion. This sophisticated policy processing system is solely managed by our employees, and enhancements are implemented while adhering to strict internal control requirements to ensure business continuity.

Claims Administration

We closely manage all aspects of the claims process, from processing the initial filing to claim conclusion. When a policyholder contacts us to report a claim, members of our claims department create a claim file and aggregate the appropriate supporting documentation. Claims are then reviewed by our managers and staff adjusters, who assess the extent of the loss, complete on-site investigations when required, and determine the resources needed to adjust each claim. We perform or supervise the adjusting services rendered for our policyholders at all stages of the claims process, which we believe allows us to reduce cost and provide a high level of customer service. We assign a small percentage of field inspections to third-party adjusters in order to maintain relationships that will allow us to continue to provide high quality and timely service following a catastrophe or any other period of unusually high claim volume, such as the increase in claims that occurred after Hurricane Irma in September 2017.

15

Table of Contents

Reinsurance Intermediary

We manage our reinsurance program through our internal reinsurance intermediary, BARC, in conjunction with URA. Approximately 10 years ago, we hired a dedicated team of reinsurance specialists from Willis Re, including our President and Chief Risk Officer, Jon W. Springer, to design a customized reinsurance strategy for us and to develop our in-house analytical capabilities. Our reinsurance team has an average of 25 years of knowledge and expertise of the reinsurance industry. We have two experienced actuaries and analytics modeling personnel on staff at BARC to assist in evaluating and designing our reinsurance program. Not only do we receive a portion of the fees that otherwise would be paid in commissions to a third-party reinsurance intermediary, we also develop and maintain long-term relationships with our reinsurers. We also utilize Guy Carpenter as a third-party reinsurance intermediary as needed, enabling us to capitalize on its market experience and knowledge as well as our internal capabilities. Guy Carpenter works closely with our teams at BARC and URA in designing our reinsurance program to obtain favorable pricing, as well as continually evaluating prevailing costs and the level of coverage we feel we need in order to capitalize on favorable market conditions.

REINSURANCE

Developing and implementing our reinsurance strategy to adequately protect us in the event of one or more catastrophes while maintaining efficient reinsurance costs has been a key focus for our leadership team. The benefits of the reinsurance strategy in 2017 are further discussed in “Item 7 — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations.” In recent years, the property and casualty insurance market has experienced a substantial increase in the availability of property catastrophe reinsurance resulting from the increased supply of capital from non-traditional reinsurance providers, including private capital and hedge funds. This increased capital supply, coupled with a lack of recent significant catastrophic activity in Florida and elsewhere around the world, and underwriting improvements, such as Florida’s wind mitigation efforts to strengthen homes subject to wind events, has reduced the cost of property catastrophe reinsurance, directly benefitting significant reinsurance buyers, such as us.

In order to limit our potential exposure to catastrophic events, we purchase significant reinsurance from third-party reinsurers. We rely on third-party reinsurers and the FHCF, and do not have any captive or affiliated reinsurance arrangements in place. The FLOIR requires us and all insurance companies doing business in Florida to have a certain amount of capital and reinsurance coverage in order to cover losses upon the occurrence of a single catastrophic event and a series of catastrophic events occurring in the same hurricane season. Our 2017-2018 reinsurance program meets and provides reinsurance in excess of the FLOIR’s requirements, which are based on, among other things, the probable maximum loss that we would incur from an individual catastrophic event estimated to occur once in every 100 years based on our portfolio of insured risks and a series of stress test catastrophe loss scenarios based on past historical events. As respects to the single catastrophic event, the nature, severity and location of the event giving rise to such a probable maximum loss differs for each insurer depending on the insurer’s portfolio of insured risks, including, among other things, the geographic concentration of insured value within the insurer’s portfolio. Accordingly, a particular catastrophic event could be a one-in-100 year loss event for one insurance company while having a greater or lesser probability of occurrence for another insurance company.

We believe our retention under the reinsurance program is appropriate and structured to protect our policyholders. We test the sufficiency of our reinsurance program by subjecting our personal residential exposures to statistical testing using a third-party hurricane model, RMS RiskLink v17.0 (Build 1825). This model combines simulations of the natural occurrence patterns and characteristics of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other catastrophes with information on property values, construction types and occupancy classes. The model outputs provide information concerning the potential for large losses before they occur so companies can prepare for their financial impact.

UPCIC’s 2017-2018 Reinsurance Program

Third-Party Reinsurance

Our annual reinsurance program, which is segmented into layers of coverage, as is industry practice, protects us against excess property catastrophe losses. Our 2017-2018 reinsurance program includes the mandatory coverage required by law to be placed with the FHCF, in which we have elected to participate at 90%, or the highest level, and also includes private reinsurance below, alongside and above the FHCF layer. In placing our 2017-2018 reinsurance program, we obtained multiple years of coverage for an additional portion of the program. We believe this multi-year arrangement will allow us to capitalize on favorable pricing and contract terms and conditions and allow us to mitigate uncertainty with respect to the price of future reinsurance coverage, our single largest cost. (For 2015-2016, we eliminated our quota share reinsurance effective as of June 1, 2015, while obtaining additional excess of loss catastrophe coverage. We believe that this new structure will continue to protect us in years in which a catastrophe may occur, and in non-catastrophe years will decrease our reinsurance costs and increase the amount of premium we retain. These lower costs and higher premium retention will enable us to further increase our stockholders’ equity in order to profitably grow our business.)

