Insurance regulatory law

Last updated

Insurance regulatory law is the body of statutory law, administrative regulations and jurisprudence that governs and regulates the insurance industry and those engaged in the business of insurance. Insurance regulatory law is primarily enforced through regulations, rules and directives by state insurance departments as authorized and directed by statutory law enacted by the state legislatures. However, federal law, court decisions and administrative adjudications also play an important role. [1]

Contents

Purpose

Insurance is characterized as a business vested or affected with the public interest. [2] Thus, the business of insurance, although primarily a matter of private contract, is nevertheless of such concern to the public as a whole that it is subject to governmental regulation to protect the public’s interests. [1]

Therefore, the fundamental purpose of insurance regulatory law is to protect the public as insurance consumers and policyholders. Functionally, this involves:

History (United States)

State-based insurance regulation

Historically, the insurance industry has been regulated almost exclusively by the individual state governments. The first state commissioner of insurance was appointed in New Hampshire in 1851 and the state-based insurance regulatory system grew as quickly as the insurance industry itself. [4] Prior to this period, insurance was primarily regulated by corporate charter, state statutory law and de facto regulation by the courts in judicial decisions. [5] [6] States coordinate through a nonprofit trade association of state regulatory agencies called the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which proposes model laws which may be adopted by the members.

As the various state governments each developed its own set of insurance regulations, insurance companies with multi-state business were hampered by the inconsistency of the dissimilar rules and requirements, as well as localism by the state regulators. These companies and their stakeholders joined a growing movement for federal insurance regulation – but, considering the lack of any significant federal regulatory framework, this movement may have been more about avoiding regulation rather than actually promoting federal superiority. [7]

In 1869, the United States Supreme Court cemented state-based insurance regulation as the law of the land when it ruled in Paul v. Virginia [8] that the issuance of a policy of insurance was not the transaction of commerce, and therefore beyond the scope of federal legislation. [9]

More than 70 years, later, however, the Supreme Court overturned that decision in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, holding that insurance was subject to certain federal legislation such as the federal antitrust statute. [10] Although the South-Eastern case focused primarily on the application of federal anti-trust legislation (the Sherman Act) to the insurance industry, some thought the decision opened the floodgates to widespread federal regulation of the insurance industry and signaled the demise of the state-based insurance regulatory system. [11]

The United States Congress responded almost immediately: in 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance. [12]

After the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the business of insurance remained substantially regulated by state statutory and administrative laws through the years. Additionally, efforts such as the accreditation standards of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and other cooperative endeavors, have increased the uniformity of insurance regulation across the various states. [13]

Model laws

In 1972, the model law Unfair Claims Settlement Act was written, which has since been adopted by most states with various modifications. [14]

Expanding federal influence

Despite the long history of state-based insurance regulation, federal regulatory influence has been expanding in the past several decades.

Early federal laws passed included the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, and a Federal Crime Insurance Program was implemented which the Government Accountability Office recommended terminating in 1982. [15]

In the mid 1970s, for example, the concept of an optional federal charter for insurance companies was raised in Congress. With a wave of solvency and capacity issues facing property and casualty insurers, the proposal was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade. [16]

In the 1980s, the ability to form risk retention groups which were exempt from state regulation was expanded.

From 1986 to 1992, there were 276 insurer bankruptcies. In response to the disruption, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards, [17] guaranty associations and an initiative to codify accounting principles into the modern Statutory Accounting Principles. There was renewed discussion of federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. However, as more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. [18]

In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act, which sets out certain minimum standards that state insurance laws and regulations were required to meet or else face preemption by federal law. [4]

Over the past decade, renewed calls for optional federal regulation of insurance companies have sounded, including the proposed National Insurance Act of 2006. [19]

The most recent challenges to the state insurance regulatory system are arguably the most significant, as well, showing further erosion of state primacy. Both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) are material forays of federal law into the insurance industry. [20]

Practice

The practice of insurance regulatory law requires knowledge and understanding of administrative law, general business and corporate law, contract law, trends and jurisprudence in insurance litigation, legislative developments and a variety of other topics and areas of law. An insurance regulatory attorney provides legal services and practical business solutions on a wide variety of administrative, corporate, insurance, transactional and regulatory issues.

The practice of insurance regulatory law involves providing legal services and counseling on a wide variety of administrative, corporate, insurance, transactional and regulatory issues such as the following:

Market conduct

Insurance regulators generally perform "market conduct exams" to determine that insurers are operating in the best interests of consumers. However, these investigations depend on the state, with some states performing them regularly and others performing them in reaction to a noticeable pattern. [22] The exams can take years and are usually paid for by the insurance companies. [22]

In 2018, the majority of states began to require health insurers to submit market conduct data. [22]

Rate regulation

Historically, and continuing to modern day in many states, regulators practice strict price control called "rate regulation" and can deny or approve any rate change. The statute typically states that rates shall not be inadequate or excessive, as inadequate rates increase the risk of bankruptcy and excessive rates are regarded as unfair. A similar statute may prohibits "unfair discrimination" in rates, which is intended to prohibit discrimination which is not based upon a difference in risk. [23]

