Spreadsheet: Known issues for Touchstone
The full spreadsheet itemizing known issues for Verisk's Touchstone software offering spanning many releases.
Note: Touchstone 2025 is 13.0. Touchstone 2024 is 12.0.
Touchstone 2023 is 11.0.
Touchstone 2022 is 10.0.
Touchstone 2021 is 9.0.
To return home click here.
| ID | Date posted | Version(s) affected | Resolved | Summary | Detail | Feature Set | Models | Potential Loss | Workaround |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 452 | 8/13/2025 | 13.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | For the Verisk Typhoon Model for South Korea certain combinations of construction and occupancy pairs for marine cargo do not produce losses for the surge and flood perils. | Touchstonewill not provide losses in the Verisk Typhoon Model for South Korea for specific the marine cargo construction and occupancy pairs. Please reach out to your CCSG representative for details regarding the specific marine cargo construction and occupancy pairs. | Detailed loss | Verisk Typhoon Model for South Korea | Yes | |
| 451 | 8/13/2025 | 13.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | For the Verisk Typhoon Model for South Korea the loss output results for surge are read by the end-user as flood losses and vice versa. | In Touchstone for the Verisk Typhoon Model for South Koreal there is an issue where the loss output results for surge are read by the end-user as flood, and the loss output results for flood are read by the end-user as surge. | Detailed loss | Verisk Typhoon Model for South Koreal | Yes | |
| 450 | 8/13/2025 | 13.0, 12.x | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | Incorrect records can be observed in Loss by Geo/Loss by Treaty Geo tables the results databases when an Applies to Area filter exists in a CAT XOL treaty. | A discrepancy has been identified, in the distribution of treaty losses between the Loss by Geo and Loss by Treaty Geo tables, specifically in scenarios where an Applies to Area filter is defined within a Cat XOL treaty, and part of the filter criteria aligns with the loss results. In such cases, all geographic records appear in the above tables, regardless of the filter defined in the treaty. Please note, however, that the treaty losses are being calculated correctly. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 449 | 8/13/2025 | 13.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | Certain construction codes associated with Mexico earthquake are mistakenly producing losses for Mexico tropical cyclone. | Construction codes 319, 331, 335, 336, 346, 355 are mistakenly producing loss in Touchstone 13.0. This is due to the updated construction codes associated with the Mexico earthquake update. These codes are now read by the software as valid for Mexico, but the losses being output for Mexico tropical cyclone are inaccurate and should be disregarded. | Detailed loss | Yes | Re-code any exposures of construction class code 319, 331, 335, 336, 346, 355 to a valid code for Mexico tropical storm. | |
| 448 | 8/13/2025 | 13.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | LLEI analyses using the Verisk Inland Flood Model for the UK and the Republic of Ireland are outputting results for "no velocity" intensities. | The LLEI analysis for Verisk Inland Flood Model for the UK and the Republic of Ireland generates output for various permutations of intensity combinations of low/normal/moderate/high velocity, short/long duration, and with/without debris flow, each combination based on their own damage function. The module is outputting results for “no velocity” (i.e., NULL values), which do not have a damage function in the model, and instead would be included with the “low velocity” (i.e. IVelocity=1) bin . These results should be tagged as "low velocity" | Hazard LLEI | Verisk Inland Flood Model for the UK and the Republic of Ireland | No | Retag value(s) to low velocity bin (i.e., IVelocity=1) |
| 447 | 8/13/2025 | 13.0, 12.0, 11.5, 11.0, 10.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | The database field IsTemplateCustomized does not reflect whether a template was modified or not. | When a user modifies any analysis template, it does
not get reflected in theIsTemplateCustomized
field. |
Admin settings | No | ||
| 446 | 8/13/2025 | 13.0, 12.0, 11.5, 11.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | Surplus share treaties cannot have multiple risk-level attachments and limits for the same contract/layer/location. | Surplus share treaties cover one or multiple risks. For each of these, risk-level terms can be defined. Starting with Touchstone 11.0 only one set of terms can be defined per individual risk. | Detailed loss | Yes | The user can replicate the same structure by creating multiple surplus share treaties instead of a single one. | |
| 445 | 5/20/2025 | 12.2, 12.0, 11.5, 10.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | Coverage D limits are applied for CB (combined, excluding time) type limits if they are coded. | CB (combined, excluding time) type limits are designed to limit losses from coverages A, B, and C, but not from coverage D. If values are accidently entered for the coverage D limit (time limit/limit4) then these are applied on the coverage D loss. | Detailed loss | Yes | Clients can avoid this behaviour by removing any values from the coverage D limit (time limit/limit 4) for CB type limits. | |
| 444 | 5/20/2025 | 12.2, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | LOSS_ByTreatyExposureAttributeGeo result tables, and consequently treaty CLFs have more rows than expected. | In Touchstone v10 and earlier, LOSS_ByTreatyExposureAttributeGeo result tables were not reporting rows where treaty gross loss is zero. In Touchstone 11.5, 12.0 and 12.2 these rows are reported. This can significantly increase the size of the LOSS_ByTreatyExposureAttributeGeo result tables, and consequently any treaty CLF, that is exported based on this table. | Export, CLF | No | ||
| 443 | 5/20/2025 | 12.0 | Touchstone hot fix 12.2.9 | In the Verisk Wildfire Model for the United States, locations with highly vulnerable secondary risk characteristics (such as “wooden shingles” assigned to wall siding and roof covering, and no defensible space) are producing no loss at high flame lengths. | In the Verisk Wildfire Model for the United States, locations with highly vulnerable secondary risk characteristics (such as “wooden shingles” assigned to wall siding and roof covering, and no defensible space) are producing no loss at high flame lengths. This is due to the Coverage A and/or B damage calculation being unintentionally bypassed for locations where the combination of secondary risk characteristics causes the vulnerability of the building to exceed the expected maximum damage ratio for high flame lengths. | Detailed loss | Verisk Wildfire Model for the United States | Yes | |
| 442 | 4/16/2025 | 12.0, 11.5, 11.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Ground-up losses can vary for combined peril exposures when Loss Modification Factor (LMF) rules have different factors across overlapping regions or peril combinations. | When LMF rule parameters are applied to geographic regions with overlapping administrative boundaries in the template (such as a county within a state), it can result in incorrect calculation of modified ground-up losses. | Detailed loss | Varies | Yes | The user should ensure that admin boundaries do not overlap. Instead of applying an LMF rule at the state level, it is better to list all counties within that state individually, assigning the same LMF factor for a specific peril where applicable. |
| 441 | 4/16/2025 | 12.2.3 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | The SublimitArea tag field is not correctly retained in the location CSV export file resulting in a blank entry column for this field even if the exposure may be capturing it accurately. | Exposures containing the SublimitArea tag will lose this information when exported to the location CSV file. This issue exists in v12.2.3 and is limited to the CSV export and does not impact loss calculations or results. | Export | No | Reach out to your Verisk representative for a script to address this issue. | |
| 440 | 4/16/2025 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | In the Geospatial Analysis, locations that are not tagged within a sublimit are ignored for gross loss calculation when there is a Minimum deductible. | Unparented locations that are not within any sublimit are not included in the sublimit gross value. These locations are directly considered for the layer gross calculation. When sublimit gross is selected as a minimum of Loc/sublimit/layer gross values, it will ignore those unparented locations. | Geospatial | No | To avoid this, user can code the exposure such that unparented locations are tagged to a sublimit without any terms so that those locations will not be ignored for sublimit gross. | |
| 439 | 4/16/2025 | 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | In the Geospatial Analysis, sublimit limits are not being applied when the layer has minimum/maximum deductibles. | The sublimit limits were not being applied while calculating LayerMin and/or LayerMax. | Geospatial | No | ||
| 438 | 3/20/2025 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Geospatial Analyses are expected to fail for Exposures with Reinsurance Programs lacking a CAT XOL treaty. | When launching Geospatial Analysis, a failure occurs if the exposure used is associated with a Reinsurance Program that does not include any CAT XOL (Catastrophe Excess of Loss) treaties. It's important to note that this issue only affects Geospatial Analysis; Detailed Loss Analysis is not impacted and will function as expected. Furthermore, Geospatial Analysis operates as expected when no Reinsurance Program exists for the exposure. | Geospatial | No | Reach out to your Verisk representative for a script to address this issue. | |
| 437 | 3/20/2025 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Back-allocation for loss results from Workers Comp' exposures with Min/Max/MinMax sublimits is not working as expected. | When analysing workers comp' exposures with Min/Max/MinMax sublimits, back-allocation from layer-level to location-level is not working as expected. As a consequence, location-level tables (byLocation, byLocationSummary) and granular geo tables (byExposureAttributeGeo) will be incorrect. | Detailed loss | Yes | Location-level and geo tables will be correct, if sublimits are coded with any other term than Min/Max/MinMax. All other tables are correct for Min/Max/MinMax terms. | |
| 436 | 3/20/2025 | 12.2.3, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Export results to database fails if export resolution is set to EventTotals. | Exporting Analysis result to database fails if export resolution is set to EventTotals. Export completes without any issue for Details option. | Export | No | Export result to Database using “Details” resolution. | |
| 435 | 3/20/2025 | 13.0, 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0, 11.5, 11.2, 11.0, 10.0 | If you have run a loss analysis which includes the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for Canada Event Loss Summary table displays only U.S. states in the Max Affected Areas field and not the Canada Severe Thunderstorm events. | When viewing the Event Loss Summary table information for Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for Canada for Canada events, the data for the “Max Affected Areas” is incorrectly displaying only the U.S. impact and not the Canada impact. The model is based on a U.S. and Canada combined event set and the data is correct for the U.S. component by event but lacks the Canada data. | Detailed loss | Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for Canada | No | Reference the AIREvents database for Maximum Affected Areas data for this model | |
| 434 | 3/20/2025 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Losses for U.S. hurricane analyses may be incorrect when run on exposure sets with more than 14 million U.S. locations that are coded for a hurricane peril. | Losses for U.S. hurricane analyses may be incorrect when run on exposure sets with more than 14.3 million U.S. locations that are coded for a hurricane peril. More than this number of U.S. hurricane locations can result in incorrect exposure preprocessing that impacts loss results. | Detailed loss analysis | Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States | Yes | Run multiple analyses with smaller location counts and group the results. |
| 433 | 1/24/2025 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Exposures with very large contracts can produce incorrect gross loss, when saved by layer/geo or layer/zone. | If an exposure contains contracts with more than 25,000 locations (or locations are disaggregated into more than 25,000 risks) and results are saved by layer/geo or layer/zone, the produced gross losses can be incorrect. Specifically they will vary run by run, as location batches are processed inconsistently. | Detailed loss | Yes | This can only be avoided by not using save by layer/geo or layer/zone save by options, or splitting contracts in a way that no contract has more than 25,000 locations (or 25,000 disaggregated risks). | |
