NCOIL Adopts Insurer Division Model Act

 

For Immediate Release
May 3, 2021
Contact: Tess Badenhausen
(732) 201-4133

NCOIL ADOPTS INSURER DIVISION MODEL ACT
Model Builds on Insurance Business Transfer Model Adopted by the Organization Last Spring; Provides Legal and Economic Finality to Insurers Transferring or Assuming Block of Insurance

Manasquan, NJ – At the NCOIL Spring Meeting in Charleston, SC, the organization adopted the NCOIL Insurer Division Model Act sponsored by CA Asm. Ken Cooley, NCOIL Vice President, and CT Sen. Matt Lesser. The Model passed on a voice vote by both the NCOIL Financial Services & Multi-Lines Issues Committee and NCOIL Executive Committee.

Insurance business transfers (IBT) and insurer divisions are restructuring mechanisms that aim to address the significant limitations in the current methods available to insurers to transfer or assume blocks of insurance business in an efficient and cost-effective manner that provides needed legal finality. In March of 2020, NCOIL adopted an IBT Model that was based on Oklahoma’s IBT law.

he U.S. insurance regulatory framework currently offers limited options to provide the legal and economic finality of insurance risks when an insurer changes its business strategy or decides to internally reorganize, completely exit, or acquire new business. Divisions provide that legal and economic finality to insurers and allows for more efficient allocation of capital which can benefit policyholders. More efficient allocation of capital can lead to better product pricing. Policyholders also benefit when insurance businesses are aligned with an insurer’s current business strategy and are the current focus of management, shareholders and regulators.

Five states currently have insurance-specific division statutes, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, and Georgia, while Arizona and Pennsylvania have corporate division statutes that apply to all industries. Colorado also has an insurance division bill currently under consideration, which the Model relied heavily upon.

CA Asm. Ken Cooley stated, “Now that NCOIL has adopted both an Insurance Business Transfer Model Act, and an Insurer Division Model – similar but distinct restructuring mechanisms – NCOIL can truly be looked at as a leader in providing states guidance on insurance restructuring issues. We worked hard on this Model and I am confident that states will introduce it during future legislative sessions.”

LA Rep. Edmond Jordan, Chair of the Financial Services & Multi-Lines Issues Committee said, “I appreciate all the work that went into developing this Model. I am proud to be a part of NCOIL which continues to take important and timely insurance issues, discuss them in a way that ensures all perspectives are heard, and ultimately adopt model legislation that can be introduced in state legislatures. A restructuring mechanism like an insurer division is a very complex transaction, so states that they are looking to develop a law on this issue will greatly benefit from starting with the Model knowing that it was developed only after a thoughtful and deliberative process.”

NCOIL CEO, Cmsr. Tom Considine said, “I am pleased that this Model was adopted at the Spring Meeting. After NCOIL adopted the Insurance Business Transfer Model Act last March, it made sense that we have both Models in place as there should not be one Model without the other for states to consider adopting. This Model is going to be a great foundation for states seeking to enact an insurer division statute in upcoming legislative sessions.”

During the drafting discussions of the Model, NCOIL legislators and staff heard from several experts and interested parties including Kathy Belfi, Director of Financial Regulation at the Connecticut Insurance Department; Jared Kosky, General Counsel at the Connecticut Insurance Department; the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI); the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA); America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP); and Talcott Resolution.

Highlights of the Model include:

• Requiring a dividing insurer to file a plan of division with the insurance commissioner which shall include, among other things: the name of each resulting insurer created by the proposed division and, for each resulting insurer, a copy of the resulting insurer’s proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws ; and a reasonable description of all liabilities and all assets that the dividing insurer proposes to allocate to each resulting insurer, including the manner by which the dividing insurer propose to allocate all reinsurance contracts;

• Ensuring that a division does not become effective until it is approved by the insurance commissioner, who, before approving a plan of division shall:

o in large or complex divisions, hold a public hearing on the terms and conditions of the proposed division;
o provide notice of the public hearing to state insurance regulators and appropriate state guaranty associations in states in which the dividing insurer is authorized to do business;
o be satisfied that the dividing insurer has made reasonable efforts to provide notice to all policyholders, contract holders, reinsurers, and other persons with an interest in the proposed plan of division;
o in large or complex divisions, select and retain an independent expert who shall review the plan of division and issue a report to the commissioner which shall address, among other things, the business purposes of the proposed division, capital adequacy and risk-based capital, including consideration of the effects of asset quality, non-admitted assets, and actuarial stresses to reserve assumptions, and management’s competence, experience, and integrity.

 

A full copy of the Model can be found here: https://ncoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/NCOIL-Insurer-Division-Model-Adopted-4-18-21-1.pdf

NCOIL Adopts Distracted Driving Model Act

 

For Immediate Release
April 27, 2021
Contact: Tess Badenhausen
(732) 201-4133

NCOIL ADOPTS DISTRACTED DRIVING MODEL ACT
Model Aims to Reduce Traffic Deaths and Life Altering Crashes

Manasquan, NJ – NCOIL adopted the Distracted Driving Model Act (Model) sponsored by CA Asm. Ken Cooley, NCOIL Vice President, and OH Sen. Bob Hackett at its Spring National Meeting in Charleston, SC. The measure passed on a voice vote by both the NCOIL Property & Casualty Insurance Committee and NCOIL Executive Committee.

The Model provides a structure to strengthen distracted driving laws across the country by establishing a comprehensive hands-free law to curb driver distraction. The Model makes distracted driving a primary offense which is an important part of the strategy to reduce traffic
deaths and life altering crashes.

KY Rep. Bart Rowland, Chair of the P&C Committee said, “We have had a lot of hard work on this Model and had extensive discussions for several months. Asm. Cooley and Sen. Hackett have done a great job being receptive to feedback and moving the Model along toward adoption. The final changes made to the Model showed how NCOIL can deliver bipartisan and sound insurance public policy to states to consider enacting into state law.”

Sen. Hackett stated “The process leading to the adoption of the Distracted Driving Model was NCOIL Model Law development at its finest. The Committee took its time, heard differing perspectives on the issues, while maintaining a respectful exchange of ideas. Thank you to everyone who was involved.”

Asm. Cooley said, “The changes made to the Model over the past several months reflect a bipartisan approach that help create a way to take note of the sensitivity of the topic of documenting how the law is implemented. It also reflects upon NCOIL as a bipartisan, national organization. During discussions in developing the Model, we were able to take note of the valid concerns regarding the potential negative effect of primary enforcement of distracted driving laws on minorities, and the compromise made will permit valid enforcement and at the same time will ensure accountability.”

NCOIL CEO, Cmsr. Tom Considine added, “Thank you to the Committee, and thanks to Sen. Hackett and Asm. Cooley for sponsoring this Model and getting it to a place where it was ready to be voted on. Additionally, I’d like to offer a special thank you to Rep. Edmond Jordan (LA) and Asw. Pam Hunter (NY) for alerting us to the potential for mischief in moving a traffic offense from secondary to primary enforcement; certainly no one at NCOIL wants any part of legislation that would promote racial profiling.” He then concluded, “The importance of this Model is obvious, as it will help to make roads safer and will ultimately help save lives.”

During the drafting discussions of the Model, NCOIL legislators and staff heard from a wide array of experts and interested parties including the Honorable Nicole Nason, Federal Highway Administration Administrator; Jennifer Smith, CEO and Co-founder of StopDistractions.org; Cathy Chase, President of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA); the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC); General Motors (GM); Uber; the Alliance for Automotive Innovations; and Nationwide.

Highlights of the Model include:

• Enables law enforcement to ticket drivers for holding a mobile device and limits use of a mounted or “hands free” device while operating a motor vehicle, including texting, viewing videos or images, entering data, and talking or broadcasting content;
• Exceptions are provided for emergencies; operating a commercial truck while using a mobile data terminal that transmits and receives data; and while in a motor vehicle that is lawfully parked;
• Sets up a system of monetary fines and points on a driver’s license for violations of the Act; and
• Requires a law enforcement officer issuing a citation for a violation of the Act to record the race and ethnicity of the violate. Such information must be maintained and reported to the appropriate state agency which shall annually report the data to the Governor, President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

A full copy of the Model is below:

 

National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL)

 

Distracted Driving Model Act

*Sponsored by Sen. Bob Hackett (OH) and Asm. Ken Cooley (CA)

*Adopted by the Property & Casualty Insurance Committee and Executive Committee on April 18, 2021.

Table of Contents

Section 1.        Title

Section 2.        Purpose

Section 3.        Definitions

Section 4.        Operation

Section 5.        Penalties

Section 6.        Enforcement and Reporting

Section 7.        Effective Date

 

Section 1.        Title

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “[State] Distracted Driving Act.”

