Brokers Offer Full Support for Surplus Lines Reform Bill
National News • July 20, 2006
The National Association of Professional Surplus Lines Offices offered their full support and applauded the passage of the Non-Admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 5637), by the House ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: This bill fails to address a few things...
Posted On: July 21, 2006, 3:06 pm CDT
Posted By: SurplusFuss
Comment:
The approvals and support of this bill are certainly steps in the right direction, as surplus lines reform is desperately needed. However, some of the biggest compliance obstacles have been completely overlooked.
Due diligence, anyone? Some states want 1 declination, some states want 3, some states require no specific number, some states want an affidavit, some states don't, some states want to insured and the broker to sign such affidavit, some states want only the broker's signature, some states accept a declination for the entire book of business, some states want the required number of declinations for each individual insured... and it goes on ad nauseum.
About the specifics of the tax reporting... some states want taxes remitted on an estimated quarterly basis, some states want an annual remittance, some states require monthly reporting, some states levy a stamping fee, some have surcharges, some have other regulatory or municipality fees in addition to the tax and the reporting of the additional fees is just as convoluted as the taxes themselves.
Perhaps if this bill becomes enacted, it will open the door for future uniformity among the states. One can only hope. Thank you to the NAIC, NAPSLO and every other individual and entity who have supported this bill. I'm looking forward to continued surplus lines reform.
Subject: This bill fails to address a few things...
Due diligence, anyone? Some states want 1 declination, some states want 3, some states require no specific number, some states want an affidavit, some states don't, some states want to insured and the broker to sign such affidavit, some states want only the broker's signature, some states accept a declination for the entire book of business, some states want the required number of declinations for each individual insured... and it goes on ad nauseum.
About the specifics of the tax reporting... some states want taxes remitted on an estimated quarterly basis, some states want an annual remittance, some states require monthly reporting, some states levy a stamping fee, some have surcharges, some have other regulatory or municipality fees in addition to the tax and the reporting of the additional fees is just as convoluted as the taxes themselves.
Perhaps if this bill becomes enacted, it will open the door for future uniformity among the states. One can only hope. Thank you to the NAIC, NAPSLO and every other individual and entity who have supported this bill. I'm looking forward to continued surplus lines reform.