| 432 | 12/13/2024 | All versions. | Due to certain centroids of the 7-digit post codes for the UK falling in water bodies (e.g. piers), it is possible for large storm surge losses to be generated for Great Britain. | Due to certain centroids of the 7-digit post codes for the UK falling in water bodies (e.g. piers), it is possible for large storm surge losses to be generated for Great Britain. | Verisk Extratropical Cyclone Model for Europe | Yes | Clients can either manually move the latitude and longitudes of the effected locations or apply custom elevations of 4m to ensure that losses are more representative of the actual surge. | ||
| 431 | 12/13/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Users may see incorrect losses when custom templates that have been upgraded from a prior release are used in v12.0. | Users may see incorrect losses when custom templates that have been upgraded from a prior release are used in v12.0. Note that fresh installs are not impacted. You can confirm whether your template is impacted by running the Touchstone 12.0 installation verification files that are provided on the v12.0 release landing page and confirming that the output matches what Verisk has provided. If the output does not match, please recreate your template in 12.0. | Detailed loss | Yes | Please recreate custom templates within the Touchstone 12.0 environment or reach out to your Verisk representative for a fix. | |
| 430 | 12/13/2024 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone Hot Fix 12.2.3 | Exports of exposure with nested sublimits may fail with a specific error message. | Exports of exposure with nested sublimits may fail with a null ParentLayerConditionSID error. This can happen for export to CSV, export to database or by using the copy/move exposure functionality. | Export | No | ||
| 429 | 11/21/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5, 11.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Gross loss produced in v12 with zero Participation Limit percent. | In some cases, we are seeing gross losses produced in v12 when there is a zero Participation Limit percent. | Detailed loss | Varies | Yes | Clients can manually adjust the % Policy Participation value through the UI after importing the exposure. Set the participation to 0% to ensure no Gross Loss is generated for layers with 0 participation limits. |
| 427 | 11/21/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0, 11.5, 11.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Coverage back-allocation is improved with NGM for event totals (e.g. byEvent table, byLayer table). This leads to a mismatch between coverage losses within byEvent / byLayer table and coverages in byLocation tables (byLocation still uses the pre-NGM logic). | Coverage back-allocation is improved with NGM for event totals (e.g. byEvent table, byLayer table). This leads to a mismatch between coverage losses within byEvent / byLayer table and coverages in byLocation tables (byLocation still uses the pre-NGM logic). The accuracy improvement of back-allocation is for layered exposures. Non-layered exposures are not affected and do not have such an accuracy issue. | Detailed loss results | Yes | If accurate by coverage splits are required, use the event total tables (byEvent, byLayer). Coverage splits within byLocation table are still using the pre-NGM method. | |
| 426 | 11/21/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0, 11.5, 11.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | When coding step functions and using trigger type 4, the calculation of the content steps can be incorrect for any content steps that are not the first content step. | The start position of the previous content step is not correctly passed to the next step. Thus any content steps that are not the first content step might be calculated incorrectly. As steps defined with amount values automatically count as content steps (as they have content values defined even if payout is defined as 0) there is a potential discrepancy between coding % triggers and value triggers. | Step functions | Yes | Clients can avoid this behaviour by coding any steps coming before the first content step with % trigger type to ensure the content step with payout is really the first content step. This is only working if there is only one content step with payout. | |
| 425 | 11/21/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | When running an analysis where reinsurance treaties are present and the Net of Pre-CAT perspective is checked, however said reinsurance is not applying to the underlying exposure, then results are not produced and the analysis is completing with exception. | When running an analysis where reinsurance treaties are present and the Net of Pre-CAT perspective is checked, however said reinsurance is not applying to the underlying exposure (e.g. treaty applying to LOB that is not present or SPL is not correctly inserted into reinsurance import files, etc.), then results are not produced and the analysis is completing with exception. | Detailed loss, Reinsurance | No | Clients can avoid this behaviour by unchecking Net of Pre-CAT perspective when it is not required, or removing any reinsurance that is not applied. | |
| 424 | 11/21/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Analyses using the Verisk Earthquake Model for Alaska and a secondary modifier can show ground up losses to be overestimated. | Analyses using the Verisk Earthquake Model for Alaska, with a secondary vulnerability modifier shows that the damage may not be passed correctly to the computation of ground up loss. As a result, the ground up loss in version 12.0 is overestimated. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 423 | 11/21/2024 | 12.2, 12.0, 11.5 | Updated standalone tool and Touchstone hot fix 12.2.2. | When running either the standalone or the integrated data conversion tool on a portfolio that includes locations with multiple policy conditions, their Total Insured Value (TIV) is getting duplicated. As a result, there are multiple rows for the same Location ID with same TIV. | When running either the standalone or the integrated data conversion tool on a portfolio that includes locations with multiple policy conditions, their Total Insured Value (TIV) is getting duplicated. As a result, there are multiple rows for the same Location ID with same TIV. | Import | Yes | ||
| 422 | 10/7/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Treaty aggregate terms are not exhausted correctly for most treaty peril codings that do not cover all perils that are run in the analysis. | The issue can occur whenever treaties are coded for a subset of the analysis perils. For example, coding the treaty for PAL or EQ_ALL for an EQ only analysis will work as expected, however coding EQ_ALL and TC for an WAP analysis will trigger this issue. This only occurs for treaty aggregate terms (layer/location aggregate terms are not affected). | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 421 | 10/2/2024 | 12.2 | Touchstone 12.2 | Touchstone 12.2 service pack database update failing to execute for clients who only license Touchstone. | The error will indicate a script failed to execute. | Modify perils | No | Contact Verisk technical support for assistance should you experience an issue. | |
| 420 | 10/2/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | For clients using the modify perils functionality, the OccParticipationPercent is not getting updated which can cause a downstream loss impact. | When users make change to their exposure perils using the "Modify Perils" feature, some information is not being fully updated. This is happening because the new data column OccParticipationPercent was added but not included in the update process. As a result, information in these columns is not being copied over when the feature is used. | Modify perils | Yes | Clients can use scripts to update the data in the back-end tables. | |
| 419 | 10/2/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Analyses may fail when run with only Gross and Net loss perspectives selected. | An error is occurring when users select both the Gross and Net loss perspectives because the system is not creating the correct tables. This shows up as an analysis failure with a database error in the logs. | Detailed Loss | Yes | As a workaround you can select the Retained loss perspective in addition to the Gross and Net perspectives. | |
| 418 | 10/2/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.2, 12.0, 11.5, 11.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | A discrepancy in the calculation of treay losses can be seen when running CAT XOL analyses resulting in a numbers difference depending on the save by options selected. | A discrepancy has been observed in the calculation of treaty losses within the CATXOL engine, resulting in different loss numbers between the "SaveByLayer" and "SaveByUDF" output options. The difference in treaty loss calculations arises from how treaties are processed based on the output option used: * SaveByLayer: All treaties are loaded into the engine without checking the Line of Business (LOB) of the exposure or the treaties. * SaveByUDF: Only treaties that match the LOB criteria are loaded after performing a verification process. As a result, the varying number of treaties processed impacts the calculated reinsurance loss numbers, affecting the overall PostcatNet Loss numbers. | Detailed Loss | Yes | Given that LOB filter is part of the treaty - the save by UDF is the correct one. So a user should save by UDF to get Post CAT net loss numbers for LOBs. | |
| 417 | 10/2/2024 | 12.2, 12.0 | Touchstone(Re) 12.2.1 Hot Fix | Upgrading a v10 Exposure or Result databases in Touchstone 12.2.0 will give a database upgrade error and a message in the log that the job aborted. | When this occurs the database is getting updated only to v11. Resubmitting the upgrade for these databases will successfully bring the database to v12. | Upgrade | No | Resubmit upgrade | |
| 416 | 7/30/2024 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 12.2.0 Service Pack | When an exposure has contracts with varying tiers of sublimits and Min/Max/MinMax deductibles on some of the sublimits, the exposure will produce incorrect gross loss. | When an exposure has contracts with varying tiers of sublimits and Min/Max/MinMax deductibles on some of the sublimits, the exposure will produce incorrect gross loss. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 415 | 7/10/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5, 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | In some cases nested sublimits can produce incorrect loss with column-wise coding. | This happens whenever location terms are coded column-wise and area tags are used to link these locations into overlapping sublimits of the same peril (e.g. multiple EQ shake sublimits with the same area tag within one layer). | Detiled loss | Yes | Use row-wise coding instead. | |
| 414 | 7/10/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | The data footprints of the existing six ERRO events have not been updated in v12.0. | The footprints of the following 6 ERRO events are not reflecting the latest updated of the Canada EQ Model: RDS British Columbia 100YR RP RDS British Columbia 250YR RP RDS British Columbia 500YR RP RDS Quebec 100YR RP RDS Quebec 250YR RP RDS Quebec 500YR RP | Geospatial | No | ||
| 413 | 7/1/2024 | 12.0, 11.5, 11.0 | Touchstone 12.2.0 Service Pack | After exporting exposure to a database, the OccParticipation% for all contracts changes to 0 resulting in unexpected loss results. | After exporting exposure to a database, the OccParticipation% for all contracts changes to 0 resulting in unexpected loss results. Attaching the exposure database directly through Data Source Manager and creating a new exposure view does not have this issue. Note that this applies to the modify peril functionality as well. | Export | Yes | ||
| 412 | 7/1/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | When a user selects to use the CLF Compatibility function within the loss analysis configuration screen for standalone CAT XOL analyses, invalid results are produced in Touchstone Re. | When a user selects to use the CLF Compatibility function within the loss analysis configuration screen for standalone CAT XOL analyses, invalid results are produced in Touchstone Re. | CLA/CLF | No | Export CLFs after the CAT XOL analysis has been completed | |
| 411 | 7/1/2024 | 12.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | When exporting a CLA for the Verisk Inland Flood Model for the UK and the Republic of Ireland, it's accepting invalid LOBs causing incorrect losses to be generated in Touchstone Re. | When exporting a CLA for the Verisk Inland Flood Model for the UK and the Republic of Ireland, it is accepting invalid LOBs causing incorrect losses to be generated in Touchstone Re. | CLA/CLF | Verisk Inland Flood Model for the UK and the Republic of Ireland | Yes | |
| 410 | 6/14/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Exposure Summary does not populate all perils when multiple perils are present at the location level. | When there are multiple perils at location level and layer level, generating the Exposure summary only takes one of the location terms and thus not populating all the Loc Term perils in the backend tables. | Exposure summary | Yes | ||