Rebating

Although rebating, which involves giving back some of the purchase price (or offering some sort of per customer discount) is common in some industries, as of 2009, 48 states and D.C. prohibited it in insurance by adopting a law based upon the NAIC Model Unfair Trade Practices. [24]

Solvency regulation

After the 2008 financial crisis, a model law called the Standard Valuation Model Law was revised to adopt a "principles-based" approach to life insurance reserving, [25] which was adopted by a number of states. [26]

See also

General insurance topics:


US insurance topics:


Insurance in other countries:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Insurance</span> Equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment

Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss in which, in exchange for a fee, a party agrees to compensate another party in the event of a certain loss, damage, or injury. It is a form of risk management, primarily used to protect against the risk of a contingent or uncertain loss.

In the United States government, independent agencies are agencies that exist outside the federal executive departments and the Executive Office of the President. In a narrower sense, the term refers only to those independent agencies that, while considered part of the executive branch, have regulatory or rulemaking authority and are insulated from presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is the U.S. standard-setting and regulatory support organization created and governed by the chief insurance regulators from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories.

The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The 79th Congress passed the McCarran–Ferguson Act in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.

Australian insurance law is based on commercial contract law, but is subject to regulations that affect the insurance industry and insurance contracts within Australia. Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws with respect to insurance and insurance companies under section 51(xiv) and (xx) of the Australian Constitution. Generally, the Insurance Act 1973 and Insurance Contracts Act 1984 are the main acts that apply, however there are a number of other pieces of legislation enacted by the states, private codes and voluminous case law all of which forms the body of insurance law.

An insurance commissioner is a public official in the executive branch of a state or territory in the United States who, along with their office, regulate the insurance industry. The powers granted to the office of an insurance commissioner differ in each state. The office of an insurance commissioner is established either by the state constitution or by statute. While most insurance commissioners are appointed, in some jurisdictions they are elected. The office of the insurance commissioner may be part of a larger regulatory agency, or an autonomous department.

Australia's insurance market can be divided into roughly three components: life insurance, general insurance and health insurance. These markets are fairly distinct, with most larger insurers focusing on only one type, although in recent times several of these companies have broadened their scope into more general financial services, and have faced competition from banks and subsidiaries of foreign financial conglomerates. With services such as disability insurance, income protection and even funeral insurance, these insurance giants are stepping in to fill the gap where people may have otherwise been in need of a personal or signature loan from their financial institution.

Insurance law is the practice of law surrounding insurance, including insurance policies and claims. It can be broadly broken into three categories - regulation of the business of insurance; regulation of the content of insurance policies, especially with regard to consumer policies; and regulation of claim handling wise.

The New York State Insurance Department (NYSID) was the state agency responsible for supervising and regulating all insurance business in New York State. It was regarded in the industry as one of the most state-of-the-art insurance regulatory agencies.

Insurance in the United States refers to the market for risk in the United States, the world's largest insurance market by premium volume. According to Swiss Re, of the $6.782 trillion of global direct premiums written worldwide in 2022, $2.959 trillion (43.6%) were written in the United States.

Optional Federal Charter(OFC) is a proposal to streamline and simplify US insurance regulation by allowing insurance companies to choose between a current state-based regulatory system and a single federal regulatory agency. This would mean that insurance companies would be regulated something like banks: they could choose either a state charter or a federal one. The proposed new federal regulatory system would be housed within the United States Department of the Treasury. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came out in favor of an Optional Federal Charter on March 31, 2008.

Bank regulation in the United States is highly fragmented compared with other G10 countries, where most countries have only one bank regulator. In the U.S., banking is regulated at both the federal and state level. Depending on the type of charter a banking organization has and on its organizational structure, it may be subject to numerous federal and state banking regulations. Apart from the bank regulatory agencies the U.S. maintains separate securities, commodities, and insurance regulatory agencies at the federal and state level, unlike Japan and the United Kingdom. Bank examiners are generally employed to supervise banks and to ensure compliance with regulations.

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust statute, applied to insurance. To reach this decision, the Court held that insurance could be regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause, overturning Paul v. Virginia. Congress responded by enacting the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 which limited antitrust laws' applicability to the business and assured state authority would continue over insurance.

A risk retention group (RRG) in business economics is an alternative risk transfer entity in the United States created under the federal Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA). RRGs must form as liability insurance companies under the laws of at least one state—its charter state or domicile. The policyholders of the RRG are also its owners and membership must be limited to organizations or persons engaged in similar businesses or activities, thus being exposed to the same types of liability.

Founded in 2005, Agents For Change is a grassroots trade association of over 8,500 insurance agents and brokers from across all lines of insurance working together to enact an optional federal charter to allow producers the option of being regulated at either the federal or state level. Members of Agents for Change participate in policy development and provide lawmakers with expert advice as they move forward to modernize insurance regulation. An optional federal charter could revolutionize the way insurance agents and brokers across America conduct business.