Section 2.        Purpose

This Model provides a structure to strengthen distracted driving laws across the country by establishing a comprehensive hands-free law to curb driver distraction, including manual, visual and cognitive distraction, to reduce highway fatalities, save lives, reduce auto crashes and make roads safer. The Model enables law enforcement to ticket drivers for holding a mobile device and limits use of a mounted or “hands-free” device while operating a motor vehicle, including texting, viewing videos or images, entering data, and talking or broadcasting content.  Exceptions are provided for emergencies, for certain voice-activated technology, for navigation, and for “single swipe” activation as long as the device is not held by the driver or used to engage in viewing distracting content. The increased prevalence of smartphone technology and expansion of its capability and potential for use has exacerbated distraction behind the wheel.  Along with heightened public awareness, targeted research, and the development of technology to mitigate risks, the enactment of primary enforcement laws is an important part of the strategy to reduce traffic deaths and life altering crashes.

Section 3.        Definitions

‘Stand-alone electronic device’ means a portable device other than a wireless telecommunications device which stores audio or video data files to be retrieved on demand by a user.

‘Utility services’ means and includes electric, natural gas, water, waste-water, cable, telephone, or telecommunications services or the repair, location, relocation, improvement, or maintenance of utility poles, transmission structures, pipes, wires, fibers, cables, easements, rights of way, or associated infrastructure.

‘Wireless telecommunications device’ means one of the following portable devices:

(1) a cellular telephone;

(2) a portable telephone;

(3) a text-messaging device;

(4) a personal digital assistant;

(5) a stand-alone computer, including but not limited to a tablet, laptop or notebook computer;

(6) a global positioning system receiver;

(7) a device capable of displaying a video, movie, broadcast television image, or visual image; or

(8) Any substantially similar portable wireless device that is used to initiate or receive communication, information or data.

Such term shall not include a radio, citizens band radio, citizens band radio hybrid, commercial two-way radio communication device or its functional equivalent, subscription-based emergency communication device, prescribed medical device, amateur or ham radio device, or in-vehicle security, navigation, communications or remote diagnostics system.

“Voice-operated or hands-free feature or function” means a feature or function that allows a person to use an electronic wireless communications device without the use of either hand, except to activate, deactivate, or initiate the feature or function with a single touch or single swipe.

Section 4.        Operation

(A) The driver of a school bus shall not use or operate a wireless telecommunications device, as such as term is defined in Section 3 of this Act, or two-way radio while loading or unloading passengers.

(B) The driver of a school bus shall not use or operate a wireless telecommunications device, as such term is defined in Section 3 of this Act, while the bus is in motion, unless it is being used in a similar manner as a two-way radio to allow live communication between the driver and school officials or public safety officials.

(C) A driver shall exercise due care in operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state and shall not engage in any actions which shall distract such driver from the safe operation of such vehicle.

(D) While operating a motor vehicle on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic in this state, no individual shall:

(1) Physically hold or support, with any part of his or her body a:

(a) Wireless telecommunications device; or

(b) Stand-alone electronic device;

(2) Write, send, or read any text-based communication, including but not limited to a text message, instant message, e-mail, or social media interaction on a wireless telecommunications device or stand-alone electronic device; provided, however, that such prohibition shall not apply to a voice-operated or hands-free communication feature which is automatically converted by such device to be sent as a message in a written form; or

(3) Make any communication, including a phone call, voice message, or one-way voice communication; provided, however, that such prohibition shall not apply to a voice-operated or hands-free communication feature or function

(4) Engage in any form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data communication on a wireless telecommunications device or stand-alone electronic device;

(5) Manually enter letters, numbers, or symbols into any website, search engine, or application on a wireless telecommunications device or stand-alone electronic device;

(6) Watch a video or movie on a wireless telecommunications device or stand-alone electronic device other than watching data related to the navigation of such vehicle; or

(7) Record, post, send, or broadcast video, including a video conference on a wireless telecommunications device or stand-alone electronic device; provided that such prohibition shall not apply to electronic devices used for the sole purpose of continuously recording or broadcasting video within or outside of the motor vehicle.

(E) While operating a commercial motor vehicle on any highway of this state, no individual shall:

(1) Use more than a single button on a wireless telecommunications device to initiate or terminate a voice communication; or

(2) Reach for a wireless telecommunications device or stand-alone electronic device in such a manner that requires the driver to no longer be:

(a) In a seated driving position; or

(b) Properly restrained by a safety belt.

(F) Each violation of this Code section shall constitute a separate offense.

Section 5.        Penalties

(A) Except as provide for in paragraph (B) of this section, any person convicted of violating this Act shall be guilty of an unclassified misdemeanor which shall be punished as follows:

(1) For a first conviction with no conviction of and no plea of no contest accepted to a charge of violating this Act within the previous 24 month period of time, as measured from the dates any previous convictions were obtained or pleas of no contest were accepted to the date the current conviction is obtained or plea of no contest is accepted, a fine of not more than $150.00 and charged two (2) points.

(2) For a second conviction within a 24-month period of time, as measured from the dates any previous convictions were obtained or pleas of no contest were accepted to the date the current conviction is obtained or plea of no contest is accepted, a fine of not more than $250.00 and charged three (3) points.

(3) For a third or subsequent conviction within a 24-month period of time, as measured from the dates any previous convictions were obtained or pleas of no contest were accepted to the date the current conviction is obtained or plea of no contest is accepted, a fine of not more than $500.00, charged four (4) points, and at the court’s discretion, suspension of the offender’s driver’s license for a period of 90 days.

(B) Any person appearing before a court for a first charge of violating Section 4 (D)(1) of this Act who produces in court a device or proof of purchase of such device that would allow such person to comply with such paragraph in the future shall not be guilty of such offense.  The court shall require the person to affirm that they have not previously utilized the privilege under this paragraph.

(C) Any person convicted of a violation of any law or ordinance pertaining to speed when the offender also was distracted, as defined in this Act, shall be charged points as follows:

(1) when the speed exceeds the lawful limit by thirty miles per hour or more, six (6) points

(2) When the speed exceeds the lawful speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour or more by more than ten miles per hour, four (4) points

(3) When the speed exceeds the lawful speed limit of less than fifty-five miles per hour by more than five miles per hour, four (4) points

(D) Any person who causes physical harm to property as the proximate result of committing a violation of this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. In addition to any other authorized penalty, the court shall impose upon the offender a fine not less than five hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars.

(E) Any person who causes serious physical harm to another person as the proximate result of committing a violation of this Act is guilty of aggravated vehicular assault and shall be punished according to this STATE’s CRIMINAL CODE.

(F) Any person who causes the death of another as the proximate result of committing a violation of this Act is guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide and shall be punished according to this STATE’S CRIMINAL CODE.

DRAFTING NOTE: States should consider aligning property damage, injury, and/or death with equivalent driver intoxication offenses and penalties.

(G) Section 4 (D) and (E) of this Act shall not apply when the prohibited conduct occurred:

(1) While reporting to state, county or local authorities a traffic accident, medical emergency, fire, an actual or potential criminal or delinquent act, or road condition that causes an immediate and serious traffic or safety hazard;

(2) By an employee or contractor of a utility services provider acting within the scope of his or her employment while responding to a utility emergency.

(3) A person operating a commercial truck while using a mobile data terminal that transmits and receives data;

(4) By a law enforcement officer, firefighter, emergency medical services personnel, ambulance driver, or other similarly employed public safety first responder during the performance of his or her official duties; or

(5) While in a motor vehicle which is lawfully parked.

Section 6.        Enforcement and Reporting

(A) When a law enforcement officer issues a citation for a violation of this Act, the law enforcement officer must record the race and ethnicity of the violator.  All law enforcement agencies must maintain such information and report the information to the [State Agency] in a form and manner determined by the [State Agency].  Beginning one year after enactment, the [State Agency] shall annually report the data collected under this Act to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  The data collected must be reported at least by statewide totals for local law enforcement agencies, state law enforcement agencies, and state university law enforcement agencies.  The statewide total for local law enforcement agencies shall combine the data for the county sheriffs and the municipal law enforcement agencies.

(B) A law enforcement officer who stops a motor vehicle for a violation of this Act must inform the motor vehicle operator of his or her right to decline a search of his or her wireless communications device and may not:

(1) Access the wireless communications device without a warrant.

(2) Confiscate the wireless communications device while awaiting issuance of a warrant to access such device.

(3) Obtain consent from the motor vehicle operator to search his or her wireless communications device through coercion or other improper method.  Consent to search a motor vehicle operator’s wireless communications device must be voluntary and unequivocal.

Section 7.        Effective Date

This Act shall become effective________________.

