All of these side agreements (SLIMPACT and NIMA) are garbage. New York is the ONLY state that’s doing this the correct way! If NY is the home state then that’s it… Period! Pay New York only. No extra agreements or paper work. No mater what the percent.
If Texas was smart they would follow suit! … Nice job New York!
“The NRRA mandates that beginning July 21, 2011 the insured’s home state will be the only state with jurisdiction over multi-state surplus lines transactions…” NOT EXACTLY TRUE. The word “multi-state” does not show up in the text of the NRRA. The NRRA certainly helps simplify multi-state transactions, but it applies to ALL surplus line insurance (consider the NY homeowner with a snowbird house in FL. A policy covering that house is affected by NRRA – NY is the home state of the insured, but 100% of the risk is located outside the home state of the insured, so FL is the home state).
“In addition, the new law will require additional data reporting…” NOT EXACTLY TRUE. The law allows for additional data reporting but does not require it. There is certainly no additional date reporting required in Illinois at this point.
Also, the scenario described by Mr. Ballinger where the home state is a SLIMPACT state, but two other states involved are NIMA states, does not propose any particular complications. The home state is a SLIMPACT state, it’s a SLIMPACT polciy — period.
One other important point. Since determining the home state is the first–and probably most–important step in complying with NRRA, I’m advising my members to document this step somewhere in their file. At some point, someone is going to come back to a broker and say “How did you determine the home state?” You’d better be prepared to answer.
All of these side agreements (SLIMPACT and NIMA) are garbage. New York is the ONLY state that’s doing this the correct way! If NY is the home state then that’s it… Period! Pay New York only. No extra agreements or paper work. No mater what the percent.
If Texas was smart they would follow suit! … Nice job New York!
“The NRRA mandates that beginning July 21, 2011 the insured’s home state will be the only state with jurisdiction over multi-state surplus lines transactions…” NOT EXACTLY TRUE. The word “multi-state” does not show up in the text of the NRRA. The NRRA certainly helps simplify multi-state transactions, but it applies to ALL surplus line insurance (consider the NY homeowner with a snowbird house in FL. A policy covering that house is affected by NRRA – NY is the home state of the insured, but 100% of the risk is located outside the home state of the insured, so FL is the home state).
“In addition, the new law will require additional data reporting…” NOT EXACTLY TRUE. The law allows for additional data reporting but does not require it. There is certainly no additional date reporting required in Illinois at this point.
Also, the scenario described by Mr. Ballinger where the home state is a SLIMPACT state, but two other states involved are NIMA states, does not propose any particular complications. The home state is a SLIMPACT state, it’s a SLIMPACT polciy — period.
One other important point. Since determining the home state is the first–and probably most–important step in complying with NRRA, I’m advising my members to document this step somewhere in their file. At some point, someone is going to come back to a broker and say “How did you determine the home state?” You’d better be prepared to answer.
Who’s on first, what’s on second and I don’t know is on third.