Posted On: May 13, 2005, 9:29 am CDT

Posted By: DonP

Jon,

No doubt the insurance industry has not felt this kind of pressure for reform since the 1967 riots produced the FAIR plans and regulators started to promote no-fault automobile and residual market rules in the 1970s.

You complain that innocents are being branded along with the guilty...innocents who have the highest bill in Washington for lobbying on their legislative priorities, innocents who can not regulate themselves without government intervention.

At a recent forum, I asked the CEO of a major, respected US insurer why TRIA, why can't we come up with a reinsurance solution for terrorism coverage without a backstop, if we can model the risk and accurately predict its impacts. The answer was that those who would take on the risk are already taking on the most risk and would endanger the industry by potentially taking the rest of the industry down with them in the event of a serious loss. In other words, the insurance industry can not regulate itself in a competitive climate.

As a broker, I have been shocked by the negative opinion of most non-industry observers of the pre-Elliot Spitzer insurance industry. Yes, the industry has received negative publicity. This is necessary for reform.

When an industry's questionable ways of doing business are pervasive and accepted within the industry, this type of frontal attack is necessary for reform. I would like you to cite one example where an industry reformed itself on its own and reduced its share of contribution to the economy as a result, for higher moral purpose.

You seem to support the intellectually dishonest words of a demagogue if it suits your purpose. That is the very act you are wrongfully complaining about. I am embarrassed to have someone represent my industry through such inflammatory and libelous language. You would support Ezra Pound's support of the Nazis? We be be served far better by an industry spokesman with intellectual integrity and a higher level of political sophistication.