 

 

NCOIL Concludes Successful Hybrid 2021 Spring Meeting in Charleston, SC

 

For Immediate Release
April 22, 2021
Contact: Tess Badenhausen
(732) 201-4133

NCOIL CONCLUDES SUCCESSFUL HYBRID 2021 SPRING MEETING IN CHARLESTON, SC
Third Meeting of NCOIL Special Committee on Race in Insurance Underwriting; Two New Model Laws Adopted; South Carolina Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette Delivered Keynote Address

Manasquan, NJ – The National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) concluded a successful
hybrid 2021 Spring Meeting (Meeting) in Charleston, SC from April 15th – 18th at the Francis Marion Hotel. There were 281 participants for the Spring Meeting – 146 in person and 135 virtual consisting of 51 legislators from 23 states, 12 first time legislators, 8 Insurance Commissioners (or
equivalent), and 14 insurance departments represented. The seven policy Committees all met, as well as the third meeting of the Special Committee on Race in Insurance Underwriting.

NCOIL President, Indiana Rep. Matt Lehman said, “Seeing the attendance in Charleston last week, I am convinced that we made the right decision in delaying the meeting to allow the vaccine to become more widely administered. The hybrid meeting format continued to work well, and we will most likely utilize that format again for the Summer meeting.”

NCOIL CEO, Commissioner Tom Considine said, “I am overwhelmed by the total turnout at this meeting. Even amid a global pandemic, meeting attendance is high, especially in-person legislator attendance. We surpassed the legislator and general attendance numbers from all three of last
year’s meetings which is a great sign that people are getting more comfortable traveling as vaccine distribution continues and travel restrictions are lifted.” Considine continued, “As an organization principally represented by legislators, we are always looking to get more legislators involved, so
we are very pleased to know that there were 12 first-time legislators at the Meeting. This Meeting was again extremely productive terms of developing sound insurance public policy that legislators can take back to their states for review and introduction.”

The Meeting began with the third meeting of the Special Committee on Race in Insurance Underwriting, Chaired by New York Senator Neil Breslin.

Senator Breslin said, “The Committee continues to have important discussions on the issues that must be addressed during these unprecedented times. We again heard from speakers with various views on topics and issues related to race and insurance underwriting. Having met its first charge of defining the term “proxy discrimination,” we will continue to work on our second charge of discussing rating factors and disparate impact. I am honored to Chair this Committee and to know that our organization is passionate about eliminating any unfair discrimination that exists in the
industry.”

Participants at the Welcome Breakfast were greeted by SC Insurance Director and NAIC Immediate Past President, Ray Farmer, who was presented with the Regulatory Leadership Award for all his great work throughout the years. NCOIL President Lehman stated “there is no one more deserving of this award than Ray Farmer. He has done a tremendous job leading the NAIC in unprecedented times and has set a new high water mark for regulator-legislator cooperation.”

South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, delivered Friday’s Keynote Address. Lieutenant Governor Evette spoke on her experience as President and CEO of Quality Business Solutions, and the impact she was able to make on small and medium sized businesses. She also spoke about her work with South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, and the approach they took when dealing with the pandemic. South Carolina was the last state east of the Mississippi to shut down and the first to open back up, trying to limit the impact on businesses in South Carolina. Lieutenant Governor Evette is proud of is the Governor’s development of the Accelerated SC Task Force. This talk force brought together legislative body, local government, businesses, trade associations, higher ed, and K-12 to talk about the best way to reopen the state and how everyone can work together to make sure that a prosperous South Carolina comes out of the pandemic.

There were two interesting and timely general sessions: “The Future of the Long Term Care Industry in Light of COVID-19” and “Mandatory Police Liability Insurance and its Impact on Safety.”

The Joint State-Federal Relations & International Insurance Issues Committee met to discuss the new federal balance billing Law, the “No Surprises Act”, where it heard from Chris Gammon, PhD, Senior Consultant at Compass Lexecon, and Assistant Professor of Health Administration at the University of Missouri. The Committee also heard from Matt Brewis, Director of General Insurance and Conduct Specialists at Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on the UK Supreme Court’s Decision dealing with the FCA’s pandemic business interruption coverage test case, and from Professor Elizabeth McCuskey from the University of Massachusetts School of Law on ERISA- preemption in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rutledge v. PCMA. Robert P. Hartwig, PhD, Clinical Associate Professor & Director, Risk and Uncertainty Management Center at University of South Carolina delivered a presentation during the legislator luncheon titled “COVID-19 – One Year Later.”

The NCOIL – NAIC Dialogue included an impressive lineup of NAIC representatives: Arkansas Commissioner Alan McClain, Florida Insurance Commissioner and NAIC President David Altmaier, Illinois Acting Director Dana Popish Severinghaus, Mississippi Commissioner Mike Chaney, Montana Commissioner Troy Downing, New York Executive Deputy Superintendent My Chi To, Oklahoma Commissioner Glen Mulready, and Director Farmer. The Dialogue continued discussion on the NAIC’s Special Committee on Race in Insurance, and an update on the status of state adoption of the NAIC’s amended credit for reinsurance model law and regulation. The session also included a discussion on the New York DFS Circular Letter No. 5 (2021 Re: Diversity and Corporate Governance), the NAIC’s meeting process, and a continued discussion of proposed changes to SSAP No. 71. NCOIL Vice President Ken Cooley (Asm.-CA), Chairman of the Dialogue, stated, “we appreciate the quality and depth of these discussions with our regulatory colleagues, and this Meeting represented a new high in terms of commissioner-level
participation.”

The Life Insurance and Financial Planning Committee heard from Monique Morrisey, an Economist at the Economic Policy Institute, on retirement security initiatives in the Biden Administration, and from Martin Spit, Insurance Strategy & Transactions Leader at Ernst & Young, on megatrends that are defining the next wave of life insurance and retirement.

The Committee also adopted a “Resolution in Support of the Living Donor Protection Act”- sponsored by NV Asw. Maggie Carlton, Chair of the Committee, and PA Rep. Wendi Thomas, Vice Chair of the Committee, and supported by both the American Kidney Fund and the American
Council of Life Insurers.

Rep. Thomas said, “I am particularly proud to sponsor this Resolution as it deals with a very important topic that is also quite personal to me. I have one friend who donated a kidney and another who received one. This Resolution strikes a good balance between the needs of living
organ donors to protect their families’ financial futures and the need for life insurers to underwrite fairly.”

The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Committee heard from South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Executive Director Gary Cannon who discussed the South Carolina workers’ compensation marketplace and its responses to COVID-19. Mark Bertler, Executive Director of the California Staffing Agency Reform Association (CAL-SARA) and Pollie Pent, CAL-SARA Membership Chair and former California Dept. of Insurance Detective, brief the Committee on CAL-SARA’s recent formation and goals, and John Fuser, President & CEO of the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) delivered a presentation titled “The Early Impact of COVID-19 on Workers’ Compensation Claim Composition.”

The Financial Services & Multi-Lines Issues Committee amended and adopted the NCOIL Insurer Division Model Act, sponsored by CT Sen Matt Lesser. NCOIL Vice President Ken Cooley (Asm – CA) sponsored a substitute amendment that the Committee passed, and joined as sponsor. The
Committee also discussed the development of an NCOIL Remote Notarization Model Act, and the captive insurance legislative landscape which included introduction of language for a potential NCOIL Captive Insurer Model Act.

CA Asm. Ken Cooley stated, “This Insurer Division Model seeks to address the significant limitations in the current methods available to insurers to transfer or assume blocks of insurance business in an efficient and cost-effective manner that provides needed legal finality. Now that NCOIL has adopted both an Insurance Business Transfer (IBT) Model Act, and an Insurer Division Model – similar but distinct restructuring mechanisms – NCOIL can truly be looked at as a leader in providing states guidance on insurance restructuring issues. We worked hard on this Model and I am confident that states will introduce it during future legislative sessions.”

The Health Insurance & Long-Term Care Issues Committee continued discussion on the NCOIL Telemedicine Authorization and Reimbursement Model Act, sponsored by Health Committee Chair New York Assemblywoman Pam Hunter, and the NCOIL Model Act Regarding Air Ambulance Patient Protections, sponsored by Texas Representative Tom Oliverson, M.D., and West Virginia Delegate Steve Westfall. The Committee also discussed “Accumulator Adjustment Program State Model Language” developed by the All Copays Count Coalition which garnered
significant interest from the Committee.

Asw. Pamela Hunter stated: “The Models discussed during the Committee deal with important and timely issues and, if adopted, have the potential to make a large impact in states. I am always pleased to see how much our members care about health insurance related issues, and look forward to continuing these discussions in Boston this Summer. We have done a good job to not rush through these discussions as it’s important that we ensure all voices and perspectives are heard on these issues.”

The Property & Casualty Insurance Committee was the last policy committee to meet and was very productive. The NCOIL Distracted Driving Model Act, sponsored by CA Asm. Ken Cooley and OH Sen. Bob Hackett, was adopted, as were amendments to the NCOIL Post Assessment Property and Liability Insurance Guaranty Association Model Act, sponsored by Asm. Cooley, and amendments to the NCOIL Peer to Peer Car Sharing Program Model Act, sponsored by P&C Committee Chair KY Rep. Bart Rowland. The NCOIL Fairness for Responsible Drivers Model Act, sponsored by ND Sen. Shawn Vedaa, was also introduced and discussed, and the Committee heard a presentation from Marsh & McLennan titled “Community Based Catastrophe Insurance: A Model for Closing the Disaster Protection Gap.”

