Congress gets bipartisan bills to repeal insurance antitrust immunity

February 25, 2007

News Currents

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, joined with Senate Democratic and Republican leaders earlier this month to introduce a bipartisan bill that would strip the insurance industry of its limited antitrust exemption.

Leahy introduced the Insurance Industry Competition Act, along with the judiciary panel’s ranking member, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss.

Companion, bipartisan legislation has also been introduced in the House by Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., Gene Taylor, D-Miss., Bobby Jindal, R-La., Charlie Melancon, D-La., Rodney Alexander, R-La., and Walter Jones, R-N.C.

For the last six decades, insurance companies have had limited immunity from federal antitrust investigation and prosecution. The bipartisan bill introduced would give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to apply antitrust laws to anti-competitive behavior by insurance companies.

Industry opposed

The proposal has drawn the opposition of insurance company and agent trade groups. The industry maintains that the immunity, among other things, allows insurers of all sizes to benefit from collected loss data. which in turn makes insurance pricing more accurate and lowers costs for all insurers.

But the insurance industry and its practices have come under serious scrutiny along the Gulf Coast in the wake of recent hurricanes, said Leahy. Leahy said there are concerns that insurers have been too often denying claims and delaying payouts along the Gulf Coast.

“Federal oversight would provide confidence that the industry is not engaging in the most egregious forms of anticompetitive conduct – price fixing, agreements not to pay, and market allocations,” Leahy said. “Insurers may object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else, but if they are operating in an honest and appropriate way, they should have nothing to fear.”

Pennsylvania’s Specter praised the legislation as a way to bring more competition into the industry.

“It is my hope that this legislation will bring the benefits of competition to the insurance industry and to consumers. Too many consumers are paying too much for insurance due to the collusive atmosphere that exists in the insurance industry. This has become a particular problem along the Gulf Coast, where insurers have shared hurricane loss projections, which may result in double-digit premium increases for Gulf Coast homeowners,” stated Specter.

Lott, whose own home was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, has been a harsh critic of the industry’s response to that storm.

“One thing I learned coming out of Katrina is that the insurance industry is not subject to antitrust laws,” Lott said. “I’ve looked at the history, and there’s no explanation for why that is – for why antitrust and price fixing in this industry are not covered by the federal government. Our legislation corrects this exception and applies antitrust restrictions to the insurance industry just as it is applied to most other corporations.”

Exemption affords competition

Insurance industry lobbyists shot back, arguing that the antitrust exemption helps small and medium sized insurers compete and its repeal could actually lessen insurance competition.

The Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America (Big “I”) warned that significant changes to the exemption could have negative implications for consumers.

“We are concerned that an outright repeal of the antitrust exemption in McCarran-Ferguson could have a negative impact on small and medium sized insurers in the marketplace resulting in reduced competition and potentially decreasing the availability and increasing the cost of insurance for consumers,” said Charles E. Symington Jr., IIABA senior vice president for government affairs and federal relations.

The Big “I” urged lawmakers to await the report of the Antitrust Modernization Commission, established by Congress two years ago to study a variety of antitrust issues, including the multiplicity of exemptions and privileges currently existing.

“There is little evidence indicating that wholesale changes to the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption are needed or even desirable,” said Tom Koonce, Big “I” assistant vice president for federal government affairs.

Rather than boost competition, repeal of the antitrust exemption could “severely damage competition in the marketplace and hurt insurance consumers,” according to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).

“The limited antitrust exemption provided by the McCarran-Ferguson Act has proven essential to insurance consumers, in terms of availability, selection and price,” said Ben McKay, PCI’s senior vice president, federal government affairs. “Its existence promotes competition in the marketplace, and the loss of this important provision would likely damage small companies, prevent new entrants into the insurance industry and diminish the ability of existing insurers, of all sizes, to expand into new markets or new product lines.”

It is also likely that repeal will drive up the cost of doing business by providing new fodder for class action lawsuits, meaning consumers will have to pay a cost as well in the form of higher premiums, according to PCI.

Limited, not total, exemption

PCI noted that the McCarran-Ferguson Act provides a limited, not total, anti-trust exemption for insurers. Insurers remain subject to antitrust laws relating to boycott, coercion and intimidation.

Under McCarran, statistical agents can collect and validate data, and insurance companies can pool and use aggregated loss data. Without such loss data, the industry maintains that all but a few insurers would confront increased operating expenses and access to accurate and reliable data could become a barrier to market entry and endanger solvency.

The limited anti-trust exemption also permits insurers to form inter-company pools to provide high-risk coverage or to allow small company participation in writing risks that on an individual basis would be unavailable. The operation of assigned risk plans, such as those for auto and workers’ compensation in most states, could be hampered by anti-trust concerns in the absence of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption, according to insurers.

Topics Carriers Legislation Agencies Market

Was this article valuable?

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

From This Issue

Insurance Journal Magazine February 26, 2007
February 26, 2007
Insurance Journal Magazine

Directors & Officers/Executive Liability; Hospitality Risks Directory; 4th Qtr Market Survey