16

Table of Contents

The total cost of UPCIC’s private catastrophe reinsurance program for all states as described below, effective June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018, is $155.5 million. In addition, UPCIC has purchased reinstatement premium protection as described below, the cost of which is $25.7 million. The largest private participants in UPCIC’s reinsurance program include leading reinsurance companies and providers such as Nephila Capital, Everest Re, RenaissanceRe, Chubb Tempest Re and Lloyd’s of London syndicates.

We have used the model results noted above to stress test the completeness of the program by simulating a recurrence of the 2004 calendar year, in which four large catastrophic hurricanes made landfall in Florida. This season is considered to be the worst catastrophic year in Florida’s recorded history. Assuming the reoccurrence of the 2004 calendar year events, including the same geographic path of each such hurricane, the modeled estimated net loss to us in 2017 with the reinsurance coverage described herein would be approximately $84 million (after tax, net of all reinsurance recoveries), the same as it would have been in 2016. We estimate that, based on our portfolio of insured risks as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, a repeat of the four 2004 calendar year events would have exhausted approximately 27.0% and 25.0%, respectively, of our property catastrophe reinsurance coverage.

UPCIC’s Retention

UPCIC has a net retention of $35 million per catastrophe event for losses incurred, in all states, up to a first event loss of $2.778 billion. UPCIC also purchases a separate underlying catastrophe program to further reduce its retention for all losses occurring in any state other than Florida (the “Other States Reinsurance Program”). UPCIC retains only $5 million under its Other States Reinsurance Program in the first event and only $1 million under its Other States Reinsurance Program for the second through fourth events. These retention amounts are gross of any potential tax benefit we would receive in paying such losses.

First Layer

Immediately above UPCIC’s net retention, we have $55 million of reinsurance coverage from third-party reinsurers for up to four separate catastrophic events, for all states. Specifically, we have purchased reinsurance coverage for the first and third catastrophic events, and each such coverage allows for one reinstatement upon the payment of reinstatement premiums, which would cover the second and fourth catastrophic events. This coverage has been obtained from three contracts as follows:

For the first two contracts above, to the extent that all of our coverage or a portion thereof is exhausted in a catastrophic event, we have purchased reinstatement premium protection to pay the required premium necessary for the reinstatement of these coverages.

Second Layer

Above the first layer, for losses exceeding $90 million, we have purchased a second layer of coverage for losses up to $445 million – in other words, for the next $355 million of losses. This coverage has been obtained from two contracts as follows:

In this layer, to the extent that all of our coverage or a portion thereof is exhausted in a catastrophic event, we have purchased reinstatement premium protection insurance to pay the required premium necessary for the reinstatement of these coverages. Both of these contracts extend coverage to all states.

Third Layer

Above the first and second layers, we have purchased a third layer of coverage for losses up to $540 million – in other words, for the next $95 million of losses. This coverage was obtained from two contracts as follows:

In this layer, to the extent that all of our coverage or a portion thereof is exhausted in a catastrophic event, we have purchased reinstatement premium protection insurance to pay the required premium necessary for the reinstatement of these coverages. Both of these contracts extend coverage to all states.

17

Table of Contents

Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Layers

In the fourth, fifth and sixth layers, we have purchased reinsurance for $55 million of coverage in excess of $540 million in losses incurred by us (net of the FHCF layer), $193 million of coverage in excess of $595 million in losses incurred by us (net of the FHCF layer), and $125 million of coverage in excess of $788 million, respectively, for a total of $878 million of coverage (net of the FHCF layer) by third-party reinsurers. With respect to the fourth layer, to the extent that all of our coverage or a portion thereof is exhausted in a catastrophic event, we have purchased reinstatement premium protection to pay the required premium necessary for the reinstatement of this coverage. All three layers’ coverage extends to all states.

UPCIC structures its reinsurance coverage into layers and utilizes a cascading feature such that the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth reinsurance layers all attach at $90 million. Any layers above the $90 million attachment point are excess of loss over the immediately preceding layer. If the aggregate limit of the preceding layer is exhausted, the next layer cascades down in its place for future events. This means that, unless losses exhaust the top layer of our coverage, we are exposed to only $35 million in losses, pre-tax, per catastrophe for each of the first four events. In addition to tax benefits that could reduce our ultimate loss, we anticipate that certain fees paid to our subsidiary service providers by our Insurance Entities and, indirectly, our reinsurers, would also increase during an active hurricane season, which could also offset claim-related losses we would have to pay on our insurance policies. The subsidiary companies, and UPCIC in particular, experienced a significant volume of claims from Hurricane Irma which surpassed the Company’s per occurrence retention of $35 million and triggered its reinsurance program. The program responded according exactly to plan and the weighted average of funds received from third party reinsurance partners was less than 4 business days.  Fees paid to our subsidiary service providers increased due to both the volume of claims administered as well as additional premiums paid to reinstate reinsurance coverage. 