Sen. Hackett stated “The process leading to the adoption of the Distracted Driving Model was NCOIL Model Law development at its finest. The Committee took its time, heard differing perspectives on the issues, while maintaining a respectful exchange of ideas. Thank you to everyone who was involved.”

The Meeting concluded with the Executive Committee Meeting, during which amendments to the NCOIL P&C Insurance Modernization Model Act defining the term “proxy discrimination”, previously adopted by the Special Committee on Race in Insurance Underwriting, and the NCOIL COVID-19 Limited Immunity Model Act, previously adopted by the P&C Committee, were adopted. The Executive Committee also welcomed two new members: Arkansas Senator Mathew Pitsch, Chair of Arkansas Senate Insurance Committee, and Michigan Representative Brenda Carter, Minority Vice Chair of the Michigan House Insurance Committee.

NCOIL President, Indiana Rep. Matt Lehman said, “The turnout at this meeting shows that more and more people are beginning to feel comfortable traveling, and I’m optimistic that by our November meeting in Scottsdale, we’ll be back to operating as we were prior to the pandemic. I am very proud to say that during these unprecedented times, NCOIL has not missed any meetings and has continued to work extremely hard in providing states guidance in the form of model laws and forums for substantive discussions.”

Committee meeting minutes will be posted soon at www.ncoil.org. Recordings of all meetings and sessions will also be posted on the NCOIL YouTube Channel soon.

The 2021 NCOIL Summer Meeting is scheduled to take place in Boston, MA from July 14th–17th. Registration will open in May.

NCOIL is a national legislative organization with the nation’s 50 states as members, represented principally by legislators serving on their states’ insurance and financial institutions committees. NCOIL writes Model Laws in insurance and financial services, works to preserve the State jurisdiction over insurance as established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act over seventy years ago, and to serve as an educational forum for public policymakers and interested parties. Founded in 1969, NCOIL works to assert the prerogative of legislators in making State policy when it comes to insurance and educate State legislators on current and longstanding insurance issues.

– 30 –

South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette to Deliver Keynote Address at NCOIL 2021 Spring Meeting

 

For Immediate Release
March 30, 2021
Contact: Tess Badenhausen
(732) 201-4133

SOUTH CAROLINA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR PAMELA EVETTE TO DELIVER KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT NCOIL 2021 SPRING MEETING
Lieutenant Governor’s Keynote Address will highlight hybrid meeting expected to be strongly attended by legislators, regulators and interested persons across the country

Manasquan, NJ – The National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) is pleased to announce that South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette will deliver the Keynote Address at the 2021 NCOIL Spring Meeting on Friday, April 16 at the Francis Marion Hotel in Charleston, SC.

NCOIL President, IN Rep. Matt Lehman said, “As we gear up for the Spring Meeting, it is exciting to hear about the speakers that we have lined up to share their insights and knowledge on issues they are experiencing in their states. Hearing from Lieutenant Governor Evette will be fascinating and will help NCOIL legislators gain information that will help us make more informed public policy decisions.”

For more information about Lieutenant Governor Evette, please visit the link here.

NCOIL CEO, Commissioner Tom Considine remarked, “Having a speaker like Lieutenant Governor Evette for our Keynote Address is going to be very impactful for our attendees, and we are honored to hear from her. We are very pleased with the current number of people registered to attend the Meeting both in-person and virtually. I know we are all looking forward to getting down to Charleston, and we have a great lineup of speakers to look forward to interacting with, whether it’s in-person or via Zoom.”

There are currently 41 legislators from 19 states registered to attend the Spring Meeting. In addition, there are 7 Insurance Commissioners/Directors registered to attend the Spring Meeting including AR Commissioner Alan McClain, IL Acting Director Dana Popish Servinghaus, MS Commissioner Mike Chaney, MT Commissioner Troy Downing, OH Director Judith French, OK Commissioner Glen Mulready, and SC Director Ray Farmer.

NCOIL has adjusted the Friday schedule for the Meeting, please find the new schedule here
https://ncoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-Spring-Meeting-Schedule-3-29-21.pdf .

The 2021 NCOIL Spring Meeting will be held at the Francis Marion Hotel in Charleston, SC from April 15th – 18th. Registration is still open at https://ncoil.org/2021-ncoil-spring-meetingregistration/

 

– 30 –

NCOIL is a national legislative organization with the nation’s 50 states as members, represented principally by legislators serving on their states’ insurance and financial institutions committees. NCOIL writes Model Laws in insurance and financial services, works to preserve the State jurisdiction over insurance as established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act over seventy-five years ago, and to serve as an educational forum for public policymakers and interested parties. Founded in 1969, NCOIL works to assert the prerogative of legislators in making State policy when it comes to insurance and educate State legislators on current and longstanding insurance issues.

Registration Open for March 30th Complimentary Webinar (Open to Legislators and Staff) – Catastrophe Modeling and Risk Management

We are pleased to announce that The Institutes Griffith Insurance Education Foundation (“The Institutes Griffith Foundation”), in collaboration with the National Council of Insurance Legislators (“NCOIL”), will present a complimentary, educational webinar on March 30 titled “Catastrophe Modeling and its Role in Risk Management: An Impartial Examination for Legislators.”

Natural catastrophes seem to be increasing in frequency and severity, creating a more challenging risk landscape for public policymakers, insurers and insureds. Featuring Kathleen McCullough, PhD, Associate Dean for Academic Programs at the FSU College of Business, and Michael Leonard, PhD, CBE, VP and Sr. Economist at the Insurance Information Institute, the non-partisan, non-advocative webinar will:

Provide brief background on the role and structure of NCOIL and The Institutes Griffith Foundation;

-Consider the genesis and fundamentals of catastrophe modeling;
-Examine its evolution and impact; and
-Explore mitigation and the role of insurance as a force for resilience.

*Pre-registration is required and it takes only a moment. Please see the registration link set forth below.

This hour-long webinar is being offered to state legislators that sit on their state’s legislative committee with jurisdiction over insurance issues. Legislative staff and interns are welcome to join as well.

Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2021
Time: 2:00pm Eastern Daylight Time
Duration: One Hour
Register: Click Here to Register for this complimentary webinar

NCOIL Special Committee on Race in Insurance Underwriting Holds Virtual Interim Meeting: Adopted Definition of “Proxy Discrimination”

 

For Immediate Release
March 8, 2021
Contact: Tess Badenhausen
(732) 201-4133

NCOIL SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON RACE IN INSURANCE UNDERWRITING HOLDS VIRTUAL INTERIM MEETING: ADOPTED DEFINITION OF “PROXY DISCRIMINATION”
Also Discussed Next Steps for Committee’s April Meeting where Discussions Will Continue on Specific Rating Factors and Disparate Impact within the Insurance Industry

Manasquan, NJ – The National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) Special Committee on Race in Insurance Underwriting (Committee) held an interim virtual meeting on Friday, March 5. New York Senator Neil Breslin chairs the Committee. The Committee adopted a definition of “proxy discrimination” which can be found below as amendments to the existing NCOIL Property/Casualty Insurance Modernization Model Act. Senator Breslin sponsored the amendments along with Indiana Representative Matt Lehman, NCOIL President. The definition will be considered by the NCOIL Executive Committee for final adoption at the NCOIL Spring Meeting in April.

Senator Breslin said, “Knowing how important this issue is, I am thrilled with both the attendance for the interim meeting and the fact that we were able to adopt the definition in order to provide states critical guidance. State legislation has already been introduced containing the term proxy discrimination but it is not defined. Leaving terms in statutes undefined creates problems for the legislators that enacted the law, regulators that enforce the law, courts that are called upon to interpret the law, and those governed by the law. We began important discussions in Tampa during the NCOIL Annual Meeting and were able to build upon those discussions during the interim meeting. As is always the case throughout NCOIL deliberations, hearing different viewpoints on the issues being considered is extremely beneficial and is going to give us a lot to discuss at the Spring Meeting as the Committee continues its work on other related issues.”

Representative Lehman remarked, “I am proud to co-sponsor this Model with Senator Breslin. I think that we can all agree that these conversations are not easy to have, but it’s important that we continue to have them. As an organization dedicated to producing sound public policy and serving as an educational forum for public policy makers, we can’t sit idly by while these issues have the potential to have such a large impact on our constituents. I am pleased that we are able to provide a platform for these discussions to occur, whether it be at one of NCOIL’s National Meetings or on an equally important interim call.”