| 409 | 6/14/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | When CATXOL analyses are run, there are certain scenarios based on exposure, reinsurance coding and save by options, where there is loss difference observed between the various backend tables due to incorrect calculations at various levels. This issue does not exist with Ground Up, Gross, or PreCATNet Loss perspectives. | The loss difference scenarios are: (1) Difference observed between ByEvent and ByLayer result table when run with Layer, (2) NULL in 'LOSS_ByContractGeoLayer' results table when run with Layer + Geo, (3) Differences between Loss_ByContractZone and Loss_ByEvent result tables, and (4) Perspective values are not matching between ByEvent, ByContractSummary, or ByLocationSummary result tables. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 408 | 6/14/2024 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 12.2.0 Service Pack | Layer max losses are incorrect when Sublimit's PerilSetCode is different than Layer's PerilSetCode | Max losses are incorrectly leaking through the limits in sublimit to layer retentions. The issue occurs when a Contract has a Layer and Sublimit, and when the PerilSetCode at these two levels is different (e.g. PEA on layer level and PES on sublimit level). | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 407 | 6/14/2024 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 12.2.0 Service Pack | ByLocationSummary and ByContractSummary table may contain extra rows when saving by peril. | When running multiple models from the same peril group (e.g. EQ, TC, ST,..) losses of the main peril (e.g. Earthquake Shake) will be reported additionally to the combined peril (e.g. Earthquake Shake plus sub perils) even though the sub-peril is not enabled in the location summary. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 406 | 6/14/2024 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 12.2.0 Service Pack | By ContractLayerGeo table is incorrect when saving by claims. | By ContractLayerGeo table is incorrect when saving by claims, and there are column-wise location terms. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 405 | 6/14/2024 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 12.2.0 Service Pack | ByTreatyExposureAttribute table for Location UDF is incorrect for layer treaties. | When exposures with treaties on layers are saved by location UDF and Treaty LOB filter is applied, ByTreatyExposureAttribute table is incorrect. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 404 | 6/14/2024 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 12.2.0 Service Pack | ByLayer is incorrect without vs with Pre-LayerGross for Treaties on Layer & Contract, with LOB filter. | When exposures with treaties on layers and contracts are saved by layer and LOB filter is applied, Layer Ground-up is different between saving results without and with Pre-LayerGross. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 403 | 6/14/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | In Loss modification factor template, multiple factors are getting applied for Admin Boundary with Coverage and LOB. | In LMF template, if the location contains sub-area and area where the rules defined for sub-area is present for Coverage A, and the rules for the area are also present in the table. In such case, factors are getting applied multiple times from sub-area and area for the same location. This issue occurs with combination of Admin boundary with coverage and LOB. | Loss modification | Yes | ||
| 402 | 6/14/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | When results are saved with option EP curve by peril, the combined peril EP curve in summary results table is not created unless two models share a common perilset code | When results are saved with option EP curve by peril, the combined peril EP curve in summary results table is not created unless two models share a common perilset code. Instead summary results are saved by unique peril set code. This does not allow for construction of global EP curve by peril (hazard). | No | If users run loss selecting single subperil, and save by peril and save by subperil option, loss result will display the EP summary with subperil and whole subperil group. To view the loss by subperil output similar to what is presented in Touchstone 10.0, users can refer to the row that displays just the selected subperil (of the loss). | ||
| 401 | 6/14/2024 | 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone Hot Fix 12.2.3 | In Geospatial analysis, the LocLimitType C with a blank value is not applying correctly. | In cases where the exposure contains limit type C with a blank value, the conversion logic assigns a specific limit type, that removes the effect of the deductible for those locations. As a result, Ground up = Gross. The issue is made more likely because our default import maps unknown limits to type C. | No | User can change the blank LocLimitType to type ‘N’ (No Limit). | ||
| 400 | 6/14/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | In geospatial analyses, min/max deductibles are not applied for nested sublimits when deductible is applied to a parent sublimit. | Min/max deductibles are not applied for nested sublimits when deductible are at parent level. The issue is related to the logic of calculating the Gross when Min/Max deductible is applied to the parent sublimit. | Geospatial | No | ||
| 399 | 5/7/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.0 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | When imported perils are coded for PWX and PWH in one location term, they will be transposed upon export to include the additional peril PWA. | When imported perils are coded for PWX and PWH in one location term, they will be transposed upon export to include the additional peril PWA. This only happens when PWX and PWH are combined in a single Locationterm. If the peril codes for PWX and PWH are imported into different location terms, no additional peril will be added on export. | Import | No | User can split the peril for Locterm at location level and at contract level to avoid additional peril during export. | |
| 398 | 5/7/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.0 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | Touchstone geocoding does not support LocationPrecision code=19 if the Premium geocoder is used. | Precisely recently added LocationPrecision code 19. If your exposure is coded with code 19, Touchstone does not have support and the location will be geocoded with the AIR Geocoder instead of the Premium Geocoder. This can result in a decrease in geocoding accuracy. Please note that not all countries will provide value '19' and hence currently, the Location Precision value '19' can only be provided by the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, UK(GBR). | Geocoding | Yes | ||
| 397 | 5/7/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | When running an analysis and saving by peril, losses in the Summary EP table will be grouped into peril plus sub-perils (e.g. 'EQ,FF,LS,SL,TS') for models that support sub-perils and by main peril only (e.g. 'EQ') for models that do not support sub-perils. | When running a detailed loss analysis the financial engine constructs the LOSS_AnnualEPSummary_ByPerilModel table grouping by PerilSetCode. For single peril models this results in a main PerilSetCode (e.g. 4 (EQ)), whereas multi-peril models have a combined PerilSetCode (e.g. 139404 (EQ,FF,LS,SL,TS)). | Import | No | Losses can be grouped manually from the UI, SQL backend or CSV exports. | |
| 396 | 5/7/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | For specific exposure scenarios NetOfPreCat losses in the ByEvent table can be incorrect. | If the following two conditions are met: (1) the exposure has contracts with layers and contracts without layers, and (2) an attached surplus share reinsurance program has a treaty with the same name as a facultative entry with target type 'LOC'. Then the byEvent table will be missing NT losses for contracts without layers. NT losses can also be incorrect, if layer peril code and location peril codes do not intersect, and a reinsurance program is attached at Layer or at Contract. This is only present for single peril models. | Detailed loss | Yes | For the first case, rename the FAC entries. No workaround for the second case. | |
| 395 | 5/7/2024 | 12.2.3, 12.0, 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2025 (13.0) | Back-allocation of ByTreaty losses into more granular save-by tables (ByTreatyGeo, ByTreatyExposureAttribute, ByTreatyExposureAttributeGeo) can be incorrect. | Mostly observed for complex scenarios with location UDFs and treaty and multiple layers/contracts. Occurs when there are many location UDFs and treaties that take different ratios of loss for each location UDF (such as SS), especially when each treaty only affects a small fraction of the UDFs. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 394 | 4/15/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | When multiple contracts with CSL type limits (CSLAI, CSL100) are present in an exposure, losses from these contracts might be overstated. | If a contract has a CSL type limit and the exhaustion sequence for this limit is defined for multiple coverages, but not all of these coverages produce loss, the engine will consider losses from a previous CSL type limit for this coverage. | Detailed loss | Verisk U.S. Hurricane Model for Offshore Assets | Yes | When running each contract with CSL type limit separately losses will be correct. |
| 393 | 4/15/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | Import may fail for certain exposure coding combinations where a user codes the exposure with Limit type as 'Limit by coverage (Code- C)' and further populates Limit A, Limit B, Limit C and Limit D but keeps Limit 1 and Limit 2 as blank. | As a part of import validation, the import fails while coding an exposure if a user inputs Limit type as 'Limit by coverage (Code- C)' and further populates Limit A, Limit B, Limit C and Limit D but keeps Limit 1 and Limit 2 as blank. The issue occurs as Total limit (Limit 1) is kept mandatory to input the values. Ideally it should be kept optional and blank while coding Limit type as 'C- Limit by coverage'. | Import | Varies | No | |
| 392 | 4/15/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | Loss Modification factors do not apply on expected lines when the rules include a single peril or combination of more than one peril in the template with multi-peril coded exposure. | When a Loss Modification template contains exposure-based rules and/or event based rules that contains single peril or more than one peril, the factors do not apply appropriately for the latter peril (in case of more than one peril rule). This issue is observed with multi-peril coded exposure and with Regional (E.g.,10K JP) as well as World event sets.(10K WAP). | Detailed loss | Yes | User can define the exposure rules for each peril separately in Loss Modification Template in the following examples. | |
| 391 | 4/15/2024 | 11.5 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | For detailed loss analysis with multiple treaties, certain tables may have missing losses and cause CLF/CLA generation to fail. | For detailed loss analysis with multiple treaties, certain tables may have missing losses and cause CLF/CLA generation to fail. This occurs when ByTreaty in combined with more granular saveBys including byGeo, byGeoLob, byLocationUDF and byLocationUDFGeo. Loss in these granular SaveBy results tables is less than the expected sums in treatyByEvent. In such cases CLF/CLA will either fail or reflect the inaccurate losses. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 390 | 4/15/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | GetLossAnalysisSummaryResults in the API is throwing an exception when the peril filter is set to anything other than AllLicensedPerils. | To run Analysis Summary results in the API set the PerilFilter parameter to AllLicensedPerils to avoid a fatal error. | API | The workaround is to set PerilFilter to AllLicensedPerils. | ||
| 389 | 3/7/2024 | 11.5 | The installation verification exposure files contain locations that will not produce loss on user environments for the Verisk Earthquake Model for the Middle East and therefore losses will not match those provided with the installation verification results file for this model. | The installation verification exposure files contain locations that will not produce loss on user environments for the Verisk Earthquake Model for the Middle East and therefore losses will not match those provided with the installation verification results file for this model. Losses produced in user environments will be lower than those in the installation verification results file. The issue does not have any effect on other model losses. | Detailed loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for the Middle East | Yes | ||
| 388 | 2/29/2024 | 11.5 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | For a very specific policy structure, where facultative is attached on layer and treaty is attached on contract, the analysis may fail with an access violation error. | For a very specific policy structure, where facultative is attached on layer and treaty is attached on contract, the analysis may fail with an access violation error. | Detailed loss | No | ||
| 387 | 2/29/2024 | 11.5 | Under very specific exposure conditions of non-layered locations, with very high replacement value, and disaggregation applied with analysis run with the U.S. Severe Thunderstorm model for events where one of the perils has an extremely low damage ratio, the analysis may fail for specific events. | Under very specific exposure conditions of non-layered locations, with very high replacement value, and disaggregation applied with analysis run with the U.S. Severe Thunderstorm model for events where one of the perils has an extremely low damage ratio, the analysis may fail for specific events. | Detailed loss | No | |||