The New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI) is one of 15 principal departments in New Jersey government. The department's mission is to regulate the banking, insurance and real estate industries in a professional and timely manner that protects and educates consumers and promotes the growth, financial stability and efficiency of these industries. The Commissioner of DOBI is Marlene Caride.

The Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 is a United States law regulating the sale of insurance in states where the insurer is usually not authorized to sell insurance. It prevents states other than the home state of a U.S. insurance company from imposing regulations or taxes on the sale of nonadmitted insurance.

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) is an autonomous and statutory body under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Finance, Government of India. It is tasked with regulating and licensing the insurance and re-insurance industries in India. It was constituted by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999, an Act of Parliament passed by the Government of India. The agency's headquarters are in Hyderabad, Telangana, where it moved from Delhi in 2001.

Therese Michele "Terri" Vaughan is an American insurance academic, regulator, and advisor. She was insurance commissioner of the state of Iowa for 10 years from 1994 to 2005, and was the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) for four years from February 2009 to December 2012. She is currently executive in residence at Drake University, having previously been its Robb B. Kelley distinguished professor of insurance and actuarial science, Dean of its College of Business and Public Administration, and director of its Insurance Center.

Thomas Benedict Leonardi, is United States business executive in the insurance and financial services fields, who has worked in the public and private sectors. His career includes decades as the head of investment banking and venture capital firms specializing in insurance, and he also has a background as a regulator and government adviser.

References

  1. 1 2 Mayhall, Van, III, Insurance Regulatory Law: Defined, Insurance Regulatory Law. Retrieved 2011-06-02.
  2. ↑ See, for example: Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 22, § 2A(1); Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc v. Insurance Commissioner of the State of California, 18 F.3d 790, Bankr. L. Rep. P. 75,755 (9th Cir. 1994).
  3. ↑ Klein, Robert W. (2008), An Overview of the Insurance Industry and Its Regulation, Center for Risk Management & Insurance Regulation, Georgia State University.
  4. 1 2 National Association of Insurance Commissioners, State Insurance Regulation: History, Purpose and Structure.
  5. ↑ Randall, Susan (1999). Insurance Regulation in the United States: Regulatory Federalism and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 26:625.
  6. ↑ Stempel, Jeffery W. (2007). Stempel on Insurance Contracts, 3rd Ed., Vol. 1, § 2.07.
  7. ↑ Baker, Tobin (2006). The Case for Federal Regulation of Insurance.
  8. ↑ Paul vs. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 19 L.Ed. 357 (1868).
  9. ↑ Mayhall, Van, III, A Brief Chronicle of Insurance Regulation in the United States, Part I: From De Facto Judicial Regulation to South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n , Insurance Regulatory Law. Retrieved 2011-06-02.
  10. ↑ United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944).
  11. ↑ See, for example, United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533, 562 (1944) (Stone, C.J., dissenting).
  12. ↑ The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015.
  13. ↑ Mayhall, Van, III, A Brief Chronicle of Insurance Regulation in the United States, Part II: From McCarran-Ferguson to Dodd-Frank, Insurance Regulatory Law. Retrieved 2011-06-02.
  14. ↑ "How your state's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act can help you". insure.com. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  15. ↑ "The Federal Crime Insurance Program: An Overview". www.gao.gov. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  16. ↑ Berrington, Craig (2007). Federal Insurance Regulation Optional Federal Chartering Bills Come to the Big Top.
  17. ↑ "Insurance Regulation: The NAIC Accreditation Program Can Be Improved". www.gao.gov. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  18. ↑ Brown, Elizabeth F. (2008). The Fatal Flaw of Proposals to Federalize Insurance Regulation, Research Symposium on Insurance Markets and Regulation: Optional Federal Chartering.
  19. ↑ Kwon, W. Jean (2007). Uniformity and Efficiency in Insurance Regulation: Consolidation and Outsourcing of Regulatory Activities at the State Level, Networks Financial Institute, Indiana State University.
  20. ↑ The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L 11-148, 124 Stat. 119; the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L 111-203, H.R. 4173.
  21. ↑ Mayhall, Van, III, The Practice of Insurance Regulatory Law, Part II: More Specifically, Insurance Regulatory Law. Retrieved 2011-06-02.
  22. 1 2 3 Schencker, Lisa. "Blue Cross customer treatment examined, 27 years after last report released". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2019-06-13.
  23. ↑ Harrington, Scott (1984-01-01). "The Impact of Rate Regulation on Prices and Underwriting Results in the Property-Liability Insurance Industry: A Survey". The Journal of Risk and Insurance. 51 (4): 577–623. doi:10.2307/252665. JSTOR   252665.
  24. ↑ "YOU CAN'T GET -- OR GIVE --SOMETHING FOR NOTHING". Federation of Regulatory Counsel, Inc. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  25. ↑ "NAIC Moves towards Principles Based Reserving for Life Insurance Martindale.com". www.martindale.com. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
  26. ↑ "Florida Revises Insurer Solvency Review Process". www.insurancejournal.com. Retrieved 2016-01-18.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.