There were over 100 participants for the interim virtual meeting which included 14 legislators from nine states. In addition to the extensive comments and discussion from legislators, NCOIL heard perspectives on these issues from a wide array of interested parties at both the December and interim meetings including: the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA); the Center for Economic Justice (CEJ); Professor Anya Prince of the University of Iowa College of Law; the American Council of Life Insurers; and the Honorable Nat Shapo, former Director of the Illinois Department of Insurance.

“The virtual meeting was excellent, a really wonderful, respectful exchange of views on a critical topic,” stated NCOIL CEO, Commissioner Tom Considine. “The definition of proxy discrimination adopted by the Committee was very carefully crafted to prohibit and preclude discrimination against protected classes by proxy, as the word proxy is defined already in the English languages,” he continued.

“Some of the opponents to the definition sought to equate proxy discrimination with disparate impact, but that is impossible without ignoring the plain existing meaning of the word proxy. The Committee will now examine disparate impact closely through the individual factors used in the underwriting process,” Considine concluded.

The video recording from the meeting will be posted on the NCOIL website soon.

All material discussed during the meeting can be viewed here.

A copy of the NCOIL Property and Casualty Insurance Modernization Act adopted by the Committee appears below:

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF INSURANCE LEGISLATORS

PROPERTY/CASUALTY INSURANCE MODERNIZATION ACT

Adopted by the NCOIL Executive Committee on July 13, 2001.
Amended by the NCOIL Executive Committee on November 16, 2001, and March 1, 2002.
Reviewed and amended by the NCOIL Executive Committee on November 21, 2003.
Readopted by the NCOIL Executive Committee on July 22, 2006.
Re-adopted by the NCOIL Property & Casualty Insurance Committee on July 12, 2018 and the NCOIL Executive Committee on July 15, 2018
Amendments sponsored by Sen. Neil Breslin (NY) and Rep. Matt Lehman (IN), NCOIL President, adopted by the Special Committee on Race in Insurance Underwriting on March 5, 2021. To be considered by the Executive Committee on April 18, 2021.

*Amendments are indicated in bold/italics/underline*

Summary

This model bill establishes a use-and-file rate regulatory system for personal lines of insurance, a no-file system for commercial lines, and allows policies sold to large, sophisticated commercial insurance providers to be exempt from rate and regulatory requirements. This creates a more competitive and less onerous regulatory industry. This model is intended for consideration in insurance regulatory jurisdictions with a more restrictive rate filing and review system than outlined in the bill. Additionally, this model defines proxy discrimination and makes clear that proxy discrimination is unfairly discriminatory in all kinds of insurance.

Section 1. {Short Title}

This act shall be known as the Property/Casualty Insurance Modernization Act.

Section 2. {Legislative Declaration}

This legislature finds and declares that a modernized and competitive procedure be employed

A. To recognize and enhance the role well-informed consumers play in the competitive marketplace

B. To promote price competition among insurers

C. To protect policyholders and the public against adverse effects of excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory rates

D. To prohibit unlawful price fixing agreements by or among insurers

E. To authorize essential cooperative activities among insurers in the ratemaking process and to regulate such activities to prohibit practices that tend to substantially lessen competition or create monopolies

F. To provide necessary regulatory authority in the absence of a competitive marketplace

G. To prevent unfair discrimination, including proxy discrimination.

Drafting Note: This model is intended for consideration in insurance regulatory jurisdictions with a more restrictive rate filing and review system than outlined in this bill. States may also wish to consider implementing a competitive rating law that eliminates the regulatory rate filing process for all lines of insurance that are competitive.

Section 3. {Definitions}

A. For the purpose of this Act, “Advisory organization” means any person or organization, which has five (5) unrelated members and which assists insurers as authorized by Section 11. It does not include joint underwriting organizations, actuarial or legal consultants, single insurers, any employees of an insurer, or insurers under common control or management of their employees or managers.

B. For the purpose of this Act, “Classification system” or “classification” means the process of grouping risks with similar risk characteristics so that differences in costs may be recognized.

C. For the purpose of this Act, “Commercial risk” means any kind of risk, which is not a personal risk.

D. For the purpose of this Act, “Commissioner” means the Commissioner or Director or Superintendent of Insurance of this state.

E. For the purpose of this Act, “Competitive market” means any market except those which have been found to be non-competitive pursuant to Section 5.

F. For the purpose of this Act, “Developed losses” means losses (including loss adjustment expenses) adjusted, using standard actuarial techniques, to eliminate the effect of differences between current payment or reserve estimates and those which are anticipated to provide actual ultimate loss (including loss adjustment expense) payments.

G. For the purpose of this Act, “Expenses” means that portion of a rate attributable to acquisition, field supervision, collection expenses, general expenses, taxes, licenses, and fees.

H. For the purpose of this Act, “Experience rating” means a rating procedure utilizing past insurance experience of the individual policyholder to forecast future losses by measuring the policyholder’s loss experience against the loss experience of policyholders in the same classification to produce a prospective premium credit, debit, or unity modification.

I. For the purpose of this Act, “Joint underwriting” means an arrangement established to provide insurance coverage for a risk, pursuant to which two or more insurers contract with the insured for a price and policy terms agreed upon between or among the insurers.

J. For the purpose of this Act, “Large Commercial Policyholder” is a commercial policyholder with the size, sophistication, and insurance-buying expertise to negotiate with insurers in a largely unregulated environment and which meets at least two of the following criteria: (1) aggregate premium on commercial policies held by the insured, including workers’ compensation, (2) number of employees, (3) annual net revenues or sales, (4) net worth, (5) annual budgeted expenditures for not-for profit organizations or a public body or agencies, or (6) population for municipalities.

Drafting Note: Specific criteria may require a large commercial policyholder to generate annual net revenues or sales in excess of $50,000,000; employ more than 50 employees; procure insurance through a full-time risk manager or retained qualified insurance consultant; possess net worth in excess of $25,000,000; or, if a nonprofit organization or public body/agency, generate annual budgeted expenditures of at least $25,000,000.

K. For the purpose of this Act, “Loss adjustment expense” means the expenses incurred by the insurer in the course of settling claims.

L. For the purpose of this Act, “Market” is the statewide interaction between buyers and sellers in the procurement of a line of insurance coverage pursuant to the provisions of this Act.

Drafting Note: A state may wish to consider a geographic area smaller than the statewide market to be tested, keeping in mind the state’s particular insurance market environment.

M. For the purpose of this Act, “Non-competitive market” means a market, which is subject to a ruling pursuant to Section 5 that a reasonable degree of competition does not exist, and, for the purposes of this Act, residual markets, and pools are noncompetitive markets.

N. For the purpose of this Act, “Personal risk” means homeowners, tenants, nonfleet private passenger automobiles, mobile homes, and other property and casualty insurance for person, family, or household needs. This includes any property and casualty insurance that is otherwise intended for non-commercial coverage.

O. For the purpose of this Act, “Pool” means an arrangement pursuant to which two or more insurers participate in the sharing of risks on a predetermined basis. A pool may operate as an association, syndicate, or in any other generally recognized manner.

P. For the purpose of this Act, “Prospective loss cost” means that portion of a rate that does not include provisions for expenses (other than loss adjustment expenses) or profit, and are based on historical aggregate losses and loss adjustment expenses adjusted through development to their ultimate value and projected through trending to a future point in time.

Q. For purposes of this Act, as well as for the purpose of any regulatory material adopted by this State, or incorporated by reference into the laws or regulations of this State, or regulatory guidance documents used by any official in or of this State, “Proxy Discrimination” means the intentional substitution of a neutral factor for a factor based on race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation for the purpose of discriminating against a consumer to prevent that consumer from obtaining insurance or obtaining a preferred or more advantageous rate due to that consumer’s race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation.

R. For the purpose of this Act, “Rate” means that cost of insurance per exposure unit whether expressed as a single number or as a prospective loss cost with an adjustment to account for the treatment of expenses, profit, and individual insurer variation in loss experience, prior to any application of individual risk variations based on loss or expense considerations, and does not include minimum premiums.

S. For the purpose of this Act, “Residual market mechanism” means an arrangement, either voluntary or mandated by law, involving participation by insurers in the equitable apportionment of risks among insurers for insurance which may be afforded applicants who are unable to obtain insurance through ordinary methods.

T. For the purpose of this Act, “Special assessments” means guaranty fund assessments, Special Indemnity Fund assessments, Vocational Rehabilitation Fund assessments, and other similar assessments. Special assessments shall not be considered as either expenses or losses.

U. For the purpose of this Act, “Supplementary rate information” means any manual or plan of rates, classification, rating schedule, minimum premium, policy fee, rating rule, and any other similar information needed to determine an applicable rate in effect or to be in effect.

V. For the purpose of this Act, “Supporting information” means (1) the experience and judgment of the filer and the experience or data of other insurers or organizations relied upon by the filer, (2) the interpretation of any statistical data relied upon by the filer, (3) a description of methods used in making the rates, and (4) other similar information relied upon by the filer.