Other States Reinsurance Program

The total cost of UPCIC’s private catastrophe reinsurance program for other states as described below, effective June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018, is $8.9 million. In addition, UPCIC has purchased reinstatement premium protection as described below, the cost of which is $1.85 million.

Effective June 1, 2017 through June 1, 2018, under an excess catastrophe contract specifically covering risks located outside the state of Florida and intended to further reduce UPCIC’s $35 million net retention, as noted above, UPCIC has obtained catastrophe coverage of $30 million in excess of $5 million covering certain loss occurrences, including hurricanes, in states outside of Florida. This catastrophe coverage has a second full limit available with additional premium calculated pro rata as to amount and 100% as to time, as applicable. All catastrophe layers are placed with a cascading feature so that all capacity could be made available in excess of $5 million under certain loss scenarios. Further, UPCIC purchased subsequent catastrophe event excess of loss reinsurance specifically covering risks outside of Florida to cover certain levels of loss through four catastrophe events including hurricanes. Specifically, UPCIC obtained catastrophe coverage that covers 100% of $4,000,000 excess of $1,000,000 in excess of $4,000,000 otherwise recoverable. This coverage has two free reinstatements and a total of $12,000,000 of coverage available to UPCIC.

In certain circumstances involving a first catastrophic event impacting both Florida and other states, UPCIC’s retention could result in pre-tax net liability as low as $5,000,000 – the $35 million net retention under the all states reinsurance program could be offset by as much as $30 million in coverage under the Other States Reinsurance Program – or 1.6% of UPCIC’s statutory policyholders’ surplus as of December 31, 2017.

FHCF

UPCIC’s third-party reinsurance program supplements the FHCF coverage we are required to purchase every year. The limit and retention of the FHCF coverage we receive each year is subject to upward or downward adjustment based on, among other things, submitted exposures to the FHCF by all participants. As of June 1, 2017, we estimate our FHCF coverage includes a maximum provisional limit of 90% of $2,075.5 million, or $1,868 million, in excess of $618 million. The estimated premium that UPCIC plans to cede to the FHCF for the 2017 hurricane season is $124 million.

Coverage purchased from third-party reinsurers, as described above, adjusts to provide coverage for certain losses not otherwise covered by the FHCF. The FHCF coverage cannot be reinstated once exhausted, but it does provide coverage for multiple events. The FHCF coverage extends only to losses to our Florida portfolio due to a declared hurricane that causes storm losses in Florida.

The third-party reinsurance we purchase for UPCIC is therefore net of FHCF recovery. When our FHCF and third-party reinsurance coverages are taken together, UPCIC has reinsurance coverage of up to $2,778 million for the first event, as illustrated by the graphic below. Should a catastrophic event occur, we would retain up to $35 million pre-tax for each catastrophic event, and would also be responsible for any additional losses that exceed our top layer of coverage.

18

Table of Contents

UPCIC All States 1^st Event

19

Table of Contents

UPCIC Other States (Non-Florida) 1^st Event

APPCIC’s 2017-2018 Reinsurance Program

Third-Party Reinsurance

The total cost of APPCIC’s private catastrophe and multiple line excess reinsurance program, effective June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018, is $1.88 million. In addition, APPCIC has purchased reinstatement premium protection as described below, the cost of which is $59,500. The largest private participants in APPCIC’s reinsurance program include leading reinsurance companies such as Everest Re, Chubb Tempest Re, Hiscox, Hannover Ruck, and Lloyd’s of London syndicates.

APPCIC’s Retention

APPCIC has a net retention of $2 million for all losses per catastrophe event for losses incurred up to a first event loss of $28.1 million. This retention amount is gross of any potential tax benefit we would receive in paying such losses.

First Layer

Immediately above APPCIC’s net retention we have $3.2 million of reinsurance coverage from third-party reinsurers. Specifically, we have purchased reinsurance coverage for the first event, and such coverage allows for one reinstatement upon the payment of reinstatement premiums, which would cover the second and potentially more catastrophic events. We have purchased reinstatement premium protection to pay the required premium necessary for the initial reinstatement of this coverage for a second catastrophic event.

Second and Third Layers

In the second and third layers, we have purchased reinsurance for $1.7 million of coverage in excess of $5.2 million in losses incurred by us (net of the FHCF layer) and $7 million of coverage in excess of $6.9 million in losses incurred by us (net of the FHCF layer), respectively.

