The Council may have been successful in having these laws overturned in all 50 states, but in practice the laws continue to exist – especially in Florida. What is the Council doing to seek enforcement of their successes?
I do not agree with this ruling. An independent agent knows the local marketplace better than someone, say, is in another state. Every state is not the same with respect to the laws and statutes that differ from state to state. I would rather have a local agent, with experience in that state, than someone in Las Vegas who may not know where my city is without using Mapquest. Based on the premises put forth by the Council, what is stopping someone from China selling policies here in the US? Is this a future outsourcing problem? I find the idea of not having a countersignature in the case of a non-resident broker to be ridiculous. It might not be any benefit to the broker making the sale, but it does offer protections to the local consumer, and that is who we are servicing, right?
Arthur, you are very ignorant if you think your local experience benefits your clients in the slightest.
Please enlighten us how a local yokal in SD has more experience for a SD client that does business in your state and in other states. I\’d be willing to bet that a majority of business\’s in SD transact in other states. So a we need your signature to write a multistate policy??? I\’d bet that when a SD agent sign\’s off on policies for a fee, they don\’t even review them in the slightest-Am I wrong??????
So Arthur, you\’re telling us that some local broker in SD is better equipted and much more in tune with the industry than say one of the big house broker\’s. dude take your head out your @ss, there\’s no way you have more info than big houses, or even small houses brokers.
Arthur, Arthur, Arthur-
Protectionism will get you nowhere. If an agent is licensed in a state and subsequentially does business in that state, he gains knowledge of the local business climate by dealing with his customers in that state. As long as he or she follows the laws of the state in question, he or she is not doing the customer a disservice. In fact, the broader experience that out-of-state agent brings to the table may help them to better service a client or to advocate for reform of laws that fail to protect the consumer.
So, that is your personal preference to have a local agent, but why should the law FORCE consumers to have a local agent? People will still want to use an agent, and they will. Just because the law has changed doesn\’t mean all the local agents will just vanish.
Most of our out-of-state coverages are for additional locations to an account we write in our resident state or for a multi-state program we write for an association. To pay a local agent a fee for signing the policy is ridiculous! We know the accounts better than any local agent can hope to, especially for our assn program.
Let\’s face it, countersignature has always been about money. SD agents got 5% of premium or 25% of commission for signing a document that others put all the work into creating. It was a great scam while it lasted.
In my experience the Big Houses do not necessarily offer any more expertise or professionalism than a small independent broker. They just have deeper pockets and additional resources available to them. When my small agency competes against them, I walk away with the client.
As for countersignature laws and fees – I do not know of any countersigning agent that reviews an account and coverage’s, before they sign the policy and collect their fee. All the countersignature laws did (in any state) was rape the producing agent of well deserved commission.
I still want to know when all the states will abandon the practice of requiring countersignature.
It\’s all about the money, unless some SD would like to prove us wrong with their wisdom on how they actually review and make suggestions when then sign off on a policy. Please correct me if I\’m wrong, but I know I\’m not.
It\’s been a day since I challenged any SD to prove me wrong. You know we are right, nobody reviews the policy before they sign it, and nobody (in SD)makes any suggestions regarding coverage due to their \”local experience\”.
It\’s all about the easy money for these agents!
Please I would love for a SD to prove me (us) wrong!!!
Well it\’s not on the main news page anymore, and I doubt anyone has much time to sit and think about reasons why it\’s not just for money just because they were challenged to do so on this website. It probably is for money, but I\’m sure there are other reasons, too. It\’s an old law, who knows what they were thinking way back then.
Which states are left requiring countersignatures? I really do need to know? Or will this be like the license issue for all the states to get on the same page…that again, is a money issue as well as power.
I\’m not sure the article is accurate, because I\’m still forced to send bonds to Nevada for c/s as well as pay 5% of the premium for the privilege – I have a Fed Ex in route, even as we speak. Florida is easy to handle: I type \”CS requirement overturned 9/30/03 in US District Court\”. Nothing\’s been bounced yet, BUT they will check to confirm you\’re apppointed by the insurance company in the state of FL – beware of that one (Pinellas County).