W. For the purpose of this Act, “Trending” means any procedure for projecting losses to the average date of loss, or premiums or exposures to the average date of writing, for the period during which the policies are to be effective.

Section 4. {Scope}

A. Section 6(A)(3)(a) of this Act applies to all kinds of insurance written on risks in this state by any insurer authorized to do business in this state.

B. All remaining sections of this Act apply to all such kinds of insurance written on risks in this state by any insurer authorized to do business in this state except:

1. Life insurance
2. Annuities
3. Accident and health insurance
4. Ocean marine insurance
5. Aircraft liability and aircraft hull insurance
6. Reinsurance

7. Surplus Lines
8. Workers Compensation Insurance

Section 5. {Competitive Market}

A. A competitive market for a line of insurance is presumed to exist unless the commissioner, after notice and hearing, determines that a reasonable degree of competition does not exist within a market and issues a ruling to that effect. The burden of proof in any hearing shall be placed on the party or parties advocating the position that competition does not exist. Any ruling that a market is not competitive shall identify the factors causing the market not to be competitive. Such ruling shall expire one year after issue unless rescinded earlier by the commissioner or unless the commissioner renews the ruling after a hearing and a finding as to the continued lack of a reasonable degree of competition. Any ruling that renews the finding that
competition does not exist shall also identify the factors that cause the market to continue not to be competitive.

B. The following factors shall be considered by the commissioner for purposes of determining if a reasonable degree of competition does not exist in a particular line of insurance:

1. The number of insurers or groups of affiliated insurers providing coverage in the market

2. Measures of market concentration and changes of market concentration over time

3. Ease of entry and the existence of financial or economic barriers that could prevent new firms from entering the market

4. The extent to which any insurer or group of affiliated insurers controls all or a portion of the market

5. Whether the total number of companies writing the line of insurance in this state is sufficient to provide multiple options

6. The availability of insurance coverage to consumers in the markets

7. The opportunities available to consumers in the market to acquire pricing and other consumer information

C. The commissioner shall monitor the degree and continued existence of competition in this State on an on-going basis. In doing so, the commissioner may utilize existing relevant information, analytical systems, and other sources; or rely on some combination thereof. Such activities may be conducted internally within the insurance department, in cooperation with other state insurance departments, through outside contractors, and/or in any other appropriate manner.

Section 6. {Rating Standards and Methods}

A. Rates shall not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

1. For the purpose of this Act, “Excessive” means a rate that is likely to produce a long term profit that is unreasonably high for the insurance provided. No rate in a competitive market shall be considered excessive.

Drafting Note: Reflecting the well-accepted economic principle that costs and prices are driven downward by competition, insurance laws in seventeen (17) states do not allow a finding of excessiveness in a competitive market. Those seventeen (17) states are: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. Insurance laws in five (5) other states say that rates are “presumed” not to be excessive if there is a reasonable degree of competition. Those five (5) states are: Arizona, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.

2. For the purpose of this Act, “Inadequate” means a rate which is unreasonably low for the insurance provided and

a. the continued use of which endangers the solvency of the insurers using it, or

b. will have the effect of substantially lessening competition or creating a monopoly in any market

3. a. For the purpose of this Act, “Unfairly discriminatory” refers either to rates that cannot be actuarially justified, or to rates that can be actuarially justified but are based on proxy discrimination. It does not refer to rates that produce differences in premiums for policyholders with like loss exposures, so long as the rate reflects such differences with reasonable accuracy. A rate is not unfairly discriminatory if it averages broadly among persons insured under a group, franchise or blanket policy, or a mass marketing plan.

b. No rate in a competitive market shall be considered unfairly discriminatory unless it violates the provisions of section 6(B) in that it classifies risk, on the basis of race, color creed, or national origin. Risks may be classified in any way except that no risk may be classified on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin.

B. In determining whether rates in a non-competitive market are excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, consideration may be given to the following elements:

1. Basic Rate Factors. Due consideration shall be given to past and prospective loss and expense experience within and outside of this state; to catastrophe hazards and contingencies; to events or trends within and outside of this state; to dividends or savings to policyholders, members, or subscribers; and to all other factors and judgments deemed relevant by the insurer.

2. Classification. Risks may be grouped by classifications for the establishment of rates and minimum premiums. Classification rates may be modified for individual risks in accordance with rating plans or schedules which establish standards for measuring probable variations in hazards or expenses, or both.

3. Expenses. The expense provision shall reflect the operating methods of the insurer and its own past expense experience and anticipated future expenses.

4. Contingencies and Profits. The rates shall contain a provision for contingencies and a provision for a reasonable underwriting profit, and reflect investment income directly attributable to unearned premium and loss reserves.

5. Other relevant factors. Any other factors available at the time of hearing.

Section 7. {Rate Regulation in a Market Determined to be Non-Competitive}

A. If the commissioner determines that competition does not exist in a market and issues a ruling to that effect pursuant to Section 5, the rates applicable to insurance sold in that market shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 through 9 applicable to noncompetitive markets.

B. Any rate filing in effect at the time the commissioner determines that competition does not exist pursuant to Section 5 shall be deemed to be in compliance with the laws of this state unless disapproved pursuant to the procedures and rating standards contained in Section 6 through 9 applicable to non-competitive markets.

C. Any insurer having a rate filing in effect at the time the commissioner determines that competition does not exist pursuant to Section 5 may be required to furnish supporting information within 30 days of a written request by the commissioner.

Section 8. {Filing of Rates, Supplementary Rate Information, and Supporting Information}

A. Filings in Competitive Markets. For personal lines, every insurer shall file with the commissioner all rates and supplementary rate information to be used in this state no later than 30 days after the effective date; provided, that such rates and supplementary rate information need not be filed for inland marine risks, which by general custom are not written according to manual rules or rating plans. Rates in a competitive market for commercial insurance need not be filed.

B. Filings in Non-Competitive Markets.

1. Every insurer shall file with the commissioner all rates, supplementary rate information, and supporting information for non-competitive markets at least 30 days before the proposed effective date. The commissioner may give written notice, within 30 days of the receipt of the filing, that the commissioner needs additional time, not to exceed 30 days from the date of such notice to consider the filing. Upon written application of the insurer, the commissioner may authorize rates to be effective before the expiration of the waiting period or an extension thereof. A filing shall be deemed to meet the requirements of this Act and to become effective unless disapproved pursuant to Section 9 by the commissioner before the expiration of the waiting period or an extension thereof. Residual market mechanisms or advisory organizations may file residual market rates.

2. The filing shall be deemed in compliance with the filing provisions of this section unless the commissioner informs the insurer within 10 days after receipt of the filing as to what supplementary rate information or supporting information is required to complete the filing.

C. Reference Filings. An insurer may file its rates by either filing its final rates or by filing a multiplier and, if applicable, an expense constant adjustment to be applied to prospective loss costs that have been filed by an advisory organization on behalf of the insurer as permitted by Section 11.

D. Filings Open to Inspection. All rates, supplementary rate information, and any supporting information filed under this Act shall be open to public inspection once they have been filed, except information marked confidential, Trade Secret, or proprietary by the insurer or filer. Copies may be obtained from the commissioner upon request and upon payment of a reasonable fee.

E. Consent to Rate. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, upon written application of the insured, stating the reason therefore, a rate in excess of or below that otherwise applicable may be used on any specific risk.

Section 9. (Disapproval of Rates)

A. Bases for Disapproval

1. The commissioner shall disapprove a rate in a competitive market only if the commissioner finds pursuant to subsection (B) of this section that the rate is inadequate under Section (6)(A)(2) or unfairly discriminatory under Section 6(A)(3)(b).

2. The commissioner may disapprove a rate for use in a non-competitive market only if the commissioner finds pursuant to subsection (B) of this section that the rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory under Section 6A.

B. Procedures for Disapproval

1. Prior to the expiration of the waiting period or an extension thereof of a filing made pursuant to Section 8, subsection (B), the commissioner may disapprove by written order rates filed pursuant to Section 8, subsection (B), without a hearing. The order shall specify in what respects such filing fails to meet the requirements of this Act. Any insurer whose rates are disapproved under this section shall be given a hearing upon written
request made within 30 days of disapproval.

2. If, at any time, the commissioner finds that a rate applicable to insurance sold in a non-competitive market does not comply with the standards set forth in Section 6, the commissioner may, after a hearing held upon not less than 20 days written notice, issue an order pursuant to subsection 9I disapproving such rate. The Hearing notice shall be sent to every insurer and advisory organization that adopted the rate and shall specify the matters to be considered at the hearing. The disapproval order shall not affect any contract or policy made or issued prior to the effective date set forth in said order.

3. If, at any time, the commissioner finds that a rate applicable to insurance sold in a competitive market is inadequate under Section 6(A)(3)(a) or unfairly discriminatory under Section 6(A)(3)(b), the commissioner may issue an order pursuant to subsection 9(C) disapproving the rate. Said order shall not affect any contract or policy made or issued prior to the effective date set forth in said order.

