i recall when the regulator especially in the more advanced states took a positive and advanced roll in the activities of the insurance companies within its jurisdiction.
apparently over time the hands on supervision of the carrier has been muted and disconnected. for one thing the state of domicile takes a shallow or non existent view of the company activity leaving jurisdiction to the location involved. frankly i believe the former system was superior for all concerned including the responsibility of the regulator which should be a primary consideration. sadly it had been downplayed if at all existent. this is not a forward step for the industry. i fear that the level of concern has been gravely reduced by the slick guys. sadly i note to often changes which are an advantage to the carrier at a cost to the insured. not where i think we should want to be.
i recall when the regulator especially in the more advanced states took a positive and advanced roll in the activities of the insurance companies within its jurisdiction.
apparently over time the hands on supervision of the carrier has been muted and disconnected. for one thing the state of domicile takes a shallow or non existent view of the company activity leaving jurisdiction to the location involved. frankly i believe the former system was superior for all concerned including the responsibility of the regulator which should be a primary consideration. sadly it had been downplayed if at all existent. this is not a forward step for the industry. i fear that the level of concern has been gravely reduced by the slick guys. sadly i note to often changes which are an advantage to the carrier at a cost to the insured. not where i think we should want to be.