20

Table of Contents

APPCIC structures its reinsurance coverage into layers and utilizes a cascading feature such that the second and third reinsurance layers all attach at $2 million. Any layers above the $2 million attachment point are excess of loss over the immediately preceding layer. If the aggregate limit of the preceding layer is exhausted, the next layer cascades down in its place for future events. This means that, unless losses exhaust the top layer of our coverage, we are only exposed to $2 million in losses, pre-tax, per catastrophe for each of the first two events. In addition to tax benefits that could reduce our ultimate loss, we anticipate that certain fees paid to our subsidiary service providers by our Insurance Entities and, indirectly, our reinsurers would also increase during an active hurricane season, which could also offset losses we would have to pay on our insurance policies.

FHCF

APPCIC’s third-party reinsurance program is used to supplement the FHCF reinsurance we are required to purchase every year. The limit and retention of the FHCF coverage we receive each year is subject to upward or downward adjustment based on, among other things, submitted exposures to the FHCF by all participants. As of June 1, 2017, we estimate our FHCF coverage includes a maximum provisional limit of 90% of $15.8 million, or $14.2 million, in excess of $4.7 million. The estimated premium that APPCIC plans to cede to the FHCF for the 2017 hurricane season is $943 thousand. Factoring in our estimated coverage under the FHCF, we purchase coverage alongside our FHCF coverage from third-party reinsurers as described above, which adjusts to provide coverage for certain losses not otherwise covered by the FHCF. The FHCF coverage cannot be reinstated once exhausted, but it does provide coverage for multiple events. The FHCF coverage extends only to losses to our portfolio due to a declared hurricane that causes storm losses in Florida.

The third-party reinsurance we purchase for APPCIC is therefore net of FHCF recovery. When our FHCF and third-party reinsurance coverages are taken together, APPCIC has reinsurance coverage of up to $28.1 million, as illustrated by the graphic below. Should a catastrophic event occur, we would retain $2 million pre-tax for each catastrophic event, and would also be responsible for any additional losses that exceed our top layer of coverage.

APPCIC 1^st Event

21

Table of Contents

Multiple Line Excess of Loss

APPCIC also purchases extensive multiple line excess per risk reinsurance with various reinsurers due to the high valued risks it insures in both the personal residential and commercial multiple peril lines of business. Under this multiple line excess per risk contract, APPCIC has coverage of $8.5 million in excess of $500 thousand ultimate net loss for each risk and each property loss, and $1 million in excess of $0.3 million for each casualty loss. A $19.5 million aggregate limit applies to the term of the contract for property related losses and a $2.0 million aggregate limit applies to the term of the contract for casualty-related losses. This contract also contains a profit sharing feature available to APPCIC if the contract meets specific performance measures.

INVESTMENTS

We invest excess funds for each of the Insurance Entities and UVE. We have retained third-party investment advisers to advise us and manage our investment portfolio and short-term cash investments. Our Board’s Investment Committee oversees these advisers and reports overall investment results to our Board of Directors, at least on a quarterly basis.

The investment activities of the Insurance Entities are subject to regulation and supervision by the FLOIR. See “—Government Regulation and Initiatives.” The Insurance Entities may only make investments that are consistent with regulatory guidelines, and our investment policies for the Insurance Entities accordingly limit the amount of investments in, among other things, non-investment grade fixed maturity securities (including high-yield bonds) and the amount of total investments in preferred stock and common stock. While we seek to appropriately limit the size and scope of investments in our portfolio, UVE is not similarly restricted by Florida law. Therefore, the investments made by UVE may differ from those made by the Insurance Entities. We do not purchase securities on margin.

The primary objectives of our investment portfolio are the preservation of capital and providing adequate liquidity for claims payments and other cash needs. Our investment portfolio’s secondary investment objective is to provide a total rate of return with an emphasis on investment income. We focus on relatively short-term investments, with approximately 8.0% of the fair value of our portfolio with contractual maturities due in one year or less, and another 44.7% due after one year but before five years.

See “Item 8—Note 3 (Investments)” and “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Investments” for more information about our investments.

LIABILITY FOR UNPAID LOSSES AND LAE

We generally use the terms “loss” or “losses” to refer to both loss and LAE net of estimated subrogation recoveries. We establish reserves for both reported and unreported unpaid losses that have occurred at or before the balance sheet date for amounts we estimate we will be required to pay in the future. Our policy is to establish these loss reserves after considering all information known to us at each reporting period. Accordingly, at any given point in time, our loss reserve represents our best estimate of the ultimate settlement and administration cost of our insured claims incurred and unpaid net of estimated receivables for subrogation. Since the process of estimating loss reserves requires significant judgment due to a number of variables, such as fluctuations in inflation, judicial decisions, legislative changes and changes in claims handling procedures, our ultimate liability will likely differ from these estimates. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Actual claims incurred may exceed current reserves established for claims and may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.” We revise our reserve for unpaid losses as additional information becomes available, and reflect adjustments, if any, in our earnings in the periods in which we determine the adjustments are necessary.