C. Order of Disapproval. If the commissioner disapproves a rate pursuant to subsection (B) of this section, the commissioner shall issue an order within 30 days of the close of the hearing specifying in what respects such rate fails to meet the requirements of this Act. The order shall state an effective date no sooner than 30 business days after the date of the order when the use of such rate shall be discontinued. This order shall not affect any policy made before the effective date of the order

D. Appeal of Orders; Establishment of Reserves. If an order of disapproval is appealed pursuant to Section 20 the insurer may implement the disapproved rate upon notification to the court, in which case any excess of the disapproved rate over a rate previously in effect shall be placed in a reserve established by the insurer. The court shall have control over the disbursement of funds from such reserve. Such funds shall be distributed as determined by the court in its final order except that de minimus refunds to policyholders shall not be required.

Section 10. {Large Commercial Policyholder}

A. A policy of insurance sold to a “Large Commercial Policyholder,” as defined in Section 3(J), shall not be subject to the requirements of this chapter, including but not limited to, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The forms and endorsements for any policy sold to a “Large Commercial Policyholder” shall not be subject to filing and approval requirements of (reference form filing and approval provisions plus other applicable provisions).

B. All policies issued pursuant to the provisions of this section shall contain a conspicuous disclaimer printed in at least ten-point, bold-faced type that states that the policy applied for (including the rates, rating plans, resulting premiums, and the policy forms) is not subject to the rate and form requirements of this state and other provisions of the insurance law that apply to other commercial products and may contain significant differences from a policy that is subject to all provisions of the insurance law. Such notice shall set forth possible differences in policy conditions, forms, and endorsements, as compared to a policy that is subject to all of the provisions of the insurance law. The format and provisions of such notice shall be prescribed by the commissioner. The disclosure notice will also include a policyholder’s acknowledgment statement, to be signed and dated prior to the effective date of the coverage, and shall remain on file with the insurer.

C. In procuring insurance, a “Large Commercial Policyholder” shall certify on a form approved by the department of insurance that it meets the eligibility requirements set out in Section 10(A) and specify the requirements that the policyholder has met. This certification is to be completed
annually and remain on file with the insurer.

D. A surplus lines broker seeking to obtain or provide insurance for a “Large Commercial Policyholder” is authorized to purchase insurance from any eligible unauthorized insurer without making a diligent search of authorized insurers as required by (applicable surplus lines law).

Section 11. {Records and Reports: Exchange of Information}

A. In only those markets found to be non-competitive pursuant to Section 5, insurers and advisory organizations shall file with the commissioner, and the commissioner shall review, reasonable rules and plans for recording and reporting of loss and expense experience. The commissioner may designate one or more advisory organizations to assist in gathering such experience and making compilations thereof. No insurer shall be required to record or report its experience in a manner inconsistent with its own rating system.

B. The commissioner and every insurer and advisory organization may exchange rates and rate information and experience data with insurance regulatory officials, insurers, and advisory organizations in this and other states and may consult with them with respect to the collection of statistical data and the application of rating systems.

Section 12. {Joint Underwriting, Pools, and Residual Market Activities}

A. Acting in Concert. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13, insurers participating in joint underwriting, pools, or residual market mechanisms may act in cooperation with each other in the making of rates, rating systems, supplementary rate information, policy or bond forms, underwriting rules, surveys, inspections and investigations; in the furnishing of loss and expense statistics or other information; and in conducting research. Joint underwriting, pools, and residual market mechanisms shall not be deemed advisory organizations.

B. Regulation

1. If, after notice and hearing, the commissioner finds that any activity or practice of an insurer participating in a joint underwriting or pooling mechanism is unfair, unreasonable, will tend to substantially lessen competition in any market, or is otherwise inconsistent with the provisions or purposes of this Act and all other applicable statutes, the commissioner may issue a written order specifying in what respects such activity or practice is unfair, unreasonable, anti-competitive, or otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and all other applicable statutes, and require the discontinuance of such activity or practice.

2. Every pool shall file with the commissioner a copy of its constitution, articles of incorporation, agreement, or association bylaws; rules and regulations governing activities; its members; the name and address of a resident of this state upon whom notices, process, and orders of the commissioner may be served; and any changes or modifications thereof.

3. Any residual market mechanism, plan, or agreement to implement such a mechanism, and any changes or amendments thereto, shall be submitted in writing to the commissioner for approval, together with such information as may be reasonably required. The commissioner shall approve such agreements if they foster (i) the use of rates which meet the standards prescribed by this Act and all other applicable statutes and (ii) activities and practices not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and all other applicable statutes.

4. The commissioner may review the operations of all residual market mechanisms to determine compliance with the provisions of this Act and all other applicable statutes. If after a notice of hearing, the commissioner finds that such mechanisms are violating the provisions of this Act and all other applicable statutes, the commissioner may issue a written order to the parties involved specifying in what respects such operations violate the provisions of this Act and all other applicable statutes. The commissioner may further order the discontinuance or elimination of any such operation.

Section 13. {Assigned Risks}

A. Agreements may be made among insurers with respect to the equitable apportionment among them of insurance that may be afforded applicants who are in good faith entitled to, but who are unable to, procure such insurance through ordinary methods, and such insurers may agree among themselves on the use of reasonable rate modifications for such insurance, such agreements, and rate modifications to be subject to the approval of the commissioner.

Drafting Note: This section is to be included if the current provision authorizing agreements for the assigned risk or other residual market is repealed as part of the current rating law. You may wish to pick up current state provisions.

Section 14. {Examinations}

A. The commissioner may examine any insurer, pool, advisory organization, or residual market mechanism to ascertain compliance with this Act.

B. Every insurer, pool, advisory organization, and residual market mechanism shall maintain adequate records from which commissioner may determine compliance with the provisions of this Act. Such records shall contain the experience, data, statistics, and other information collected or used and shall be available to the commissioner for examination or inspection upon reasonable notice.

C. The reasonable cost of an examination made pursuant to this section shall be paid by the examined party upon presentation to it of a detailed account of such costs.

D. The commissioner may accept the report of an examination made by the insurance supervisory official of another state in lieu of an examination under this section.

Section 15. {Exemptions}

The commissioner may, after public notice and hearing, exempt any line of insurance from any or all of the provisions of this Act for the purpose of relieving such line of insurance from filing or any otherwise applicable provisions of this Act.

Section 16. {Consumer Information}

The Commissioner shall utilize, develop, or cause to be developed a consumer information system(s) which will provide and disseminate price and other relevant information on a readily available basis to purchasers of homeowners, private passenger non-fleet automobile, or property insurance for personal, family, or household needs. The commissioner may utilize, develop, or cause to be developed a consumer information system(s) which will provide and disseminate price and other relevant information on a readily available basis to purchasers of insurance for commercial risks and personal risks not otherwise specified herein. Such activity may be conducted internally within the insurance department, in cooperation with other state insurance departments, through outside contractors, and/or in any other appropriate manner. To the extent deemed necessary and appropriate by the commissioner, insurers, advisory organizations, statistical agents, and other persons or organizations involved in conducting the business of insurance in this State, to which this section applies, shall cooperate in the development and utilization of a consumer information system(s).

Drafting Note: For jurisdictions that need a separate and distinct means of funding a consumer information system the following provision may be added to Section 16: The cost of complying with this section shall be assessed against insurers subject to this Act and authorized to write types of business subject to a consumer information system. The assessments shall be made on an equitable and practicable basis established, after hearing, in a rule promulgated by the commissioner. This activity shall be conducted in a reasonably economical manner consistent with the purposes of this Act.

Section 17. {Dividends}

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit or regulate the payment of dividends, savings, or unabsorbed premium deposits allowed or returned by insurers to their policyholders, members, or subscribers. A plan for the payment of dividends, savings, or unabsorbed premium deposits allowed or returned by insurers to their policyholders, members, or subscribers shall not be deemed a rating plan or system.

Section 18. {Penalties}

A. The commissioner may impose after notice and hearing a penalty determined in accordance with (refer to appropriate penalties provision).

B. Technical violations arising from systems or computer errors of the same type shall be treated as a single violation. In the event of an overcharge, if the insurer makes restitution including payment of interest, no penalty shall be imposed.

C. The commissioner may suspend or revoke the license of any insurer, advisory organization, or statistical agent which fails to comply with an order of the commissioner within the time prescribed by such order, or any extension thereof which the commissioner may grant.

D. The commissioner may determine when a suspension of license shall become effective and the period of such suspension, which the commissioner may modify or rescind in any reasonable manner.

E. No penalty shall be imposed and no license shall be suspended or revoked except upon a written order of the commissioner stating his or her findings, made after notice and hearing.