| 386 | 2/29/2024 | 11.5 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | When a mini-policy (MP) deductible is present on a location and the contract has layers and sub-limits and the analysis is run with specific save results [by location] and [save by coverage] then total Gross losses are not accurately back-allocated to coverage. Total Gross by location is correct. | When a mini-policy (MP) deductible is present on a location and the contract has layers and sub-limits and the analysis is run with specific save results [by location] and [save by coverage] then total Gross losses are back-allocated to coverages [A, C & D], instead of only to coverages [A and C]. This makes the back-allocated layer Gross loss to location and coverage incorrect. However the back-allocated total GR by location is correct. | Detailed loss | Varies | No | |
| 385 | 2/29/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 10.0 | Touchstone 2024 | When an RE treaty or a facultative contract is attached on layer and the Treaty peril code is a sub-set of the layer peril code, then the layer Gross loss for the peril which is not covered by the treaty is not included in final contract Gross and Net. | This issue occurs when an RE treaty or a facultative is attached on a layer and the peril set code is used to define coverage for a sub set of perils of a multi-peril layer with mutiple peril codes. The layer Gross loss by peril which is not covered by the treaty or facultative peril code is not included in the final layer and contract Gross and NET results. | Detailed loss | Varies | No | As a workaround a single layer coded for multiple perils should be split into multiple layers each coded with a single peril to match [1:1] with the peril set codes of the treaty or facultative contract. |
| 384 | 2/29/2024 | 11.5 | Touchstone 2024 | Min/Max NGM terms do not apply for Geospatial analysis with Workers' Compensation exposure. | When running Geospatial analysis with Worker's Compensation exposure the NGM terms for layer and sublimit are not applied correctly. | Geospatial | Varies | No | |
| 383 | 2/29/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 | Long treaty names cause Export Treaty to CLA failures. | During the Treaty CLA export, the export process creates a table with Treaty name + ReinsuranceSID + ActivitySID + AnalysisSID allowing for only 50 characters for table name. If the treaty name is too long, it will make the name more than allowed characters and cause the export to fail. | CLF export | No | Shortening the treaty name will resolve the issue. | |
| 382 | 2/29/2024 | 11.5, 11.2, 10.0 | Touchstone 2024 | Total Replacement Value (TRV) is calculated incorrectly if the exposure has multiple currencies or the project currency is not the same as the display base currency. | Exchange rates apply to the TRV value if the project currency is different from the base currency in the selected exchange rate table. | Exposure management | No | Create a new exchange rate table for project currency with exchange rate = 1.00 and use the exchange rate table in Touchstone to show the correct replacement value. | |
| 381 | 1/17/2024 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | In some situations treaties are taking losses from all LOBs / Areas instead of from filtered LOB/ Areas. | If a user runs the detailed loss analysis with reinsurance program having quota share treaty and/or per risk treaty (with TargetType of 'Location or Layer') and further filters the term with 'Applies to LOB' or 'Applies to Area' and selects single LOB/ Area then treaties are taking losses from all LOBs/Areas instead of single LOB/Area. 'Applies to LOB'/'Applies to Area' treaty fields are being ignored due to which treaties are taking losses from all LOBs/Areas. | Detailed Loss | Yes | ||
| 380 | 1/17/2024 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | For any onshore portfolio, if a user runs the detailed loss analysis with combined singles limit type and the exposure has other terms like 'Attachment point' then the limit type is not getting applied resulting in an incorrect gross loss. | For onshore portfolio, if a user runs the detailed loss analysis with combined singles limit type (like Combined Single Limit and Assured Interest (CSLAI) or Combined Single Limit with 100% participation (CSL100) or 'C100') and the exposure has other terms like 'Attachment point' then the Weighted Average Assured Interest (WAAI) is not getting calculated and attachment point is not getting applied if present in the contract resulting in an incorrect gross loss.The issue is observed only for onshore portfolio where limit types are CSLAI, CSL100 or C100. | Detailed loss | Varies | Yes | |
| 379 | 1/17/2024 | 10.0 | Touchstone 10.0.15 | In a very specific set of circumstances, the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States will calculate loss incorrectly. | The Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States is calculating loss incorrectly when all of the following criteria are met (1) Severe Thunderstorm is run with other perils, (2) The location terms being analyzed are formatted in a columnwise manner by peril code and the peril codes for severe thunderstorm are not the first to be listed, (3) The location has no secondary risk characteristics associated with it, either known or unknown. When all of those three criteria are met, the location in question will not produce the correct loss. Differences in loss can vary depending on the location. | Detailed loss | There are two workarounds that can be leveraged for this known issue: (1) Perform a Detailed Loss Analysis with only Severe Thunderstorm perils (2) Export and re-import the exposure prior to running a Detailed Loss Analysis. Note, there may be small changes in geocoding when doing this that can effect loss. | ||
| 378 | 9/18/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 | For locations with minimum policy deductibles and location limits types coverage or site, the deductible is not being applied on ground-up loss. | For locations with minimum policy deductibles and location limits types coverage or site, the deductible is not being applied on ground-up loss. | Detailed Loss | Yes | ||
| 377 | 9/18/2023 | 11.2 | Touchstone 2024 | For analyses run with the Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan and disaggregation enabled, the disaggregate location policy terms are not applied to the disaggregated location ground-up loss for a subset of events. | For analyses run with the Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan and disaggregation enabled, the disaggregate location policy terms are not applied to the disaggregated location Ground-up loss for a subset of events. | Detailed Loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan | Yes | |
| 376 | 9/18/2023 | 13.0, 12.0, 11.5, 11.2, 11.0 | Future Verisk Synergy Studio release | Reinsurance treaties with location target types are not getting applied to the locations in non-layered contracts. | In mixed exposure where there are both non-layered and layered contracts and a treaty is meant to be applied to contracts with target types 'attach to location' and 'attach to location and layer’, the treaty is not attaching for the locations that are not covered by a layer, and thus is not applied to these non-layered locations. | Detailed Loss | Yes | ||
| 375 | 8/30/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 | Incorrect gross losses are produced when exposures with multi-peril terms and sub-limits have disaggregation applied. | Incorrect gross losses are produced when exposures with multi-peril terms and sub-limits have disaggregation applied. The issue causes substantially higher than expected gross losses since the peril-specific sub-limit terms do not apply on said perils’ losses in these cases. The issue is restricted to those situations where sub-limits are present. These issues are not present when running the analysis one peril at a time nor do we see this with row-wise exposure coding. Disaggregation can be triggered even without user-choice in some regions, please refer the Exposure Disaggregation document on the Client Portal for more details. | Detailed Loss | Yes | ||
| 374 | 7/28/2023 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | Location facultative reinsurance does not apply when disaggregation is triggered. | Location facultative reinsurance does not apply when the exposure used in the analysis gets disaggregated. Exposures can get disaggregated based on user choice in some regions, while in other regions, Touchstone disaggregates low-level geographies automatically. In both of these scenarios, users will not see the effect of location facultative reinsurance. | Detailed Loss | Yes | We recommend that users do not enable disaggregation when applying location facultative reinsurance in regions which provide user-control over disaggregation, or that they bring in high resolution exposures that will not automatically get disaggregated by Touchstone, in regions where user control over disaggregation is not present. For details on disaggregation support and behavior by region, please refer to the "Exposure Disaggregation and Average Properties" document on the Client Portal. | |
| 373 | 7/28/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 (12.0) | Loss analyses will fail when they have been submitted using loss analysis templates that were created in versions prior to Touchstone 2021 and saved as the default template. | The issue is related to submitting loss analyses from loss templates created or imported from versions prior to Touchstone 2021. The prior saved loss analysis template versions do not include all the required 2023 options. Clients should use loss templates that were created or imported from Touchstone 2021 or more recent versions for use in the loss analysis so all the appropriate advanced job options are available to the loss analysis. | Detailed Loss | No | As a workaround, clients should use loss templates that were created in the Touchstone 2023 release only. | |
| 322 | 7/28/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 | Marine construction/occupancy pairs which do not produce loss are not included in the detailed analysis logs. | In Touchstone 2023, the analysis log does not explicitly state that certain construction/occupancy pairs are invalid. There is no impact on the loss numbers. | Detailed Loss | No | ||
| 371 | 7/28/2023 | 11.0 | Loss Modification analyses sometimes fail when the template contains a mix of exposure and event-based rules. | Loss Modification analyses sometimes fail with an access violation issue when the template contains a mix of exposure and event-based rules. The issue specifically arises when an event that affects a location qualifies for both the event-based rules and the exposure-based rules in the Loss Modification template. Please note that if these analyses do complete successfully, the results will be correct. | Detailed Loss | No | |||
| 370 | 6/15/2023 | 10.0 | Regular updates have continued with the June 2023 release | In Touchstone, the average wage and benefit information for the U.S. Workers Compensation model was not updated in the 2022 release and the values contained in the software do not match those shown in the 2022 Industry Assumptions document found on the client portal. | In Touchstone, the average wage and benefit information for the U.S. Workers Compensation model was not updated in the 2022 release and the values contained in the software do not match those shown in the 2022 Industry Assumptions document found on the client portal. The average wage and benefit information reflects the assumptions from 2021. | Detailed Loss | Verisk U.S. Workers Compensation Model | Yes | Please contact your Verisk representative for a table containing the 2022 wage and benefit information and instructions as to how to use it in Touchstone. |
| 369 | 6/15/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | Demand surge will not be applied in the Verisk Typhoon Model for Southeast Asia when the analyzed exposure contains locations within the domain of one of the other models in the Pacific Basin. | Even if enabled, demand surge will not be applied to loss associated with the Verisk Typhoon Model for Southeast Asia if the analyzed exposure also contains locations within the domain of other models in the Pacific Basin (China, Japan, South Korea). Demand surge will be applied correctly if the exposure contains only locations with the domain of the Southeast Asia model. | Detailed Loss | Verisk Typhoon Model for Southeast Asia | Yes | If the application of demand surge is needed, separate locations within the Southeast Asia domain, run an analysis and then use Loss Grouping functionality to bring losses together with other exposure. |
| 368 | 6/15/2023 | 12.0, 11.5, 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Future Touchstone release | Losses for the four Extreme Disaster Scenario events in the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Japan are overstated. | Due to an issue with the flood defense assumptions within the four Extreme Disaster Scenario (EDS) events in the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Japan, losses will be overstated for those events. | Detailed Loss | Verisk Inland Flood Model for Japan | Yes | Please contact your Verisk representative for an ALERT event set that corrects the flood defense assumptions. |