FYI…Simaliar laws were recently struck down in Florida, Nevada and Puerto Rico, but Nevada and PR are currently under appeal. AM Best reports only the Virgin Islands remains with a countersignature case still awaiting trial (hmmm, maybe I need to leave the cold upper Midwest to testify in that trial). Within the past year the West Virginia Legislature rescinded its CS law due to the threat of a lawsuit.
Please note that it\’s bogged down in the 9th Circuit…this from the NAMIC site.
Nevada: There is nothing new to report on this case. The U. S. District Court issued a ruling in August 2004 finding the state’s countersignature law to be invalid. The insurance commissioner has appealed that ruling and was granted a stay pending the appeal. All briefing is complete in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the case remains under advisement.
My biggest frustration is with bonds in Florida. If the Obligee is the government we obtain countersignature. We have had too many bonds bounded back for lack of countersignature. The few bonds we have done in Nevada have cost us commission and time to conform to their c/s requirements. Will it ever end?
Please do a little research on your own to confirm, but my distinct recollection is that any attempt to enforce the countersig requirement after the Federal Court\’s decision was a violation of Federal, not state, law. I think you have to anticipate, cite caselaw on the bond, and push back when the local yahoos insist on something no longer required. Unfortunately, putting the client in the middle of the soap opera can be torture, but I\’d track down the decision, print a copy and attach it to the bond.
I had done that, in Florida. At this point I just obtain c/s, it is easier than looking like a fool to my client. I have also been told that the law is still in court under appeal and many are treating the c/s as a requirement pending a final outcome of the various court cases.
I am very concerned that out of state agents don\’t have the expertise to handle the insurance coverages. In fact, I think that many agents in other counties may lack an understanding of the salient issues.
We may need to consider countersignature requirements at the county or even township level to make sure that all insurance consumers are propertly protected.
Thank you to the Agents & Brokers Association for pushing C/S into extinction.
I\’m concerned that Nevada and Florida may be \’ignoring\’ the court\’s rulings. The Association needs to seek sanctions against any jurisdiction that still mandates C/S. This seems to particularly a problem on bonds for public agencies.
\’Bonds\’ commented on 12-5-05 that Florida (with reference to Pinellas County) was checking to see if the out-of-state agent is appointed by the carrier in Florida. Are you saying that they are checking if the out-of-state agent has a valid Florida \’Non-resident\’ license or that the agent in fact is appointed by the carrier in the state of Florida?
If you are saying the latter, then this would continue to be a restraint of trade. Travelers, for example is not going to appoint me as an agent in Florida if I\’m a licened resident Travelers agent in California. If this is the case, then the carriers would have to appoint all their non-Florida agents in the State of Florida in order to comply with this requirement.
I\’d like to hear back from \’Bonds\’ or anyone else who has factual knowledge of what Florida or Nevada are doing in this regard.
Many states require company appointments. This is a requirement that we throw back to the company to handle and they do so at their expense. I am fed up with sharing commission just for a signature. Maybe NY should institute a c/s requirement for all Florida and Nevada agents placing business in NY.
The cost of some non-resident licensing is enough for us to bear. Like you said the Brokerage Associations need to complete the mission.
rolfneu said: \’Bonds\’ commented on 12-5-05 that Florida (with reference to Pinellas County) was checking to see if the out-of-state agent is appointed by the carrier in Florida. Are you saying that they are checking if the out-of-state agent has a valid Florida \’Non-resident\’ license or that the agent in fact is appointed by the carrier in the state of Florida?
If you are saying the latter, then this would continue to be a restraint of trade. Travelers, for example is not going to appoint me as an agent in Florida if I\’m a licened resident Travelers agent in California. If this is the case, then the carriers would have to appoint all their non-Florida agents in the State of Florida in order to comply with this requirement.
I\’d like to hear back from \’Bonds\’ or anyone else who has factual knowledge of what Florida or Nevada are doing in this regard.
***************************
The latter is exactly what they\’re doing, but the states\’ insurance regs usually say that an agent must be appointed by the companies for which they write business; in fact, some of my licenses have that statement on the license itself. In Texas, a large, national agency was fined because it wasn\’t appointed by the company with which it wrote business in that state. I work for a public entity who\’s committed not to breach compliance regulations. I think as it becomes easier to track these details, by insurance commissioners\’ on-line information, we\’ll see more and more enforcement of these requirements.