Section 19. {Judicial Review}

A. Any order, ruling, finding, decision, or other act of the commissioner made pursuant to this Act shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with (cite applicable provisions of state civil practice act).

Section 20. {Notice and Hearing}

A. Notice Requirements. All notices rendered pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall be in writing and shall state clearly the nature and purpose of the hearing. All relevant facts, statutes, and rules shall be specified so that respondent(s) are fully informed of the scope of the hearing, including specific allegations, if any. If a hearing is required, all notices shall designate a hearing date at least 14 days from the date of the notice, unless such minimum notice period is waived by respondents.

B. Hearings. All hearings pursuant to the provisions of this Act shall be conducted in accordance with (cite applicable provisions of Administrative Procedures Act) to the extent such provisions are consistent with the procedural requirements contained in this Act.

Section 21. {Severability}

If any provision or item of this Act, or the application thereof, is held invalid, such invalidity shall
not affect other provisions, items, or applications of the Act that can be given effect without the
invalid provision, item, or application.

Section 22. {Effective Date}

The provisions of this Act become effective _______________ months after the enactment.

© National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL)

-30-

NCOIL is a national legislative organization with the nation’s 50 states as members, represented principally by legislators serving on their states’ insurance and financial institutions committees. NCOIL writes Model Laws in insurance and financial services, works to preserve the State jurisdiction over insurance as established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act seventy-six years ago, and to serve as an educational forum for public policymakers and interested parties. Founded in 1969, NCOIL works to assert the prerogative of legislators in making State policy when it comes to insurance and educate State legislators on current and longstanding insurance issues.

NCOIL Property & Casualty Insurance Committee Holds Virtual Interim Meeting: Adopted Revised NCOIL COVID-19 Limited Immunity Model Act

 

For Immediate Release
February 22, 2021
Contact: Tess Badenhausen
(732) 201-4133

NCOIL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMMITTEE HOLDS VIRTUAL INTERIM MEETING: ADOPTED REVISED NCOIL COVID-19 LIMITED IMMUNITY MODEL ACT
Also Announced Intention to Amend NCOIL Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing Program Model Act at April Spring Meeting

Manasquan, NJ – The National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) Property and Casualty Insurance Committee (Committee) held an interim virtual meeting on Friday, February 19.  Kentucky Representative Bart Rowland chairs the Committee and North Carolina Senator Vickie Sawyer serves as vice chair. The Committee discussed state actions relating to COVID-19 business immunity statutes, and adopted the NCOIL COVID-19 Limited Immunity Model Act (Model), sponsored by Rep. Rowland and Indiana Representative Matt Lehman, NCOIL President. The Model will be considered by the NCOIL Executive Committee for final adoption at the NCOIL Spring Meeting in April.

Rep. Rowland said, “I want to thank everyone who participated in the interim meeting. We had a great initial discussion on these issues in December at the NCOIL Annual Meeting, which included a number of speakers with differing views. That discussion enabled us to digest all the feedback on the initial draft of the Model and move forward with adoption of the Model during this interim meeting. I am pleased we were able to adopt the Model as so many states, including my home state of Kentucky, are now considering legislation concerning this issue.”

Rep. Lehman said, “Rep. Rowland led a great discussion on these issues in Tampa at our Annual Meeting, and again during this virtual interim meeting. As co-sponsor of the Model, I agreed with Rep. Rowland’s goal of working to get this Model adopted in advance of the Spring Meeting so that states considering the issue could be provided helpful guidance. I certainly didn’t expect to be discussing an issue like this when I began my term as NCOIL President, but here we are. Businesses, individuals, and insurers are looking for help when it comes to reopening and
getting back to a sense of normal.”

There were over 100 participants registered for the interim virtual meeting which included 34 legislators from 17 states. In addition to the robust dialogue from legislators, NCOIL heard perspectives on these issues from a wide array of interested parties at both the December and interim meetings including: Rebecca Dixon, Executive Director at the National Employment Law Project; Professor David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle, Jr. Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center; the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC); the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA); the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA); and the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA)

NCOIL CEO, Commissioner Tom Considine stated, “This Model allows us to be proactive by developing Model Legislation to offer assistance to states as they adapt during these challenging times. We developed the Model being mindful that a blanket level of immunity should not be provided but rather a presumption of protection should be provided for businesses and individuals that act in a reasonable manner and abide by certain health and safety measures in order to remove from businesses during this time of crisis the specter of frivolous lawsuits when the businesses have complied with all CDC guidance.” Considine continued, “We had great leadership guiding this Model from Rep. Rowland and Rep. Lehman, and I am confident that
states will find it useful when developing their own legislation.”

Additionally, Rep. Rowland announced his intention to introduce and sponsor amendments to the NCOIL Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing Program Model Act at the NCOIL Spring Meeting in April. The Model, also sponsored by Rep. Rowland and adopted by NCOIL in December of 2019, has been introduced and adopted by several states. The amendments are related to definitions, insurance, and recordkeeping and serve to enhance the original Model by promoting an innovative, consumer-centric peer-to-peer car sharing marketplace in every state. The amendments will appear in the 30-day materials for the Spring Meeting next month.

The video recording from the meeting will be posted on the NCOIL website soon and can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe09Z77z4q6HG1kv3fDG7Bg

All material discussed during the meeting can be viewed here: https://ncoil.org/ncoil-property-casualty-insurance-committee-interim-meeting-february-19-2021-1200-pm-130-pm-est/

A copy of the NCOIL COVID-19 Limited Immunity Model Act adopted by the Committee appears below:

 

National Council of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL)

COVID-19 Limited Immunity Model Act

*Sponsored by Rep. Bart Rowland (KY)
*Co-Sponsored by Rep. Matt Lehman (IN)
*Adopted by the Property & Casualty Insurance Committee on February 19, 2021.

*To be considered for adoption by the NCOIL Executive Committee on April 18, 2021.

Section 1. Title

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “[State] COVID-19 Limited Immunity Act.”

Section 2. Definitions

(A) “Arising from COVID-19” means an injury or harm caused by or resulting from:

(1) the actual, alleged, or possible exposure to or contraction of COVID-19; or

(2) services, treatment, or other actions performed, not performed, or delayed in response to COVID-19.

(3) The term “arising from COVID-19” includes:

(a) the implementation of policies and procedures to prevent or minimize the spread of COVID-19;

(b) testing;

(c) monitoring, collecting, reporting, tracking, tracing, disclosing, or investigating COVID-19 exposure or other COVID-19 related information;

(d) using, designing, manufacturing, providing, donating, or servicing precautionary, diagnostic, collection, or other health equipment or supplies, including personal protective equipment;

(e) closing or partially closing to prevent or minimize the spread of COVID-19;

(f) delaying or modifying the schedule or performance of any medical procedure; and

(g) providing services or products in response to government appeal of repurposing operations to address an urgent need for personal protective equipment, sanitation products, or other products necessary to protect the public.

(B) “COVID-19” refers to any of the following:

(1) The novel coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2;

(2) Any mutation of SARS-CoV-2;

(3) The coronavirus disease 2019.

(C) “Person” means any entity recognized in this state and shall include but not be limited to an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, trust, association, church or religious organization, city, county, public or private school district, college, university or other institution of higher education, or other unit of local government.

Section 3. Limited Immunity from Liability

(A) Notwithstanding any other statute to the contrary, any person who acts in good faith in the course of or through the performance or provision of the person’s business operations or on the premises owned or operated by the person shall be immune from civil liability for ordinary negligence for any personal injury or death arising from COVID-19, if the person acts as an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. For purposes of this subsection, ordinary, reasonable, and prudent shall include the adoption of safety measures as set forth in subsection (B) of this Section.

(B) Notwithstanding any other statute to the contrary, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the safety measures adopted by any person, as defined in Section 2(C) of this Act, are reasonable, as used in subsection (A) of this Section, if those measures conform to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines in existence at the time of the alleged exposure. For purposes of this Section, the rebuttable presumption does not alter the applicable standard of care for medical, legal, or other negligence cases.

(C) Immunity as described in this section shall not apply to acts or omissions that constitute an intentional tort or willful or reckless misconduct as defined in [State Tort Code].

(D) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify the application of [State] worker’s compensation laws.

(E) The immunity provided in this section is in addition to any other immunity protection that may apply in state or federal law.

Section 4. Effective Date

An emergency existing therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval.

Section 5. Sunset Date

The provisions of Section 3 of this Act shall be null, void, and of no force and effect on and after [ ].

-30-

NCOIL is a national legislative organization with the nation’s 50 states as members, represented principally by legislators serving on their states’ insurance and financial institutions committees. NCOIL writes Model Laws in insurance and financial services, works to preserve the State jurisdiction over insurance as established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act seventy-six years ago, and to serve as an educational forum for public policymakers and interested parties. Founded in 1969, NCOIL works to assert the prerogative of legislators in making State policy when it comes to insurance and educate State legislators on current and longstanding insurance issues.