When a claim involving a probable loss is reported, we establish a liability for the estimated amount of our ultimate loss and LAE payments. The estimate of the amount of the ultimate loss is based upon such factors as the type of loss, jurisdiction of the occurrence, knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim, severity of injury or damage, potential for ultimate exposure, estimate of liability on the part of the insured, past experience with similar claims and the applicable policy provisions. Opportunities for subrogation are also identified for further analysis and collection from third parties. All newly reported claims begin with an initial average liability. That claim is then evaluated and the liability is adjusted upward or downward according to the facts and damages of that particular claim. As discussed above, we maintain an in-house claims staff that monitors and directs all aspects of our claims process, and oversees claims processed by third parties. In addition, management aggregates liabilities to provide for losses incurred but not reported (“IBNR”). We utilize independent actuaries to help establish liabilities for unpaid losses, anticipated loss recoveries, and LAE. We do not discount the liability for unpaid losses and LAE for financial statement purposes.

The estimates of the liability for unpaid losses, anticipated subrogation recoveries, and LAE are subject to the effect of trends in claims severity and frequency and are continually reviewed. As part of this process, we review historical data and consider various factors, including known and anticipated legal developments, changes in social attitudes, inflation and economic conditions. As loss and expense experience develops and other data become available, these estimates are revised, as required, resulting in increases or decreases to the existing liability for unpaid losses and LAE. Adjustments are reflected in results of operations in the period in which

22

Table of Contents

they are made and the liabilities may deviate substantially from prior estimates. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Actual claims incurred may exceed current reserves established for claims and may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.”

ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT

We maintain a dedicated Enterprise Risk Management (“ERM”) function that is responsible for analyzing and reporting the Company’s risks; facilitating monitoring to ensure the Company’s risks remain within its appetites, limits and tolerances; and ensuring, on an ongoing basis, that our ERM objectives are met. This includes ensuring proper risk controls are in place; risks are effectively identified, assessed, and managed; and key risks to which the Company is exposed are appropriately disclosed. The ERM function plays an important role in fostering the Company’s risk management culture and practices.

In light of the segment of the insurance industry in which we operate, we maintain a moderate to high appetite for underwriting risk that seeks to provide profitable growth for our shareholders while managing our risk with disciplined pricing and portfolio management standards. We mitigate our underwriting risk with sound reinsurance protection, effective operational policies and procedures, and capital management strategies.

Enterprise Risk Management Structure and Governance

Our Board of Directors (“the Board”) oversees enterprise risk through its standing committees. The Risk Committee receives a comprehensive periodic risk reports, which describes the Company’s key risk exposures using quantitative and qualitative assessments and includes information about breaches or exceptions. The Company also has other risk-focused committees such as the Audit Committee and the Investment Committee. These other committees are comprised of various risk and technical experts and have overlapping membership, enabling consistent and holistic management of risks. These committees report directly or indirectly to the Board.

Enterprise Risk Management Framework

Our ERM framework provides a platform to assess the risk/return profiles of risks throughout the organization to enable enhanced

decision making by business leaders. The ERM framework also guides the development and implementation of mitigation strategies to reduce exposures to these risks to acceptable levels. Our ERM framework includes the following elements:

Proactive risk monitoring and reporting enable early detection and mitigation of emerging risks. We monitor adherence to risk targets and limits through the ERM function, which reports regularly to the Risk Committee. The frequency of monitoring is tailored to the significance of each risk. Risk escalation channels coupled with open communication lines enhance the mitigants explained above. The Company has devoted significant resources to developing its ERM program and expects to continue to do so in the future. Nonetheless, the risk remains that the Company’s policies and procedures to identify, manage, and monitor risks may not be fully effective. Many of the Company’s methods for managing risk are based on historical information, which may not be a good predictor of future risk exposures. Management of operational, legal, and regulatory risk relies on policies and procedures which may not be fully effective under all scenarios.

23

Table of Contents

Government Regulation and Initiatives

We are subject to extensive regulation in the markets we serve, primarily at the state level, and will be subject to the regulations of any other states in which we seek to conduct business in the future. These regulations cover all aspects of our business and are generally designed to protect the interests of policyholders, as opposed to the interests of shareholders. Such regulations relate to authorized lines of business, capital and surplus requirements, allowable rates and forms, investment parameters, underwriting limitations, transactions with affiliates, dividend limitations, changes in control, market conduct, maximum amount allowable for premium financing service charges and a variety of other financial and non-financial components of our business.

Financial Reporting

The Insurance Entities prepare and file with various insurance regulatory authorities quarterly and annual audited financial statements in accordance with requirements established by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) and adopted by administrative rules in Florida as the Insurance Entities’ domiciliary state. The Insurance Entities’ financial statements are prepared in accordance with statutory accounting principles, which differ from United States generally accepted accounting principles.