| 367 | 6/15/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2024 | Detailed loss analyses will not complete when applying a rule based event filter to the previous version of the Verisk Earthquake Model for Hawaii. This issue does not affect v3.10 of the model contained in the current event sets. | Detailed loss analyses will not complete when applying a rule based event filter to the previous version of the Verisk Earthquake Model for Hawaii. This issue does not effect v3.10 of the model contained in the current event sets | Detailed Loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for Hawaii | Yes | |
| 366 | 6/15/2023 | 12.2.3, 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | LLEI Hazard analyses are failing for models which are part of umbrella models and for which Prior Model Versions (PMV) have been removed. For example: LLEI is failing with the Tropical Cyclone peril for U.S. and Caribbean locations. | LLEI Hazard analyses are failing for models which are part of umbrella models and for which Prior Model Versions (PMV) have been removed. For example: LLEI is failing with the Tropical Cyclone peril for U.S. and Caribbean locations. | Hazard | All | No | |
| 365 | 6/15/2023 | 12.2.3, 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | When users run grid ring analyses in the Geospatial module and the global bounding box is defined to include a negative latitude and a positive longitude, an error message that all exposures were ruled out appears. | When users run grid ring analyses in the Geospatial module and the global bounding box is defined to include a negative latitude and a positive longitude, an error message that all exposures were ruled out appears. | Geospatial | All | No | User can re-define the bounding box so that both longitude and latitude values have the same sign - either positive or negative. |
| 364 | 6/15/2023 | 11.0 | Touchstone 11.2 Service Pack | Detailed loss numbers are incorrect for Japan Personal Accident analyses which have been saved by location counts (claims, injury or MAOL), where disaggregation is turned on, and where the analysis has been saved by some Geography. | Detailed loss numbers are incorrect for Japan Personal Accident analyses which have been saved by location counts (claims, injury or MAOL), where disaggregation is turned on, and where the analysis has been saved by some Geography. | Detailed loss | Verisk Workers' Compensation Model for the United States, Verisk Personal Accident Model for Japan | Yes | |
| 363 | 6/15/2023 | 11.0 | Touchstone 11.2 Service Pack | Incorrect Location Summary gross losses are being generated where exposure has Location or Spot facultative reinsurance and the analysis is saved by Location Summary. | When you run loss analyses with location summary selected, the gross losses in the location summary table will not match the Location AAL derived from ByEvent table for exposures with Location Facultative reinsurance (Facultative on a Location, where the location does not belong to a layer) or locations with Spot Facultative reinsurance (Facultative on a Location, where that Location belongs to a Layer). If the exposure has either of these types of location specific facultative reinsurance, this issue can also be reproduced with most save bys where Location Summary is selected. | Detailed loss | All | Yes | |
| 362 | 6/15/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | Differences in loss output between Net values for Geography and Contract or Event total are seen for analyses where there is commercial exposure, the Net of Pre-CAT perspective is selected and the analysis options include saving by some geographic resolution. | This case applies to all commercial books saved by some geography where the Net of Pre-CAT loss perspective has been selected. For a single event, the sum of all the net policies is not equal to the sum of all of the net geographies. This is not correct and is due to differences in the accumulation methodologies. In this case, the Net losses by Event Total are correct | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 361 | 6/15/2023 | 11.0 | Touchstone 11.2 Service Pack | When running a loss analysis using the Verisk Earthquake Model for Mainland China and saving by Line of Business and Subarea, different ground up loss numbers will be generated in the event level and exposure attribute by geography tables. | When running a loss analysis using the Verisk Earthquake Model for Mainland China and saving by Line of Business and Subarea, different ground up loss numbers will be generated in the event level and exposure attribute by geography tables. The ground up losses should match in these tables but due to differences in the accumulation methodologies, they are not. | Detailed loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for Mainland China | Yes | |
| 360 | 6/15/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | Treaties are not applied in Workers' Compensation loss analyses which are saved by layer, event total, zone, and location summary. | Treaties are not applied in Workers' Compensation loss analyses which are saved by layer, event total, zone, and location summary. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 359 | 6/15/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | Under certain circumstances, gross coverage losses are changed in the ByEvent table when Extra Expense limits are used and the analysis is saved by location summary. | Under certain circumstances, gross coverage losses are changed in the ByEvent table when Extra Expense limits are used and the analysis is saved by location summary. Total loss will show the correct values. Gross losses by coverage by event will be correct without the save by location summary option. They will be correct with the save by contract summary option as the nearest approximation. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 358 | 6/15/2023 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | Incomplete geocoding may occur during Touchstone import when the minimum or maximum number of cores are set to eight. | Incomplete geocoding may occur during Touchstone import when the minimum or maximum number of cores are set to eight cores. Having this setting can cause timeouts which may result in incomplete geocoding. | Import | Yes | When configuring your import job, select any number of minimum or maximum cores other than eight. | |
| 357 | 6/15/2023 | 11.0 | Touchstone 11.2 Service Pack | In situations where a detailed loss analysis is running and a compute node becomes unavailable, for some reason, the analyses will fail. | In the current release, exposure data is written to all compute nodes so if one goes offline, the analysis can not complete and fails. | Infrastructure | No | ||
| 356 | 6/15/2023 | 11.2, 11.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | Loss analysis output may be incorrect under a specific set of circumstances where locations are coded for parent perils, there is a sub-peril sublimit, and given events do not produce loss for that subperil when the analysis is run by one or more subperils. | In this scenario, even when there may be loss generated in another peril, no gross loss is passed to the contract even for the other loss generating peril. This does not happen if the locations are coded in either a row-wise or column-wise fashion. We do not see this behavior if the analysis is run with all relevant subperils selected. | Detailed loss | Yes | ||
| 355 | 5/1/2023 | 10.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | When applying a standalone CAT XOL to loss results that were run using the 10K World AP (STD or WSST) event sets, the losses from the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States are excluded. | The submission of standalone CATXOL analysis is not correctly saving the peril set code option for the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States in WAP event sets (STD and WSST). This issue is occurring specifically with WAP event sets and not with the U.S. event sets. | Detailed loss | Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States | Yes | It is recommended to either use Detailed loss analysis with CAT XOL reinsurance for U.S. severe thunderstorm peril runs. Alternatively if the exposure is with U.S. locations try using the U.S. event set and standalone CAT XOL. |
| 354 | 5/1/2023 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | The PerilSetCode in LOSS_ByContractSummary is different from that in LOSS_ByLayer table. This could indicate that different peril sets were used for the analyses performed using these tables. Note that this applies only to analyses run with the Next Generation Models (NGM) engine. | [NGM only] The PerilSetCodes are different for a single analysis for any perils in the LOSS_ByContractSummary and LOSS_ByLayer tables. For example, in case of tropical cyclone, storm surge and Precipitation flood perils, LOSS_ByContractSummary table displays translated PerilSetCode as tropical cyclone while LOSS_ByLayer table displays translated PerilSetCode as tropical cyclone, storm surge and precipitation flood). | Detailed loss | Varies | Yes | User needs to generate two different outputs, by following theses steps: (1) Select "loss by contract" to generate the contract summary table with the AAL only. (2) Generate the loss by layer table without selecting the contract summary option. This will help user to generate two tables without getting difference in peril set codes. |
| 353 | 2/15/2023 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | When a geospatial Grid Ring analysis is run, the geocode match level code filters are not removing the “None” locations from the results when they should be removed. | When setting up Geospatial Ring Accumulation Grid Ring Analysis and specifying in the Ring content the Geocode Match level from the drop-down, the filter is not filtering out "None" results. Therefore the grid ring analysis results are inflated as it will include locations with “None” geocode match level. | Geospatial | No | Creating a copy of the exposure view and filtering on Geocode Match Level is not contained in "None". | |
| 352 | 2/15/2023 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | Custom Demand Surge option selected in the Analysis template does not reflect correctly in the Analysis Options pane. | The Analysis Configuration pane reflects an incorrect custom demand surge value on the template that has custom demand surge selected. Instead of showing the custom selection, it reverts to the standard demand surge selection. This is specifically the case when custom demand surge is set as default in the Admin Console. This issue does not impact losses since the incorrect assignment is restricted to the user interface, and not the actual analysis options used in the loss analysis. | Detailed loss | No | User needs to change the settings in both the Detailed Loss settings and the Analysis template. | |
| 351 | 2/15/2023 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | Incorrect API response option is used for custom demand surge setting. | For API users, demand surge is applying incorrectly when using an analysis template that has custom demand surge selected. This is specifically the case when the custom demand surge is designated as the default in the Loss Defaults > Demand Surge section of the Admin Console, and the analysis template used for the loss analysis has custom demand surge turned on. The response contained in GetDetailedLossAnalysisTemplates() indicates that the UseCustom flag is false, instead of true. The issue also occurs in the case where API users have selected the standard demand surge option as part of the analysis template, but have not designated it as the default in the Admin Console. | Detailed loss | Yes | For API users, the workaround is to not set the custom demand surge as the default in the Loss Defaults Demand Surge section of the Admin Console. | |
| 350 | 11/22/2022 | 12.0, 11.5, 11.2, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2024 | Building (Coverage A) losses for a location may be misstated in the Japan, Caribbean and Australia earthquake models when that location has different values in the Construction Building and Construction Other Structures fields and the Stories field is unknown. | Touchstone is incorrectly revising the unknown height formulation for Building losses when the Construction Building is not equivalent to the Construction Other Structures field and the Stories field is unknown. In certain circumstances, this will result in an inaccurate Building (Coverage A) loss for that location. Note that this is only possible when an exposure has an explicit value imported in the Construction Other Structures field that is different than the Construction Building Field. This error was introduced when the models were most recently updated, which was the 2020 (v8.0) release for the Caribbean and Australia Earthquake models and the 2021 (v9.0) release for the Japan Earthquake model. | Detailed loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for Australia, Verisk Earthquake Model for Caribbean, Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan | Yes | For locations where Construction Building is different than Construction Other Structures, import as two separate locations. |
