BP Oil Spill Claims Chief Braces for Surge in Filings
N.Y. Regulator Issues ‘Cease and Desist’ Order to Car-Sharing Firm RelayRides
Tornadoes Spin Through Texas Towns After Dark, Killing Six
U.S., European Retailers Divided on Safety Plan for Bangladesh Factories
Government to Share Cyber Security Information with Private Sector
50 Top Apps for Independent Agents
Medical Liability Market Profitable But Deteriorating Results Expected: Fitch
Three Insurance Companies Placed in Liquidation in IllinoisFree Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
What a great idea. Let’s put it in the hands of the folks who brought us the SEC and FEMA. Brilliant!
As one who fought the battle to keep insurance and banking seperate till we lost in 1996. My concern is that a Federally regulated insurance industry will some day be pressured to provide coverage guaranteed by the government,for uninsurable risks that only represent political subsidy. Our curren problem is the result of govenment pressure to provide loans as political rewards.
if you think the folks that run the IRS and FEMA are doing a good job of customer service, then you should support this stupid idea.
insurance is well regulated by the individual states. the complaint from agents and companies is the lack of ease of multi state licensing. that could easily be solved by the individual states if enough incentive was there to do so. (the NAIC doesn’t seem to be cutting the mustard)
Hey, Congress! Take a biology lesson– this extreme mix of inbreeding and crossbreeding won’t work.
You gotta love the specific wording used in the headline and the announcement and the ever-present need to mention AIG.
First, a “Consumer PROTECTION Act”? Come on, it only makes the Feds stronger and I can assure you will do nothing for the consumer.
The comparison of a “robust” federal system versus the “antiquated” state system.
Great choice of wording.
Last, AIG is exactly the proof that the Feds can’t do anything right. Only the state-regulated insurance side is strong enough to stand on its own.
Leave the system alone, local governments take care of their own. The Fed takes care of it’s own – and it isn’t the people.
Seriously. The Fed couldn’t regulate their own… anything. AIG had nothing to do with insurance.
Conceptually Federal Regulation sounds wonderful… develop a single set of rules which applies across the board. Make everything consistent, which should reduce costs and increase competition… The only problem is that the government has never figured out how to make things simple or consistent. And as someone has already said, ultimately I see this leading to government guarantees that insurance will be available to everyone, everywhere for everything at a price that will not adequately reflect the exposure.
DWT, how is what you’ve outlined any different than what has happened under state regulation in FL or CA?
“The meltdown of insurance giant AIG and the broad crisis in the nation’s financial system serve as proof of the vital need”
AIG failed because it placed humongous bets on the housing market. Their insurance operations were and are fine.
Hillary said “never waste a good crisis” or something along those lines…. looks like they think the (non insurance-related) failure of AIG will provide a good crisis for them to implement “voluntary” federal regulation.
How many federal programs do you know of that were voluntary and stayed that way? That is only the first step.
Those two mental midgets have once again excelled at missing the target. Starting a new agency to regulate the insurance industry because of a fault in the financial market harkens to another analogy: If you get diarrhea from eating to much Ice Cream, go kill the cow.
The American electorate needs to wakeup from their complacency and take back control of all government/bureaucracies. Citizens communicating and cooperating for the common good with each other will cure our ills. We do not need another level of government to point at as culpible for not solving our problems.
I would guess that Melissa Bean and Ed Royce have never spoken to a state regulator or analyst that reviews the products for approval at the state level. Insurance contracts are full of coverage exclusions that violate the laws of each state that were put in place by the legislator to protect the insurance consumer. If it were not for state regulation, the insurance carriers would be able to include these exclusions in the policies because no one would be reviewing their contracts. They would have an open door, no regulation policy!
And you are correct, this is exactly what the NAIC and the Insurance Companies want to accomplish. Do not be fooled, there are state commissioners that will tell you state regulation is good and should remain in place however they are working behind the scenes to support federal regulation. I feel if the federal government can clean up the financial industry, this should be enough to keep them busy for sometime. Stay out of the insurance business. Agent’s, go the PIA, IIAO and your state senator’s and start complaining now! If you do not, nothing will stop this group!
What are you talking about? This is a stupid and uninformed a letter as I have seen since I left the line about Obama and the G20 2 minutes ago. Where do you come up with this baloney? What laws and what exclusions in what states? State one or two facts to support this garbage. Do you work for Robert Hunter or just live in Florida?
Unless I’m mistaken, I thought the insurance part of AIG was fine, it was the financial part that got them into so much trouble? If so, why are they using AIG as an example for needing federal regulation for insurers? It seems as though, at the State level the insurance companies need approval before “changing” rates, yet at the federal level it would make it much easier for them. Rates are already being “adjusted” too often with “models” created to justify increases i.e., credit history, own vs rent, length of time with current insurer, number of vehicles owned, etc., (the list goes on and on). The “matching price to risk” seems to be getting carried on a little too far with these so-called “models” that as far as I know have yet to be actually proven. Regulation at the federal level seems like it’s going to make rate “adjustments” much eaiser for the insurance companies with each state not having a say.
