|
||||||||||||
|
|
Sign up to receive FORC Journals (and Alerts) via email.
FEDERAL SURPLUS LINES LEGISLATION
Jeanie Botkin, Esq. Quarterbacks, stunt actors, amusement park rides and off-shore oil platforms are examples of risks that are likely covered by surplus lines insurance. The regulation of the surplus lines industry is the subject of federal legislation that is currently under consideration in the House of Representatives. While this federal legislation is an answer to the industry’s clamor for change, it is far from perfect.
THE REGULATION OF SELF-INSURED HEALTH CARE PLANS
Glennon J. Karr, Esq. One of the real advantages of having a self-insured Health Care Plan in the past has been the ability to avoid a lot of regulation of the Plan at the state and federal levels. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) , through its preemption of state law provision, has allowed large and medium sized companies who choose to self-insure their Health Care Plan to avoid all of the state mandates required in each state’s insurance codes – examples include mandating payments to certain types of providers, like chiropractors, or paying minimum amounts of coverage for certain mental health types of benefits. Each state has those statutes, and because ERISA preempts them, multi-state companies can have a uniform self-insured Health Care Plan that doesn’t need to change from state to state. Mandated benefits, which vary from state to state, limit the flexibility of Plan designs. Because state mandates have been avoided, and because until recently mandates at the federal level were few, self-insured Health Care Plans have had a lot of freedom to determine the types of benefits to include (or not to include) and how other features of the plans would be handled. The various regulatory laws in each state in which the plan operates are typically avoided entirely.
"SHOW ME THE MONEY"
Robert 'Skip' H. Myers, Jr., Esq. Joseph T. Holahan, Esq. Under regulations issued last fall by the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), life insurers were required to implement written anti-money laundering (“AML”) programs and begin reporting suspicious transactions to federal authorities by May 2, 2006. Although the compliance deadline has come and gone, many insurers continue to work to implement some aspects of their AML programs—most notably, AML training for agents and brokers. Others are looking for ways to fine tune their AML programs so as to keep pace with evolving industry standards concerning what constitutes an effective and reasonable program. This article examines some of the ways in which insurers have sought to comply with the new AML requirements and the various ways in which insurers continue to adjust their AML programs.
PROPOSED REVISION OF REINSURANCE COLLATERALIZATION REQUIREMENTS:
Stephen H. Zimmerman, Esq. Kristine N. Tuma, Esq. Recent years have seen an increased focus on review of the collateralization requirements applicable to credit for reinsurance written by unauthorized alien reinsurers in the United States in those states that have adopted the NAIC’s Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation. The issue has been hotly debated within the Reinsurance Task Force of the NAIC, which in March of 2004 formed an ad hoc committee, the Reinsurance Collateralization Roundtable (the “Roundtable”), to review the issue and prepare informal recommendations for consideration by the Task Force. The Roundtable was tasked with answering the following question: “Is there a technically sound alternative to the current 100% collateralization requirement imposed on unauthorized alien reinsurers operating in the U.S. market?” In response to this question, the Task Force prepared a written report detailing two alternative proposals for reform of the collateralization requirement called the “Rating Proposal” and the “Pooling Proposal.” Both proposals have at their core the beliefs that the current system of requiring 100% collateralization for purposes of credit for reinsurance should be changed and that any proposal for change should be “geographically agnostic,” and should apply equally to all alien reinsurers regardless of their country of domicile. The proposals are intended to generate savings in capital costs as a result of lower collateral requirements that will be passed on to the cedents and ultimately to the primary policyholders.
CAN A COMPLAINANT IN MARYLAND OBTAIN RELIEF ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF NON-PARTIES IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING?
Alan N. Gamse, Esq. Historically, regulatory matters brought before the Maryland Insurance Commissioner were technical in nature and, except for publicly prominent issues such as rate filings or withdrawal from a imperiled market, only concerned the Commissioner and the affected insurer. It was unusual for an insured or claimant to seek relief from the Insurance Commissioner for a coverage or claims complaint, and when such overtures were made, the Commissioner regularly deferred to the courts rather than undertaking any affirmative action. Those times are long gone.
GETTING SETTLED IN: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LIFE/VIATICAL SETTLEMENT LAWS RECENTLY ENACTED IN COLORADO, GEORGIA AND NEW JERSEY
Fredric Marro, Esq. Darcy Lebau, Esq. In 2005, Colorado, Georgia and New Jersey passed legislation regulating both the life and viatical settlement industry in their respective state. Unlike in New Jersey, the life and viatical settlement industry was not regulated in Colorado or Georgia prior to the passage of this legislation. New Jersey's "Viatical Settlements Act" repealed a prior law regulating viatical settlements and replaced it with a broader regulatory scheme that, like the Colorado and Georgia Acts, largely follows the Viatical Settlements Model Act. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