| 349 | 10/20/22 | 10.0 | Hot fix 10.0.5 | Analyses run with World AP event sets will fail if precipitation flood is selected, there is U.S. exposure in the exposure view being analyzed, and you do not have U..S Inland Flood or U.S. Hurricane Precipitation Flood licensed. | World AP analyses are failing when Precipitation Flood is selected in the analysis settings. This issue occurs when the installation has neither a license for U.S. Inland Flood nor for U.S. Hurricane Precipitation Flood, but is licensed for U.S. Hurricane Wind and Surge. When U.S. exposure is part of the exposure view, the analysis will attempt to access model files that are not installed and when it is unable to extract the information, the analysis will fail. | Detailed loss | U.S. Hurricane, U.S. Inland Flood | No | Filter out U.S. exposure from the exposure view and run separately using a U.S. AP Event Set. |
| 348 | 9/8/22 | 10.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | Venezuela losses with v10 default currency rate table are overstated when viewed in non-Venezuela currency. | A change by Venezuela in October 2021 to redenominate the Venezuelan Bolivar Soberano (VES) by removing 6 zeros from the currency is overstating the strength of the Bolivar against other currencies in Touchstone loss results. The VES currency is valued at 100,000 times the Venezuelan Bolivar Fuerte (VEF) and the v10 default rates have 5 decimal place difference between the two rates. We recommend increasing that to an 11 decimal place difference to better reflect loss values in USD and other currencies. Industry and company loss files (ILF + CLF) are denominated in VEF. | Detailed loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for South America | Yes | Set currency rate for the VEF that moves the decimal point 11 places to the left of the VES in a custom currency rate table. So if the VES rate is 0.217460, the VEF should be set to 0.00000000000217460. Also, losses are accurate when viewed in VEF or VES currency with default table. |
| 347 | 8/26/22 | 10.0 | Hot fix 10.0.3 | When running the 10K World AP (2022) - Standard - US Severe Thunderstorm CAT only or the 10k World AP (2022) - Warm SST Conditioned Hurricane - US Severe Thunderstorm CAT only event sets the losses for the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States are being calculated using the Standard (All-Event) catalog and will be overstated. | Touchstone is incorrectly using the Standard (All-Event) catalog for the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States when an analysis is run with either the 10K World AP (2022) - Standard - US Severe Thunderstorm CAT only or the 10k World AP (2022) - Warm SST Conditioned Hurricane - US Severe Thunderstorm CAT only event sets. The Standard catalog includes more events, so losses will be overstated. The number of events displayed in Event Set Details for the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States associated with these two event sets are also misstated. This only happens on fresh Touchstone 10.0 installations and will not impact upgraded Touchstone environments. | Detailed loss | Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States | Yes | For results associated with the CAT only catalog of the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States , please use the U.S. AP catalogs associated with CAT only. |
| 346 | 8/26/2022 | 9.1, 9.0 | Will not be revised | In Touchstone, the 10K World AP (xxxx) - Standard - US Severe Thunderstorm CAT only and the 10k World AP (xxxx) - Warm SST Conditioned Hurricane - US Severe Thunderstorm CAT only event sets display an incorrect number of events for the U.S. and Canada Severe Thunderstorm Model in Event Set Details. This has no effect on losses. | The Event Set Details display an incorrect number of events for the U.S. and Canada Severe Thunderstorm model in the 10K World AP (xxxx) - Standard - US Severe Thunderstorm CAT only and the 10k World AP (xxxx) - Warm SST Conditioned Hurricane - US Severe Thunderstorm CAT only event sets. The number of events displayed corresponds to the Standard (All-Event) catalog. Analyses run with these event sets do access the proper CAT only catalogs so loss results are not affected. | Detailed loss | Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States, Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for Canada | No | The proper number of events are displayed for the US AP catalogs associated with CAT only. |
| 345 | 8/8/2022 | 10.0 | Hot fix 10.0.3 | In scenarios where the user has run a loss analysis containing the U.S. Severe Thunderstorm model and saved by peril, the results in the user interface show the model info being presented numerically. Losses with subperils in the database are saved with the combined peril set code 11534336 (HL+SW+TD) which is what is being displayed in the results user interface. | This issue is related to how EP BY Peril Results are displayed on the user interface. The issue occurred after introducing the sub-perils of severe thunderstorm. Losses with subperils in the database are saved with the combined peril set code 11534336 (HL+SW+TD). | Detailed loss | Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States | No | |
| 344 | 8/2/2022 | 10.0 | Hot fix 10.0.3 | Resubmitting a World All Peril loss analysis does not generate U.S. Severe Thunderstorm losses. | An issue with the Resubmit functionality was introduced in 10.0 where the resubmitted job does not include Severe Thunderstorm peril codes. The issue is specific to a World All peril analysis and it occurs for resubmitting analysis after successful or failed job. | Detailed loss | Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States | Yes | Users should submit a new analysis instead of resubmitting the current analysis. |
| 343 | 7/11/2022 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | Gross losses are incorrect when layers are coded only for individual sub-perils. | When exposures contain layers that apply only to individual sub-perils within a model, the gross losses are calculated incorrectly. This is specific to cases where there are duplicate locations (each coded for a particular sub-peril of the model) or multi-term exposures (where each location record has terms by sub-peril). For example, if an exposure is being analyzed for two duplicate locations, coded for wind and surge respectively, and if there are two layers, again coded for wind and surge respectively, each layer is accepting losses from both locations. The issue does not present itself for sub-limits that are coded for individual sub-perils. The issue does not affect losses from across models. It is applicable only when analyzing sub-peril losses for a given model. | Detailed loss | All | Yes | Instead of creating layers for each sub-peril, if users create whole contracts that are sub-peril specific and then analyze the appropriate locations, the losses will be on expected lines. |
| 342 | 6/27/2022 | 9.0, 9.1 | Touchstone 2022 | Loss Modification factors do not apply on expected lines when using rules that include locationID or locationUDF. | In the 2021 release of Touchstone (version 9) we enhanced the Loss Modification feature to process a very large number of event-based rules. However, during this design change, we did not account for a couple of specific scenarios, which now result in the incorrect application of loss modification factors. If the Loss Modification template contains rules that have locationID, and the analysis is run with a multi-core setup (as is commonly the case) then Touchstone runs into issues with shared memory and is unable to fetch the correct factor as applicable to a location. Additionally, if the Loss Modification template contains rules that have locationUDF or locationID, and if disaggregation is turned on for the analysis, then Touchstone fails to recognize the appropriate factor needed for each of the secondary locations produced from the primary location. However, this comes into play only when there are event-based rules in the same template, or in the same rule itself. | Detailed loss | All | Yes | If exposure is not disaggregated, the issue with locationID can be resolved by running the analysis using a single core. The issue with locationUDF or locationID and disaggregation does not truly have a workaround, other than rerunning the analysis in such a way that disaggregation is not triggered. This can be achieved by either turning disaggregation off or by ensuring that the exposure view target does not have any aggregate locations that would automatically disaggregate. |
| 341 | 6/27/2022 | 9.0, 9.1 | Touchstone 2022 | Loss Modification factors do not apply on expected lines when using a template that has rules defined by event parameters and location characteristics separately. | When a Loss Modification template contains separate rules that are either event- based or exposure-based, the factors specified in the exposure-based rule do not apply as expected. This affects only those rules where the event-based and the exposure-based rules are for the same peril. | Detailed loss | All | Yes | If the rules are for the perils of earthquake, tropical cyclone and terrorism, it is possible to get exposure-based rules to apply correctly by coding a dummy event parameter for the rules that don’t have one. This workaround will not apply if the rules are for other perils. |
| 340 | 6/15/22 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | The Verisk Inland Flood Model for Great Britain can return incorrect losses when that model is run at the same time with the Verisk Extratropical Cyclone Model for Europe for specific occupancy codes and secondary risk characteristic combinations as noted in the detail. | Touchstone will incorrectly ignore a known Foundation Type in the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Great Britain when the exposure is coded with Industrial occupancies (codes 321 to 330), Industrial Facility occupancies (400 series), Mobile Home construction types or 200 series construction types and the analysis is run in combination with the Verisk Extratropical Cyclone Model for Europe. | Model | Verisk Inland Flood Model for Great Britain | Yes. Clients should run the UK flood model on its own in the situation where the exposure uses the foundation type secondary risk characteristic. release. | |
| 339 | 6/15/22 | 12.0, 11.5, 11.2, 11.0, 10.0 | Future Touchstone release | Min and Max CPU cores field always show minimum and maximum number of cores respectively for that environment regardless of what is saved by the user or what is in the database. | Min and Max CPU cores field always show minimum and maximum number of cores respectively for that environment regardless of what is saved by the user or what is in the database. This is the case only for user created templates and not the default ones with which Touchstone is shipped. However, when the same template is used to configure loss through Detailed Loss Analysis screen, it correctly shows Min and Max values as what was saved by the user. This is the case for both loss analyses with NGM toggle ON and OFF. | User interface | No | ||
| 3/22/2022 | 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2022 | Demand surge is miscalculated for some events in the Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States when using the "50 K U.S. AP (2020) - Warm SST Conditioned Hurricane" or the "50 K U.S. AP (2020) - WSST Conditioned Hurricane - Severe Thunderstorm CAT only" event sets. This known issue does not impact any 10 K or 100 K catalogs for this U.S. hurricane model. | An error was introduced in 9.0 where the demand surge calculation is using the incorrect industry losses for some events in the Verisk Hurricane Model for the U.S. only with the 50 K Warm Sea Surface Temperature catalog. Effects will vary depending on the exposure, but a representative book showed overall differences in AAL on the order of 1-2% and > 0.5% of events with a loss difference of more than 5%. Analyses using any other size or type of catalog are unaffected by this issue. | Detailed loss | Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States | Yes | Demand surge is calculated appropriately in the first 50 K years of the 100k WSST catalog. | |
| 336 | 1/19/2022 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | For reinsurance treaties coded for Severe Thunderstorm exported from Touchstone 8.0 as a .rpx into 9.0 and then modified in the Touchstone user interface, subperils are not accounted for during loss analysis. | Reinsurance treaties coded for Severe Thunderstorm exported from Touchstone 8.0 as a .rpx and are then imported into 9.0 will display Severe Thunderstorm and it’s subperils as unselected treaty perils; detailed loss analyses run with this treaty will still recover Severe Thunderstorm loss. However, if modifications are made, the subperil selections are lost and are not accounted for in the loss analyses. Please note that RPX files imported into Touchstone 2022 will not include the ST peril(s) in the treaties. | Detailed loss | Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States | Yes | Export reinsurance treaties as CSV and use this format for import. | |
| 335 | 11/18/2021 | 10.0, 9.0, 9.1 | Touchstone 2022 | Fire following losses for two historical events (1923 Kanto and 1995 Kobe) and government scenario events are understated in the Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan. | Due to an issue with the initial windspeeds used to generate the fire following intensities, certain events in the historical and scenario catalogs will understate fire following losses in the Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan. This occurs in historical event ID's 14 and 49 and scenario event ID's 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ,11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. | Detailed loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan | Yes | Please contact your Verisk representative for an ALERT event set that corrects the fire following intensities for these events. |