The Council may have been successful in having these laws overturned in all 50 states, but in practice the laws continue to exist – especially in Florida. What is the Council doing to seek enforcement of their successes?
I do not agree with this ruling. An independent agent knows the local marketplace better than someone, say, is in another state. Every state is not the same with respect to the laws and statutes that differ from state to state. I would rather have a local agent, with experience in that state, than someone in Las Vegas who may not know where my city is without using Mapquest. Based on the premises put forth by the Council, what is stopping someone from China selling policies here in the US? Is this a future outsourcing problem? I find the idea of not having a countersignature in the case of a non-resident broker to be ridiculous. It might not be any benefit to the broker making the sale, but it does offer protections to the local consumer, and that is who we are servicing, right?
Arthur, you are very ignorant if you think your local experience benefits your clients in the slightest.
Please enlighten us how a local yokal in SD has more experience for a SD client that does business in your state and in other states. I\’d be willing to bet that a majority of business\’s in SD transact in other states. So a we need your signature to write a multistate policy??? I\’d bet that when a SD agent sign\’s off on policies for a fee, they don\’t even review them in the slightest-Am I wrong??????
So Arthur, you\’re telling us that some local broker in SD is better equipted and much more in tune with the industry than say one of the big house broker\’s. dude take your head out your @ss, there\’s no way you have more info than big houses, or even small houses brokers.
Arthur, Arthur, Arthur-
Protectionism will get you nowhere. If an agent is licensed in a state and subsequentially does business in that state, he gains knowledge of the local business climate by dealing with his customers in that state. As long as he or she follows the laws of the state in question, he or she is not doing the customer a disservice. In fact, the broader experience that out-of-state agent brings to the table may help them to better service a client or to advocate for reform of laws that fail to protect the consumer.
So, that is your personal preference to have a local agent, but why should the law FORCE consumers to have a local agent? People will still want to use an agent, and they will. Just because the law has changed doesn\’t mean all the local agents will just vanish.
Most of our out-of-state coverages are for additional locations to an account we write in our resident state or for a multi-state program we write for an association. To pay a local agent a fee for signing the policy is ridiculous! We know the accounts better than any local agent can hope to, especially for our assn program.
Let\’s face it, countersignature has always been about money. SD agents got 5% of premium or 25% of commission for signing a document that others put all the work into creating. It was a great scam while it lasted.
In my experience the Big Houses do not necessarily offer any more expertise or professionalism than a small independent broker. They just have deeper pockets and additional resources available to them. When my small agency competes against them, I walk away with the client.
As for countersignature laws and fees – I do not know of any countersigning agent that reviews an account and coverage’s, before they sign the policy and collect their fee. All the countersignature laws did (in any state) was rape the producing agent of well deserved commission.
I still want to know when all the states will abandon the practice of requiring countersignature.
It\’s all about the money, unless some SD would like to prove us wrong with their wisdom on how they actually review and make suggestions when then sign off on a policy. Please correct me if I\’m wrong, but I know I\’m not.
It\’s been a day since I challenged any SD to prove me wrong. You know we are right, nobody reviews the policy before they sign it, and nobody (in SD)makes any suggestions regarding coverage due to their \”local experience\”.
It\’s all about the easy money for these agents!
Please I would love for a SD to prove me (us) wrong!!!
Well it\’s not on the main news page anymore, and I doubt anyone has much time to sit and think about reasons why it\’s not just for money just because they were challenged to do so on this website. It probably is for money, but I\’m sure there are other reasons, too. It\’s an old law, who knows what they were thinking way back then.
Which states are left requiring countersignatures? I really do need to know? Or will this be like the license issue for all the states to get on the same page…that again, is a money issue as well as power.
I\’m not sure the article is accurate, because I\’m still forced to send bonds to Nevada for c/s as well as pay 5% of the premium for the privilege – I have a Fed Ex in route, even as we speak. Florida is easy to handle: I type \”CS requirement overturned 9/30/03 in US District Court\”. Nothing\’s been bounced yet, BUT they will check to confirm you\’re apppointed by the insurance company in the state of FL – beware of that one (Pinellas County).