Examinations

As part of their regulatory oversight process, state insurance departments conduct periodic financial examinations of the books, records, accounts and operations of insurance companies that are domiciled in their states. In general, insurance regulatory authorities defer to the insurance regulatory authority in the state in which an insurer is domiciled; however, insurance regulatory authorities in any state in which we operate may conduct examinations at their discretion. Under Florida law, the periodic financial examinations generally occur every five years, although the FLOIR or other states may conduct limited or full scope reviews more frequently. The financial examination reports are typically available to the public at the conclusion of the examination process. In addition, state insurance regulatory authorities may make inquiries, conduct investigations and administer market conduct examinations with respect to insurers’ compliance with applicable insurance laws and regulations. These inquiries or examinations may address, among other things, the form and content of disclosures to consumers, advertising, sales practices, claims practices and complaint handling. The reports arising from insurance authorities’ examination processes typically are available to the public at the conclusion of the examinations.

NAIC

The NAIC is an organization whose mandate is to benefit state insurance regulatory authorities and consumers by promulgating model insurance laws and regulations for adoption by the states. The NAIC also provides standardized insurance industry accounting and reporting guidance through its Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual (the “Manual”). However, model insurance laws and regulations are only effective when adopted by the states, and statutory accounting and reporting principles continue to be established by individual state laws, regulations and permitted practices. Changes to the Manual or modifications by the various state insurance departments may impact the statutory capital and surplus of the Insurance Entities. We cannot predict what additional compliance costs these pending model laws or regulations may impose if adopted by Florida or other states in the future.

Insurance Holding Company Laws

UVE, as the ultimate parent company of the Insurance Entities, is subject to the insurance holding company laws of the State of Florida. These laws, among other things, (i) require us to file periodic information with the FLOIR, including information concerning our capital structure, ownership, financial condition and general business operations, (ii) regulate certain transactions between us and our affiliates, including the amount of dividends and other distributions, the terms of surplus notes and amounts that our affiliates can charge the Insurance Entities for services such as policy administration and claims administration, and (iii) restrict the ability of any one person to acquire certain levels of our voting securities without prior regulatory approval.

The Florida Insurance Code prohibits any person from acquiring control of the Insurance Entities or their holding companies unless that person has filed a notification with specified information with the FLOIR and has obtained the FLOIR’s prior approval. Under the Florida Insurance Code, acquiring 10% or more of the voting securities of an insurance company or its parent company is presumptively considered an acquisition of control of the insurance company, although such presumption may be rebutted. Some U.S. state insurance laws require prior notification to state insurance regulators of an acquisition of control of a non-domiciliary insurance company doing business in that state. These laws may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent an acquisition of control of UVE (in particular through an unsolicited transaction), even if the shareholders of UVE might consider such transaction to be desirable. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to the Insurance Industry—We are subject to extensive regulation and potential further restrictive regulation may increase our operating costs and limit our growth.”

24

Table of Contents

Insurance holding company regulations also govern the amount any affiliate of the holding company may charge insurance affiliates for services (e.g., claims adjustment, administration, management fees and commissions). Further, insurance holding company regulations may also require prior approval of insurance regulators for amendments to or terminations of certain affiliate agreements.

Florida holding company laws also require insurers annually to submit an Own Risk and Solvency Assessment, or ORSA, summary report to the FLOIR each year beginning in 2017, summarizing the insurer’s evaluation of the adequacy of its risk management framework. In December 2017, the Company completed and filed its first ORSA with FLOIR.

Capital Requirements

State insurance authorities monitor insurance companies’ solvency and capital requirements using various statutory requirements and industry ratios. Initially, states require minimum capital levels based on the lines of business written by a company, and set requirements regarding the ongoing amount and composition of capital. State regulators also require the deposit of state deposits in each state. See “Item 8—Note 5 (Insurance Operations)” for more information about state deposits. As a company grows, additional capital measures and standards may be implemented by a regulator. Regulatory authorities use a risk-based capital (“RBC”) model published by the NAIC to monitor and regulate the solvency of licensed property and casualty insurance companies. These guidelines measure three major areas of risk facing property and casualty insurers: (i) underwriting risks, which encompass the risk of adverse loss developments and inadequate pricing, (ii) declines in asset values arising from credit risk and (iii) other business risks. Most states, including Florida, have enacted the NAIC guidelines as statutory requirements, and insurers having less surplus than required by applicable statutes and ratios are subject to varying degrees of regulatory action depending on the level of capital inadequacy. As of December 31, 2017, the Insurance Entities’ RBC ratios exceed applicable statutory requirements. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to the Insurance Industry—The amount of statutory capital and surplus that each of the Insurance Entities has and the amount of statutory capital and surplus it must hold can vary and are sensitive to a number of factors outside our control, including market conditions and the regulatory environment and rules.”