| 334 | 11/3/2021 | 10.0, 9.0, 9.1 | Touchstone 2022 | Losses for certain historical events in the Verisk Earthquake Model for the United States may be misstated. | Due to an issue in the loss code, certain historical events which should be using mean damage functions may actually take into account intra-event uncertainty. This can cause losses to be incorrectly calculated for these specific events and may also result in variability in ground up losses for these events in certain circumstances. The historical events where this can occur are Event ID's: 30, 39, 43, 54, 56, 71, 78, 92, 94, 95, 97, 100, 103, 106, 109, 118. | Detailed loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for the United States | Yes | Use the U.S. AP Historical event set with an event filter containing only those events mentioned in this known issue. |
| 333 | 10/4/2021 | 9.0 | Hot fix 9.0.5 | CLF/CLA loss output for Touchstone and Touchstone Re may be overstated for several postal and subarea geographies in Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, Peru, Macedonia and the Netherlands. | There is a discrepancy between tGeography and tblAreaINternal for some geographies. If your exposure has any of the geographies not updated in tblAreaInternal it will cause duplicate rows and subsequent overstatement of loss for those geographies. Note that only a subset of geographies are impacted in these countries. | Export | No, but CLF/CLA exported losses will be overstated | Contact your Verisk representative for a list of impacted geographies. | |
| 332 | 10/4/2021 | 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | CLA API calls with the "CAR/EAR" LOB are failing. | CAR/EAR is a valid LOB which is not being validated correctly causing the CLA failures. Note that this only occurs with the API. The Touchstone User Interface (UI) is working as expected. | API | No | Manual export of CLF with ILOB mapping to ‘CAR/EAR’ is possible via Touchstone user interface. | |
| 331 | 9/23/2021 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.0) | Some clients are seeing loss analysis failures with a specific error message. | In some cases, detailed loss analyses are failing during the post process phase with this specific error message, “Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.#LOSS_AnnualEPCompare'”. | Detailed loss | No | There is a script available that will address this issue. If you are seeing this error message in failed analyses, please reach out to your Technical Services Representative. | |
| 330 | 8/31/2021 | 9.0 | U.S. Hurricane precipitation flood losses may be incorrectly returned as zero when the exposure contains duplicate locations for row-wise coding of sub-peril terms and the analysis is run with multiple sub-perils. | In certain circumstances, the Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States will incorrectly return zero losses for precipitation flood when the analysis is run with either wind or surge sub-perils in addition to precipitation flood. In order for this to occur the following criteria must be met: - The location must be duplicated (row-wise coding) and one of the locations must not include the precipitation flood peril code. - Each of the locations must not include any secondary risk characteristics (either known or unknown). NOTE: Wind and storm surge losses are not affected by this issue. | Detailed loss | Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States | Yes | Import exposure with any secondary risk characteristic assigned as unknown. | |
| 329 | 8/31/2021 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Layer gross losses are incorrect when using the revised min-max methodology. | Touchstone 2020 (8.0) introduced the ability to run a revised implementation of the min-max deductible methodology where it correctly accounted for the sub limit terms as appropriate, before applying the layer terms. However, when there are layers applied in such a way that the layer at the top is not associated with any min-max sub limits, and the layers below it are associated with min-max sub limits, the gross losses from this top layer are underestimated. | Detailed loss | All | Yes | ||
| 328 | 8/31/2021 | 11.0 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2023 (11.5) | Custom catalogs created for the Verisk Wildfire Model for the United States cause analysis failures. | The Custom Frequency feature allows the creation of custom catalogs based on revised event frequencies. Modified loss analyses that use a custom catalog created for the U.S. Wildfire model do not run successfully due to a processing issue. The issue affects only the 50k and the 100k catalogs when running the entire portfolio for loss analysis. | Flexibility | Verisk Wildfire Model for the United States | No | |
| 327 | 8/31/2021 | 9.0 | Saving by coverage causes errors on the results user interface. | When running a loss analysis and saving the results by coverage, Touchstone throws errors on the results user interface and also reports the coverages incorrectly. For example, if the analysis produced results for coverages A (primary building) and D (business interruption), the user interface reports them as belonging to A (primary building) and B (other structures). The issue does not affect losses actually saved in the backend, and CSV exports of such losses yield correct results. | Detailed loss | All | Yes | Use the results being saved in the backend database tables in the interim. | |
| 326 | 8/3/2021 | 9.0 | Japan geocoding is timing out during import. | The Japan geocoding process was enhanced for the 2021 release. If concurrent processes are running on the server or the data is complex, (e.g. Sub2 data with other combinations or partial Sub2 code) the geocoding process incurs a high processing time and will time out. The import completes with exceptions but the Japan exposure data does not get geocoded. | Geocoding | No | |||
| 325 | 7/9/2021 | 9.0 | There is an issue running U.S. Severe Thunderstorm (ST) for those clients where U.S. severe thunderstorm is the only severe thunderstorm model licensed. | For installations which only license the Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States, the ST perils are greyed out in the user interface. If any other ST models are licensed in conjunction with the U.S. model, the application will work as expected. | License | Verisk Severe Thunderstorm Model for the United States | No | For those clients who license our public APIs, there will be no issue as the API can be used to submit a U.S. Severe Thunderstorm analysis. | |
| 324 | 7/9/2021 | 9.0 | Hot Fix 9.0.1, Service Pack 9.1 | Changes to the Touchstone user interface layout do not exist when the user logs out of the application. | Changes to the Touchstone user interface layout are remembered only for the last user who logged out of the application. There is only one common persistence file, instead of one persistence file per user. | User interface | No | ||
| 323 | 7/9/2021 | 11.2,11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | User-supplied postal data are not being retained if provided data has SubArea2 information for New Zealand data. | If New Zealand exposure data includes Subarea2 data along with postal information, Touchstone imports and processes the Subarea2 data correctly, but does not retain the postal information. As result, the exposure data cannot be aggregated if users want to aggregate the data based on user-provided postal codes. | Import | No | |||
| 322 | 7/9/2021 | 11.2,11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | CLF numbers are being generated incorrectly for Indonesia postal codes. | CLF Export | No | To avoid differences between Touchstone loss and CLA/CLF numbers while using Indonesia postal codes, use the following output options: Subarea, Subarea_Contract, Subarea_Layer, Subarea_LOB. | |||
| 321 | 6/15/2021 | 11.2,11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Event description information is not loaded properly in the Event Loss Summary table for Terrorism loss analysis results run against custom event sets. | The event description information will display as 'Processing' indefinitely for most events with the exception of the first few in the event loss summary table. | Detailed loss | Verisk Terrorism Model | No | To avoid differences between Touchstone loss and CLA/CLF numbers while using Indonesia postal codes, use the following output options: Subarea, Subarea_Contract, Subarea_Layer, Subarea_LOB. | |
| 320 | 6/15/2021 | 11.2,11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | When running the Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan the Epicenter Area field is missing a subarea entry in the Event Description for a small number of events. | The subarea where the epicenter is located is not properly loaded in some events, resulting in a blank field. In these cases the area (prefecture) is correct as well as the other information within the event description. | Detailed loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for Japan | No | ||
| 319 | 6/15/2021 | 11.2,11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Geospatial accumulation by zone does not work properly when the damage ratio for the zone is not 100% for zones created in previous Touchstone versions. | Importing a zone created in 8.0 or prior versions and updating the its damage ratio to less than 100% may cause Geospatial analysis to fail. | Geospatial | No | |||
| 316 | 2/4/2021 | 10.0 | For exposures with an unknown number of stories, losses produced by the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Central Europe exhibit a systematic over- or under-estimation depending on the modeled country. | With the 2019 update of the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Central Europe, a change was introduced to better differentiate building height-dependent vulnerability – within the low-rise category the model differentiates now between 1-, 2-, and 3-story buildings. The vulnerability functions for unknown-story height are based on weighted averages of the individual vulnerability functions for 1-,2-, and 3-stories, as well as for mid- and high-rise. Verisk reviewed the "unknown" vulnerabilities and discovered a mismatch in the definition of number of stories between the model and the datasets used to inform the model regarding the assumed building height distributions for low rise buildings. These discrepancies result in an overestimation of losses when the number of stories is not defined by the user in the countries of Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland and an underestimation of loss in Switzerland. | Detailed loss | Verisk Inland Flood Model for Central Europe | No | Verisk will provide a permanent fix in the model in Release 2021 and can provide Loss Modification Templates as an interim workaround. Contact your Verisk representative for more information. Until then clients are advised to either use the workaround or specify the number of stories in the exposure – defined as the number of furnished stories above ground. | |
| 309 | 10/2/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Southern extent of Verisk Bushfire Model for Australia ends at 43S latitude excluding portions of Tasmania. | The extreme southern portions of Tasmania have inadvertently been omitted from the model domain. The omitted areas are within ignition areas only and not fire propagation. Upon further analysis, it is to be noted that the total insured values within this area are a fraction of one percent within Australia as a whole hence modeled losses will be negligible. | Detailed loss | Verisk Bushfire Model for Australia | Yes | ||
| 306 | 8/5/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2021 | When exporting to Unicede, Insured Values are mistakenly doubled for earthquake exposure coded as PAL. | When exporting to Unicede, Insured Values are mistakenly doubled for earthquake exposure coded as PAL. | Export | No | Update exposure to use PWF+PSH+PEA+PFL+PNC+PPH+PTR instead of PAL. It will cover all of the perils for PAL but will avoid the doubling up issue. | |
| 304 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Project Export: Export is failing when the CLF base file name exceeds the range of 260 characters. | Touchstone is allowing the user to exceed the name length beyond 260 characters but the project export is failing. | Export | No | |||
| 303 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Comparative Analysis and CSV/DB exports are disabled for loss results that are attached to an 8.0 environment. | When a results database from one 8.0 environment is attached to another 8.0 environment, Comparative Analysis and CSV/DB export features get disabled for these results. The same issue also exists for results databases from 6.0 or 7.0; i.e, when results databases that contain loss results from an older version of the model (i.e., a model that has been updated in 8.0) are attached and upgraded on a 8.0 environment, Comparative Analysis and CSV/DB exports get disabled. The issue does not affect any in-place upgrades. | Upgrade | No | |||