FYI…Simaliar laws were recently struck down in Florida, Nevada and Puerto Rico, but Nevada and PR are currently under appeal. AM Best reports only the Virgin Islands remains with a countersignature case still awaiting trial (hmmm, maybe I need to leave the cold upper Midwest to testify in that trial). Within the past year the West Virginia Legislature rescinded its CS law due to the threat of a lawsuit.
Please note that it\’s bogged down in the 9th Circuit…this from the NAMIC site.
Nevada: There is nothing new to report on this case. The U. S. District Court issued a ruling in August 2004 finding the state’s countersignature law to be invalid. The insurance commissioner has appealed that ruling and was granted a stay pending the appeal. All briefing is complete in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the case remains under advisement.
My biggest frustration is with bonds in Florida. If the Obligee is the government we obtain countersignature. We have had too many bonds bounded back for lack of countersignature. The few bonds we have done in Nevada have cost us commission and time to conform to their c/s requirements. Will it ever end?
Please do a little research on your own to confirm, but my distinct recollection is that any attempt to enforce the countersig requirement after the Federal Court\’s decision was a violation of Federal, not state, law. I think you have to anticipate, cite caselaw on the bond, and push back when the local yahoos insist on something no longer required. Unfortunately, putting the client in the middle of the soap opera can be torture, but I\’d track down the decision, print a copy and attach it to the bond.
I had done that, in Florida. At this point I just obtain c/s, it is easier than looking like a fool to my client. I have also been told that the law is still in court under appeal and many are treating the c/s as a requirement pending a final outcome of the various court cases.
I am very concerned that out of state agents don\’t have the expertise to handle the insurance coverages. In fact, I think that many agents in other counties may lack an understanding of the salient issues.
We may need to consider countersignature requirements at the county or even township level to make sure that all insurance consumers are propertly protected.
ok, settle down now and get back to work!
Thank you to the Agents & Brokers Association for pushing C/S into extinction.
I\’m concerned that Nevada and Florida may be \’ignoring\’ the court\’s rulings. The Association needs to seek sanctions against any jurisdiction that still mandates C/S. This seems to particularly a problem on bonds for public agencies.
\’Bonds\’ commented on 12-5-05 that Florida (with reference to Pinellas County) was checking to see if the out-of-state agent is appointed by the carrier in Florida. Are you saying that they are checking if the out-of-state agent has a valid Florida \’Non-resident\’ license or that the agent in fact is appointed by the carrier in the state of Florida?
If you are saying the latter, then this would continue to be a restraint of trade. Travelers, for example is not going to appoint me as an agent in Florida if I\’m a licened resident Travelers agent in California. If this is the case, then the carriers would have to appoint all their non-Florida agents in the State of Florida in order to comply with this requirement.
I\’d like to hear back from \’Bonds\’ or anyone else who has factual knowledge of what Florida or Nevada are doing in this regard.
Many states require company appointments. This is a requirement that we throw back to the company to handle and they do so at their expense. I am fed up with sharing commission just for a signature. Maybe NY should institute a c/s requirement for all Florida and Nevada agents placing business in NY.
The cost of some non-resident licensing is enough for us to bear. Like you said the Brokerage Associations need to complete the mission.
rolfneu said: \’Bonds\’ commented on 12-5-05 that Florida (with reference to Pinellas County) was checking to see if the out-of-state agent is appointed by the carrier in Florida. Are you saying that they are checking if the out-of-state agent has a valid Florida \’Non-resident\’ license or that the agent in fact is appointed by the carrier in the state of Florida?
If you are saying the latter, then this would continue to be a restraint of trade. Travelers, for example is not going to appoint me as an agent in Florida if I\’m a licened resident Travelers agent in California. If this is the case, then the carriers would have to appoint all their non-Florida agents in the State of Florida in order to comply with this requirement.
I\’d like to hear back from \’Bonds\’ or anyone else who has factual knowledge of what Florida or Nevada are doing in this regard.
***************************
The latter is exactly what they\’re doing, but the states\’ insurance regs usually say that an agent must be appointed by the companies for which they write business; in fact, some of my licenses have that statement on the license itself. In Texas, a large, national agency was fined because it wasn\’t appointed by the company with which it wrote business in that state. I work for a public entity who\’s committed not to breach compliance regulations. I think as it becomes easier to track these details, by insurance commissioners\’ on-line information, we\’ll see more and more enforcement of these requirements.