Restrictions on Dividends and Distributions

As a holding company with no significant business operations of its own, UVE relies on payments from its subsidiaries as its principal sources of cash to pay dividends, purchase UVE common shares and meet its obligations. Dividends paid by our subsidiaries other than the Insurance Entities are not subject to the statutory restrictions set forth in the Florida Insurance Code. However, insurance holding company regulations govern the amount that any affiliate within the holding company system may charge any of the Insurance Entities for services. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to the Insurance Industry—We are subject to extensive regulation and potential further restrictive regulation may increase our operating costs and limit our growth.” Dividends paid to our shareholders in 2017 were paid from the earnings of UVE and its subsidiaries. State insurance laws govern the payment of dividends by insurance companies. The maximum amount of dividends that can be paid by Florida insurance companies without prior approval of the Commissioner of the FLOIR is subject to restrictions relating to statutory surplus. The maximum dividend that may be paid by the Insurance Entities to UVE without prior approval is limited to the lesser of statutory net income from operations of the preceding calendar year or statutory unassigned surplus as of the preceding year end. During the year ended December 31, 2017, UPCIC paid $30.0 million in dividends to its immediate parent company, Universal Insurance Holding Company of Florida (“UVECF”). During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Insurance Entities did not pay dividends to UVECF.

Underwriting and Marketing Restrictions

During the past several years, various regulatory and legislative bodies in Florida and in other states have adopted or proposed new laws or regulations to address the cyclical nature of the insurance industry, catastrophic events and insurance capacity and pricing. These regulations (i) restrict certain policy non-renewals or cancellations and require advance notice on certain policy non-renewals and (ii) from a practical standpoint, limit rate increases or decrease rates permitted to be charged.

Most states, including Florida, also have insurance laws requiring that rate schedules and other information be filed with the insurance regulatory authority. The insurance regulatory authority may disapprove a rate filing if it finds that the rates are inadequate, excessive or unfairly discriminatory. Rates, which are not necessarily uniform for all insurers, vary by class of business, hazard covered and size of risk.

Most states, including Florida, require licensure or insurance regulatory authority approval prior to the marketing of new insurance products. Typically, licensure review is comprehensive and includes a review of a company’s business plan, solvency, reinsurance, character and experience of its officers and directors, rates, forms and other financial and non-financial aspects of a company. The insurance regulatory authorities may prohibit entry into a new market by not granting a license or by withholding approval for an insurer to write new lines of business.

25

Table of Contents

Privacy and Information Security Regulation

Federal and state laws and regulations require financial institutions to protect the security and confidentiality of non-public personal information and to notify customers and other individuals about their policies and practices relating to their collection and disclosure of customer information and their practices relating to protecting the security and confidentiality of that information. In late 2017, the NAIC issued a model law on cybersecurity, which is leading to adoption of the same or similar provisions in the states where we do business. In addition, some states have adopted, and others might adopt, cybersecurity regulations that differ from proposed model acts or from the laws enacted in other states. Federal and state lawmakers and regulatory bodies may be expected to consider additional or more detailed regulation regarding these subjects and the privacy and security of non-public personal information.

Statutory Insurance Organizations

Many states in which the Insurance Entities operate have statutorily-mandated insurance organizations or other insurance mechanisms in which the Insurance Entities are required to participate or to potentially pay assessments. Each state has insurance guaranty association laws providing for the payment of policyholders’ claims when insurance companies doing business in that state become insolvent. These guaranty associations typically are funded by assessments on insurance companies transacting business in the respective states. When the Insurance Entities are subject to assessments they generally must remit the assessed amounts to the guaranty associations. The Insurance Entities subsequently seek to recover the assessed amounts through recoupments from policyholders. In the event the Insurance Entities are not able to fully recoup the amounts of those assessments, such unrecovered amounts can be credited against future assessments, or the remaining receivable may be written off. While we cannot predict the amount or timing of future guaranty association assessments, we believe that any such assessments will not have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to the Insurance Industry—Regulations limiting rate changes and requiring us to participate in loss sharing or assessments may decrease our profitability.”

Several states, including Florida, have insurance mechanisms that provide insurance to consumers who are not otherwise able to obtain coverage in the private insurance market. The largest such insurance mechanism is Citizens. The degree to which these state-authorized insurance mechanisms compete with private insurers such as the Insurance Entities varies over time depending on market and public policy considerations beyond our control. In addition, these insurance mechanisms often rely on assessments of insurers to cover any operating shortfalls. Also, most property and casualty insurers operating in Florida, including the Insurance Entities, are subject to assessment if the FHCF lacks sufficient claims-paying resources to meet its reimbursement obligations to insurers. FHCF assessments are added to policyholders’ premiums and are collected and remitted by the Insurance Entities.

EMPLOYEES

As of February 9, 2018, we had 558 full-time employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Our internet address is http://www.universalinsuranceholdings.com, and our telephone number is (954) 958-1200. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K are available, free of charge, through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after their filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The SEC maintains an internet site that contains our SEC filings at https://www.sec.gov.

26

Table of Contents

ITEM 1A.RISK FACTORS

We are subject to a variety of risks, the most significant of which are described below. Our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected by any of these risks or additional risks.

Risks Relating to OUR Business

As a property and casualty insurer, we may face significant losses from catastrophes and severe weather events.