| 302 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | In some cases when users execute Touchstone on a remote machine, the text associated with checkboxes in a drop-down list is not readable or appears trimmed. | The issue is related to Touchstone's 3rd party user interface code and exists only when the Scale and Layout’ in ‘Display Settings’ is set to greater than 100%. The issue does not appear when the percentage scale under Scale and layout is set to 100%. | All | No | Log out of the remote session, adjust the display screen settings by changing the zoom level to 100%, and then login back in. | ||
| 301 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | In the Verisk Earthquake Model for Caribbean, most Touchstone event descriptions show an incorrect value in the 'MArea' and 'EArea' fields. | The mapping used to derive the 'MArea' and ‘EArea’ fields in the Touchstone event descriptions for the Verisk Earthquake Model for Caribbean resulted in incorrect areas being populated to these fields for most events. All other fields in the event descriptions are correct. | All | Verisk Earthquake Model for Caribbean | No | The affected areas are correct in both Touchstone Re and the Verisk Events Database. Event ID’s can be cross checked with either of those two sources to provide the proper effected areas. | |
| 300 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Assigning a value of -1 to the Floor of Interest secondary modifier will produce loss when the Foundation Type is not a basement in the Verisk Inland Flood Model for the United States and the Storm Surge and Precipitation Flood sub-perils of the Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States. | An entry of -1 in Floor of interest represents a basement; losses will still be produced with that entry even if the Foundation Type is explicitly coded as a non-basement option. | Detailed loss | Verisk Inland Flood Model for the United States, Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States | Yes | Only use an entry of -1 in Floor of Interest when either the foundation type is unknown or one of the two basement options (1-Masonry Basement; 2-Concrete Basement). | |
| 299 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Certain flood secondary risk characteristics will affect losses for Builder's Risk exposure in the Verisk Inland Flood Model for the United States and the Storm Surge and Precipitation Flood sub-perils of the Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States. when they should not. | Only the flood secondary risk characteristics Custom Standard of Protection, First Floor Height, Custom Elevation and Foundation Type should apply to Builder's Risk exposures in the U. S. Inland Flood model and the flood sub-perils of the U. S. Hurricane model, however other SRC's are applying to modify losses. | Detailed loss | Verisk Inland Flood Model for the United States, Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States | Yes | Populate only applicable secondary risk modifiers when modelling losses with respect to Builder's Risk exposures. | |
| 298 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Project Completion and Project Phase fields are ignored for Builder's Risk exposure when running precipitation flood only in the Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States. | Some locations may not see this issue even if this criteria is met if the event intensity is not in a certain range. Wind and Surge modules in the Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States are not affected by this issue. | Detailed loss | Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States | Yes | Run Builder's Risk exposures with all sub-perils. | |
| 297 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Inaccurate Coverage C losses occur when modeling marine cargo exposure where the construction codes for building and other structures are not the same in the Verisk Typhoon Model for Japan. | When utilizing construction code 259, inaccurate Coverage C losses occur when modeling marine cargo exposure where the construction codes for building is 259 and the construction code for other structures is any other value besides 259. | Detailed loss | Verisk Typhoon Model for Japan | Yes | Ensure that building and other structure construction codes are the same including scenarios where both coverages are Unknown (code 100) or blank in the input file. | |
| 296 | 7/10/2020 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Under certain circumstances, loss output may be incorrect because certain Foundation Types instead of Foundation Connections are being utilized for loss calculations for Industrial Facilities (400 series) in the Verisk Earthquake Model for New Zealand. | By design, codes 4,5 or 6 (Gravity/Friction, Adhesive/Epoxy or Structurally Connected) in the Foundation Connection field are the only secondary risk characteristic that should effect losses to Industrial Facilities (400 series occupancy codes). This field was inadvertently swapped with the Foundation Type field in the software which results in codes 4, 5 and 6 (Crawl space cripple wall, Crawl space masonry and Post and pier) of the Foundation Type field effecting losses instead of those same codes in the Foundation Connection field. This issue is limited to these two secondary risk characteristics for Industrial Facilities only. | Detailed loss | Verisk Earthquake Model for New Zealand | Yes | In order to model options 4, 5 or 6 in the Foundation Connection field for Industrial Facilities (400 series codes), use Foundation Type codes 4,5 or 6 (Crawl space cripple wall, Crawl space masonry or Post and pier). | |
| 286 | 8/16/2019 | 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 2020 | Commercial coverage D losses in the UK from the Europe ETC model do not get generated when damage is very high. | In the 2019 release of Touchstone, the Europe ETC model was updated to also contain the GB Surge model as part of it. The resulting losses for the Great Britain region thus now include both the ETC component and the surge component, for applicable events. In some cases, however, coverage D losses do not get produced when the no. of Business Interruption days crosses 516. Instances of such a high BI downtime days value are extremely rare. This occurs only when running both wind and surge together, for commercial exposures in the Great Britain region. | Detailed loss | Verisk Extratropical Cyclone Model for Europe | Yes | |
| 256 | 8/1/2018 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Damage for certain construction codes for the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Southeast Europe is not increasing in an expected way for exposures that have a height of nine stories or more. | Damage for the construction codes 151-158 in conjunction with the occupancy code of 306 for the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Southeast Europe is not increasing in an expected way for exposures that have a height of nine stories or more. | Detailed loss | Verisk Inland Flood Model for Southeast Europe | Yes | ||
| 249 | 8/1/2018 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | When using contract level geospatial analysis on a filtered exposure view show the full view results rather than those of the individual contract. | When users create a filtered exposure view and then run a contract level geospatial, they will see the full exposure view results as if the filter was never applied. | Geospatial | No | Export the filtered view and reimport so that the new view reflects the filtered exposure data but does not contain the actual filters. Running contract analysis now will work. | ||
| 244 | 8/1/2018 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Offshore CLF export fails for individual treaties and some specific financial perspectives. | Offshore CLF export fails for individual treaties and some specific financial perspectives including: (1) Gross minus Net of Pre-CAT, (2) Gross minus POST-CAT Net, (3) Net of Pre-CAT minus POST-CAT Net | Export | No | |||
| 241 | 8/1/2018 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Losses generated by the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Great Britain for unsupported foundation types are not intuitive. | When analyzing exposures for the Verisk Inland Flood Model for Great Britain, losses for locations with non-supported Foundation Types (FT=3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ) are not intuitive. The losses from these unsupported foudation types should match with losses from Foundation Type = 0 (Unknown/default Foundation type) but they do not. | Detailed loss | Verisk Inland Flood Model for Great Britain | Yes | ||
| 239 | 8/1/2018 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | On importing Workers' Compensation exposure with blank shift percentages, incorrect default values are being applied. | When importing Workers' Compensation exposures with blank shift percentages (day/evening/night), they are not being populated with the correct defaults based on their occupancy code. This will have an impact on subsequent anlaytics. | Detailed loss | All Workers' Compensation Models | Yes | Manually enter the shift percentages so that losses can be calculated correctly. | |
| 233 | 4/30/2018 | 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | The definition of square footage for occupancy 303 in the Verisk Earthquake Model for the United States has changed to refer to the area of an entire building to be consistent with Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States. The previous definition in the Verisk Earthquake Model for the United States was the area of single unit only. | An inconsistent interpretation of the square footage for occupancy 303 (multi-family) between Verisk’s hurricane and earthquake models results in an imbalance in loss values between perils; in the Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States, input square footage is treated as the area for the entire building, while in the Verisk Earthquake Model for the United States, input square footage is considered as the area of a unit. This change of definition will require a loss modification for occupancy 303 in Touchstone 5.0 and Touchstone 5.1. An inconsistent interpretation of the square footage for occupancy 303 (multi-family) between Verisk’s hurricane and earthquake models results in an imbalance in loss values between perils; in the Verisk Hurricane Model for the United States, input square footage is treated as the area for the entire building, while in the Verisk Earthquake Model for the United States, input square footage is considered as the area of a unit. | Detailed loss | Yes | Verisk recommends coding Gross Area as the area of the entire building for both U.S. Hurricane and US Eartquake models. For U.S. EQ, Verisk recommends using the UDF1 field to tag 303 locations that have a gross area > 3,000 square feet. Then, use a loss modification factor of 0.95 when running analyses that applies only to the tagged 303 locations. This modification factor represents an average approximation for a wide range of building sizes. | ||
| 147 | 8/8/2016 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | For those clients running a Hazard analysis, it is important to note that if you want to run the analysis on more than one core, you must set the minimum and maximum number of cores to the same number. | When running a hazard analysis and selecting the number of cores, the minimum value of cores will always be used/chosen. If you set the min/max to be 1/32, the number of cores will be 1 core even if 32 cores are available. | Hazard analysis | No | To run the hazard analysis on more cores, set the min/max to be the same number. For example min/max = 32/32. | ||
| 140 | 6/15/2016 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Export loss to CSV will fail when the analysis has been run with the MAOL option selected and the export also has the MAOL option selected. | Export loss to CSV will fail when the analysis has been run with the MAOL option selected and the export also has the MAOL option selected. | Export | No | |||
| 138 | 6/15/2016 | 11.2, 11.0, 10.0, 9.1, 9.0 | Puerto Rico UNICEDE Values Incorrect Due to Interpretation of Municipality Codes as CRESTA codes | When importing Puerto Rico exposure, mapping a three digit municipality code in the Area column, Touchstone seems to actually reference the corresponding CRESTA codes instead. The list of municipality names and CRESTA names is identical, but the codes for each differ, so a resulting UNICEDE export will incorrectly aggregate exposures into the incorrect CRESTA zone. If Puerto Rico exposure is imported using the actual municipality name in the Area column, Touchstone will correctly assign the CRESTA zone in the UNICEDE export. | Import | Yes | The workaround for this issue to always map the municipality name rather than the municipality code. | ||
| 121 | 2/23/2016 | 9.1, 9.0 | Touchstone 5.0 resolved all countries, except Hong Kong. This issue remains open for Hong Kong. | For certain countries (including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland) when CRESTA data is provided along with geocodes, the location is geocoded as CRESTA, and the geocodes are ignored. | Typically when higher resolution data is provided in the exposures, it is given precedence over the low resolution CRESTA in the data. However, for some countries (including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland) when CRESTA data is provided along with geocodes, the location is geocoded as CRESTA, and the geocodes are ignored. This will trigger disaggregation for these countries. | Geocoding | Yes | Remove CRESTA data or do not map CRESTA on import in Verisk Import Express if you have higher resolution data and geocodes for the countries listed here. |