Dan Frey: Yes, that’s right. And I think the only thing I’d add to that and I’d sort of confirm your premise in the question Mike is it’s really a very strong pricing environment if you go back and look at the i-commentary over the last year or two it’s one of the reasons we’ve been so pleased to see retention remain as a strong as it has because we love the profile of the book and we’re trying to, so we’re happy to be retaining it, happy to get pricing on top of it and that’s improving margins and then in any quarter it’s going to be impacted by some of the things that Alan just mentioned.
Mike Zaremski: Okay that’s helpful. My last follow-up is on maybe more on homeowners’ personal lines. Given the, what seems like continued trend of higher task losses, any changes you’re seeing in the industry or the travelers trying to implement on terms and conditions such as roof replacement, are there any trends there we should be thinking about? Thanks.
Michael Klein: Sure, Mike. It’s Michael. Absolutely. I think if you, if you dig underneath our comments around non-rate actions, there’s a variety of things that we’re executing on, and many of which we’re seeing across the industry. And examples include, first of all, eligibility, right, based on an evaluation of the exposure also eligibility on age of roof, underwriting restrictions around things like roof condition and tree overhang. Our primary approach on sort of risk sharing, if you will, is really to focus on AOP and wind-hail tornado deductibles. We’ve implemented higher wind-hail tornado deductibles in virtually every severe convective storm exposed state across the country. I think the last count were up to, I think, 21 states where we’ve increased deductibles to help to deal with the exposure.
And then, managing distribution and managing appetite to manage aggregation of exposure, within a local or a state-by-state geography. So really, those are some examples of the variety of actions we’re taking from a non-rate perspective, which is really what we’re referring to when we talk about managing growth and improving profitability and property.
Mike Zaremski: Thanks.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Michael Phillips with Oppenheimer. Your line is open.
Michael Phillips: Thanks. Good morning, everybody. Totally different turn here. Florida homeowners market, obviously, market has not been a big player. And I’m wondering if any of the reforms that have been taking place in the past couple of years have given you pause to maybe revisit that?
Michael Klein: Sure. Great question and certainly something that we spend time evaluating. What I would say is certainly reforms in Florida, some of the depopulation of citizens in Florida are certainly things that make Florida look better than it has in the past. But it is still a highly CAT exposed geography. It is still a place where we think the risk-reward is not in balance. And one of the things, frankly, in Florida that remains a significant concern is the potential assigned risk obligation in the event of a significant catastrophe. And so, and I think Alan’s referred to this in the past. We see signs of improvement in the state, but it’s going to take more than what we’ve seen. And one of the things that it causes you to think about is whether or not you can compete in Florida on an admitted basis versus an excess and surplus lines basis.
So those are all some of the considerations around Florida. The upshot for us is while we do see those signs of improvement, we haven’t seen enough change to cause us to change our perspective on wanting to, reopen for new business and property in Florida.
Alan Schnitzer: Yes, the TOR [ph] reforms that they enacted we think were an excellent start. We certainly love other states to follow suit because we think regulatory reform is important as it relates to affordability, not just insurance, but of home ownership and autos. But there are some other structural things in the state that are, just make it difficult at the moment. We’ll continue to reevaluate it.
Michael Phillips: Okay, great. Thank you guys. Thanks for the color. Second question, personal auto. Are you seeing any sign there of kind of just higher attorney [ph] involvement in personal auto that give you [Indiscernible] concern?
Alan Schnitzer: Sure, Michael. I would say that, in Q1, it’s, first of all, bodily injury is where most attorney involvement occurs. And in Q1, it’s the longest tail element of the exposure we see in personal insurance. So concluding anything based on what we saw in the quarter from a bodily injury standpoint is a challenge. But the same, sort of social inflation, litigation, abuse challenges that Greg has talked about a lot in Business Insurance, we’re not immune from in personal insurance. We have seen over a longer period of time increased attorney involvement impact bodily injury. But all that said, if we look at bodily injury results in the quarter, bodily injury loss trends were pretty consistent with what we expected.
Michael Phillips: Okay. Thank you very much.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Michael Ward with Citi. Your line is open.
Michael Ward: Thanks. Good morning. I was just curious, the growth in commercial auto accelerated pretty meaningfully. Was that mostly price or how should we think about the pricing environment in that line?
Michael Klein: Good morning, Michael. Yes, it was. I think most of the growth that happened from a net written premium change was due to RPC. One thing I would point out, and I referenced a little bit earlier, we do have our new automobile product that we’ve rolled out across all Business Insurance in our express select underwriting route model and also in our transactional middle market business, our TCAP [ph] product. So we feel, terrific about that latest segmentation and that should ultimately improve the return profiles on that business overall. But the biggest change was RPC.
Michael Ward: Great. Thank you. And maybe just back to GL, you noted the charges were relatively modest. I guess just compared to last year’s charges, are they similar, less, or any other color around that? Thanks.
Dan Frey: Hey, Michael. It’s Dan. I guess I’ll say if you just look at the comment being that, comp was approaching 100 million, the segment was zero, some of it was runoff, you could get to an implication of sort of a box around how much the GL must have been. And for whatever it’s worth, and I’m not sure how much it’s worth, that would tell you that the first quarter number was probably less than some of the magnitude that we saw in last year. But again, we’ll do a full evaluation again next quarter and the number will be more or less favorable or unfavorable depending on what the data tells us.