Because of the exposure of our property and casualty business to catastrophic events, our operating results and financial condition may vary significantly from one period to the next, and historical results of operations may not be indicative of future results of operations. Property damage resulting from catastrophes is the greatest risk of loss we face in the ordinary course of our business. Catastrophes can be caused by various natural and man-made disasters, including hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, tropical storms, sinkholes, windstorms, hailstorms, explosions, earthquakes and acts of terrorism. Because of our concentration in Florida, and in particular in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, we are exposed to hurricanes and windstorms, and other catastrophes affecting Florida. We may incur catastrophe losses in excess of those experienced in prior years; those estimated by catastrophe models we use; the average expected level used in pricing; and our current reinsurance coverage limits. We are also subject to claims arising from weather events such as rain, hail and high winds. The nature and level of catastrophes and the incidence and severity of weather conditions in any period cannot be predicted and could be material to our operations.

The loss estimates developed by the models we use are dependent upon assumptions or scenarios incorporated by a third-party developer and by us. However, if these assumptions or scenarios do not reflect the characteristics of future catastrophic events that affect areas covered by our policies or the resulting economic conditions, then we could have exposure for losses not covered by our reinsurance program, which could adversely affect our financial condition, profitability and results of operations. Further, although we use widely recognized and commercially available models to estimate hurricane loss exposure, other models exist that might produce higher or lower loss estimates. See “—The inherent uncertainty of models and our reliance on such models as a tool to evaluate risk may have an adverse effect on our financial results.” Despite our catastrophe management programs, we retain material exposure to catastrophic events. Our liquidity could be constrained by a catastrophe, or multiple catastrophes, which could result in extraordinary losses and have a negative impact on our net income and business. Catastrophes may also negatively affect our ability to write new or renewal business. Increases in the value and geographic concentration of insured property and the effects of inflation could increase the severity of claims from catastrophic events in the future.

Actual claims incurred may exceed current reserves established for claims and may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

We maintain loss reserves to cover our estimated ultimate liability for unpaid losses and LAE for reported and unreported claims incurred as of the end of each accounting period. The reserve for losses and LAE is reported net of receivables for subrogation. Recorded claim reserves in the property and casualty business are based on our best estimates of what the ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost, both reported and IBNR. These estimates, which generally involve actuarial projections, are based on management’s assessment of known facts and circumstances, including our experience with similar cases, actual claims paid, historical trends involving claim payment patterns, pending levels of unpaid claims and contractual terms. External factors are also considered, which include but are not limited to changes in the law, court decisions, changes to regulatory requirements and economic conditions. Many of these factors are not quantifiable.

Additionally, there may be a significant reporting lag between the occurrence of an event and the time it is reported to us. The inherent uncertainties of estimating reserves are greater for certain types of liabilities, particularly those in which the various considerations affecting the type of claim are subject to change and in which long periods of time may elapse before a definitive determination of liability is made. We continually refine reserve estimates as experience develops and subsequent claims are reported and settled. Adjustments to reserves are reflected in the results of periods in which such estimates are changed. Because setting reserves is inherently uncertain, the ultimate cost of losses may vary materially from recorded reserves, and such variance may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

Subrogation is a significant component of our total net reserves for losses and LAE. Starting in 2016, there has been a significant increase in our efforts to pursue subrogation against third parties responsible for property damage losses to our insureds. Our ability to recover these amounts is subject to significant uncertainty, including risks inherent in litigation and in the collectability of recorded amounts.

27

Table of Contents

Our success depends in part on our ability to accurately and adequately price the risks we underwrite.

Our results of operations and financial condition depend on our ability to underwrite and set premium rates accurately for a variety of risks. Rate adequacy is necessary to generate sufficient premiums to pay losses, LAE, reinsurance costs and underwriting expenses and to earn a profit. In order to price our products accurately and adequately, we must collect and properly analyze a substantial amount of data; develop, test and apply appropriate rating formulas; closely monitor and timely recognize changes in trends; and project both severity and frequency of losses with reasonable accuracy. Our ability to price our products accurately and adequately is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, some of which are outside our control, including:

In addition, we could underprice risks, which would negatively affect our profit margins and result in significant underwriting losses. We could also overprice risks, which could reduce the number of policies we write and our competitiveness. In either event, our profitability could be materially and adversely affected.

Unanticipated increases in the severity or frequency of claims may adversely affect our profitability and financial condition.

Changes in the severity or frequency of claims may affect our profitability. Changes in homeowners’ claim severity can be driven by inflation in the construction industry, in building materials and in home furnishings and by other economic and environmental factors, including increased demand for services and supplies in areas affected by catastrophes, market conditions and prevailing attitudes towards insurers and the claims process. However, changes in the level of the severity of claims are not limited to the effects of inflation and demand surge in these various sectors of the economy. Increases in claim severity can also arise from unexpected events that are inherently difficult to predict. A significant long-term increase in claim frequency could have an adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition. Further, the level of claim frequency we experience may vary from period to period and may not be sustainable over the longer term. Although we pursue various loss management initiatives in order to mitigate future increases in claim severity, there can be no assurances that these initiatives will successfully identify or reduce the effect of future increases in claim severity.

The failure of the risk mitigation strategies we utilize could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

We utilize a number of strategies to mitigate our risk exposure, such as: