NOT included in this story is the fact there were just as many voices IN SUPPORT of the Federal Insurance Office at yesterday’s hearing as there were opposed. In fact, Rep. Kanjorski even said, “50% of you love it, and 50% of you hate it.” Too bad the story doesn’t reflect all sides in this debate.
“…said Roger Sevigny, NAIC President and New Hampshire Insurance Commissioner. “At the same time, any state-federal regulatory cooperation agreement must…not preempt state law except in extremely narrow circumstances.”
____________________
Farmers Insurance.
Nationwide Insurance.
Farm Bureau Insurance.
For years and years all three, (and many other insurers), calculated and collected premiums for, yet did not openly repay to claimants, general contractors overhead and profit values towards hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Replacement Cost Value/Actual Cash Value “settlements”.
In 2009, by class action court order, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars has been returned to claimants by Nationwide, Farm Bureau, and Farmers.
Nationwide Insurance alone was responsible for $540,000,000.00 in GC O&P windfall being returned to previous claimants that had claims dating back to 1996.
The time is up for policyholders to make a Nationwide claim.
Why the Texas Department of Insurance did NOT alert policyholder consumers in 2009 to be on the look-out for their payment from any of the carriers may indicate the need for external regulating of the TDI.
External regulating may also be required for other similar performing NAIC actors, so as to protect the general public from certain public “servants” seemingly ignoring “extremely narrow (carrier fraud) circumstances”.
The supporters are large, mostly life insurance companies and financial conglomerates, not p/c carriers or producers. In terms of numbers of insurance players, nowhere near 50 percent support federal regulation. On the p/c side– which I believe is IJ’s audience– most carriers and producers oppose.
State regulation makes insurance such a mess. You want to introduce a product countrywide and each state has rules like, forms must have a flesch score < x, we don't allow deductibles > y for this type of product on Thursdays… I think most insurers support a single federal regulator, what they don’t support is a federal regulator on top of state regulation.
NOT included in this story is the fact there were just as many voices IN SUPPORT of the Federal Insurance Office at yesterday’s hearing as there were opposed. In fact, Rep. Kanjorski even said, “50% of you love it, and 50% of you hate it.” Too bad the story doesn’t reflect all sides in this debate.
“…said Roger Sevigny, NAIC President and New Hampshire Insurance Commissioner. “At the same time, any state-federal regulatory cooperation agreement must…not preempt state law except in extremely narrow circumstances.”
____________________
Farmers Insurance.
Nationwide Insurance.
Farm Bureau Insurance.
For years and years all three, (and many other insurers), calculated and collected premiums for, yet did not openly repay to claimants, general contractors overhead and profit values towards hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Replacement Cost Value/Actual Cash Value “settlements”.
In 2009, by class action court order, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars has been returned to claimants by Nationwide, Farm Bureau, and Farmers.
Nationwide Insurance alone was responsible for $540,000,000.00 in GC O&P windfall being returned to previous claimants that had claims dating back to 1996.
The time is up for policyholders to make a Nationwide claim.
Why the Texas Department of Insurance did NOT alert policyholder consumers in 2009 to be on the look-out for their payment from any of the carriers may indicate the need for external regulating of the TDI.
External regulating may also be required for other similar performing NAIC actors, so as to protect the general public from certain public “servants” seemingly ignoring “extremely narrow (carrier fraud) circumstances”.
The supporters are large, mostly life insurance companies and financial conglomerates, not p/c carriers or producers. In terms of numbers of insurance players, nowhere near 50 percent support federal regulation. On the p/c side– which I believe is IJ’s audience– most carriers and producers oppose.
State regulation makes insurance such a mess. You want to introduce a product countrywide and each state has rules like, forms must have a flesch score < x, we don't allow deductibles > y for this type of product on Thursdays… I think most insurers support a single federal regulator, what they don’t support is a federal regulator on top of state regulation.