Penny wise, Pound foolish…
CEO of American
Comment:
the insurance giants’s near collapse, ….RE: Smoke …who is the Screen-insurance .give this money to the state,s not CEO of insurance.
create a federal regulator for insurance. WOW WE DO NOT HAVE ONE SO GREED TOOK OVER.
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders. Its time to stop no more.
federal regulator for insurance dose not work.
nobody important what our you talking about?
If it,s possible, Mr. mulitiple name is becoming more nonsensical and ineloquent. Did Ed Rust run over your dog?
No, the question is, why does this same idiot ramble on about State Farm and Ed Rust over and over and over. He or she posts under no name like yourself or under multiple names. I have a problem with serial hate posters who actually have nothing new to say and keep saying it.
By Anita Lee
McClatchy Newspapers
Advertisement
BILOXI, Miss. (MCT) — In some cases, State Farm’s top leadership prefers not to share or even keep records that offer insight into how policyholder claims are handled, according to court records.
Chairman and CEO Edward B. Rust Jr. said in sworn testimony earlier this month that no minutes are kept of quarterly meetings held by the company’s top management, the Chairman’s Council, and that policyholders have no right to information about an investigation State Farm Insurance Cos. has ordered of its relationship with Haag Engineering Co.
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company doesn’t “intend to-;try this-;case in the media.”
“State Farm stands by testimony given by President and Vice Chairman Vince Trosino, who said when asked about these allegations, ‘It’s not part of our system. It’s not part of our core values. It’s not what made us the most successful property and casualty insurer, life insurer, in the country.’”
Juries in two states, Texas and Oklahoma, have found Haag provided biased reports to State Farm to minimize or deny policyholder claims. Mississippi’s attorney general currently is conducting a grand jury investigation to determine whether State Farm and other insurers denied Hurricane Katrina claims through the use of fraudulent engineering reports.
Haag denies bias, but State Farm suspended business with the company in June and ordered an independent investigation after an Oklahoma jury awarded a total of $13 million to a policyholder over tornado damages. Subsequent trials are set to determine damages for 70 other policyholders, all of whom had claims investigated by Haag.
In past court cases, judges have chastised and even fined State Farm for withholding records the company was ordered to produce. Evidence the company destroyed documents has been presented in several cases.
In the Oklahoma case, after State Farm finally turned over to the court a “claims legal research” DVD and other records, Judge Richard G. Van Dyck told company attorneys
“As I was watching these tapes I just want to say this for the record, the hair on the back of my neck did — did stand up because I was seeing things there that early on in this case I was told by (State Farm) defense counsel didn’t exist and couldn’t be produced. So I’m not real happy with that and I want to remind all counsel that their ethical responsibilities as attorneys outweigh the wishes of their clients.”
Gary T. Fye, an expert in the analysis of disputed insurance claims who lives in Nevada, often testifies in insurance cases. Fye, who said he has testified on behalf of policyholders and insurance companies, has provided the courts information on State Farm’s history of destroying and withholding records.
In 1998, Fye wrote in a Florida case
“I have been witnessing document destruction, concealment, and obstruction of discovery by State Farm for many years in connection with my review of internal claim practices documents of the insurer. I have accumulated certain Exhibits which show the company’s goals and objectives for document handling by its employees. The documents show close to 28 years of intentional destruction, concealment and distortion of claim practices records.”
In some cases, company executives did not keep records.
Jeff Marr, the attorney suing State Farm in Oklahoma, took sworn testimony Sept. 6 from Rust. Topics included Rust’s Chairman’s Council, made up of top State Farm executives. The group, which includes the company’s general counsel, meets quarterly.
Marr was fishing for records of those meetings that he could subpoena for his lawsuit.
“Certainly,” Marr asked Rust, “you keep records of the quarterly meetings where the entire Chairman’s Council is present?”
“We have an agenda,” Rust said, “but minutes in that, no.”
“Why not?” Marr asked.
Rust replied, “Never felt a need to.”
Marr later asked, “Are there any written agendas that are available should I choose to request them in the lawsuit?”
“I’m not sure what might be available,” Rust said.
Rust also said policyholders, who essentially own the private mutual company, are not entitled to know what the Chairman’s Council discusses or decides about litigation against State Farm, citing attorney-client privilege.
Marr questioned why the company would withhold information from policyholders, who own State Farm.
“Well, again,” said Rust (who has a law degree), “I’m not an expert in the area, but I think as you find — even if I’m a shareholder in a publicly traded company, there are things that are not — you know, I do not have access to.”
Marr later asked if policyholders have a right to see documents from State Farm’s investigation of Haag.
“No,” Rust said.
“Why not?” Marr asked. “Is it privileged?”
Rust said, “I believe so.”
Consumer Protection Act,. run not by the federal regulators but by Consumer.