The Golden State isn't so, well, golden, for the insuranceindustry.
|After receiving a 'D' grade in R Street's Insurance Regulation Report Card in2013, California followed it up with, you guessed it, an 'F' for2014.
|Vermont followed up its second place rank in 2013 by flippingpositions with Virginia to claim the top spot in 2014. Showing aslight improvement, this year eight states received 'A' grades,compared to seven in 2013.
|R Street, a free market thinktank, aims to answer three questions foreach state in its research:
- How free are consumers to choose the insurance products theywant?
- How free are insurers to provide the insurance productsconsumers want?
- How effectively are states discharging their duties to monitorinsurer solvency, police fraud and consumer abuse and fostercompetitive, private insurance markets?
The annual report card tracks 12 categories to determine howwell states: monitor insurer solvency; police fraud; respond toconsumer complaints; how efficiently they spend the insurance taxesand fees they collect; how competitive their home, auto andworkers' comp insurance markets are; the degree to which theypermit insurers to adjust rates and employ rating criteria as theysee fit; the transparency and politicization of insuranceregulation in the states; and finally, states' willingness to takepart in cutting-edge regulatory modernization initiatives.
|Details on how each state ranked per category can be found in the full report.
|First, the good news. Here are the states that received 'A'grades.
||
1. Vermont
|Grade: A+
|Total score: 76.9
|Strengths: Consumer protection, low politicization, autoinsurance market, home insurance market, workers' comp market, ratefreedom, regulatory clarity, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Fiscal efficiency
||
2. Virginia
|Grade: A
|Total score: 73.9
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, autoinsurance market, home insurance market, workers' comp market, fewrating restrictions, regulatory modernization
|Weaknesses: None
||
3. Illinois
|Grade: A
|Total score: 72.5
|Strengths: Low politicization, fiscal efficiency, workers' compmarket, rate freedom, regulatory clarity, few ratingrestrictions
|Weaknesses: Fraud, little regulatory modernization
||
4. Iowa
|Grade: A
|Total score: 71.9
|Strengths: Low politicization, fiscal efficiency, auto insurancemarket, home insurance market, workers' comp market, few ratingrestrictions, regulatory modernization
|Weaknesses: None
||
5. Maine
|Grade: A-
|Total score: 70.8
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, consumer protection, lowpoliticization, fiscal efficiency, auto insurance market, homeinsurance market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: None
||
6. Utah
|Grade: A-
|Total score: 69.9
|Strengths: Antifraud, low politicization, fiscal efficiency,auto insurance market, home insurance market, few ratingrestrictions, regulatory modernization
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation, little regulatorymodernization
||
7. Ohio
|Grade: A-
|Total score: 69.7
|Strengths: Low politicization, fiscal efficiency, auto insurancemarket, home insurance market, rate freedom, regulatory clarity,few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Workers' comp market
||
8. Kentucky
|Grade: A-
|Total score: 69.5
|Strengths: Regulatory clarity, workers' comp market, few ratingrestrictions
|Weaknesses: Politicization, fiscal efficiency
||
Next page: States that received a 'B'grade
||
9. Idaho
|Grade: B+
|Total score: 67.4
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, antifraud, consumer protection,low politicization, auto insurance market, home insurance market,few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Workers' comp market, little regulatorymodernization
||
10. New Jersey
|Grade: B+
|Total score: 67.4
|Strengths: Antifraud, low politicization, auto insurance market,home insurance market,
|Weaknesses: Little regulatory modernization
||
11. Minnesota
|Grade: B
|Total score: 66.7
|Strengths: Antifraud, low politicization, fiscal efficiency,home insurance market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: None
||
12. Indiana
|Grade: B
|Total score: 66.7
|Strengths: Low politicization, fiscal efficiency, auto insurancemarket, home insurance market, workers' comp market, few ratingrestrictions, regulatory modernization
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation, consumer protection
||
13. Nebraska
|Grade: B
|Total score: 66.4
|Strengths: Low politicization, fiscal efficiency, auto insurancemarket, workers' comp market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Little regulatory modernization
||
14. Wisconsin
|Grade:B
|Total score: 66.3
|Strengths: Low politicization, auto insurance market, homeinsurance market, workers' comp market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Fraud
||
15. Colorado
|Grade: B
|Total score: 66.0
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, fiscalefficiency, auto insurance market, home insurance market
|Weaknesses: Workers' comp market
||
16. Nevada
|Grade: B
|Total score: 66.0
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, autoinsurance market, home insurance market, workers' comp market, fewrating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Little regulatory modernization
||
17. Wyoming
|Grade: B
|Total score: 65.3
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, fiscalefficiency, auto insurance market, rate freedom, few ratingrestrictions
|Weaknesses: Workers' comp market
||
18. Kansas
|Grade: B
|Total score: 65.2
|Strengths: Fiscal efficiency, auto insurance market, homeinsurance market, few rating restrictions, regulatorymodernization
|Weaknesses: Politicization
||
19. Oregon
|Grade: B
|Total score: 65.1
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, autoinsurance market, home insurance market, workers' comp market, ratefreedom, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Consumer protection
||
20. Arizona
|Grade: B
|Total score: 64.7
|Strengths: Low politicization, auto insurance market, homeinsurance market, workers' comp market, rate freedom, few ratingrestrictions
|Weaknesses:Consumer protection
||
21. Missouri
|Grade: B
|Total score: 64.5
|Strengths: Low politicization, fiscal efficiency, home insurancemarket, workers' comp market, rate freedom, regulatorymodernization
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation
||
22. Tennessee
|Grade: B
|Total score: 64.4
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, workers'comp market, rate freedom, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Fiscal efficiency
||
23. New Mexico
|Grade:
|Total score: 64.0
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, autoinsurance market, workers' comp market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Fiscal efficiency
||
24. Rhode Island
|Grade: B
|Total score: 63.9
|Strengths: Low politicization, fiscal efficiency, auto insurancemarkets, regulatory modernization
|Weaknesses: Antifraud
||
25. Pennsylvania
|Grade: B-
|Total score: 62.9
|Strengths: Low politicization, auto insurance market, homeinsurance market, workers' comp market
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation
||
26. New Hampshire
|Grade: B-
|Total score: 62.0
|Strengths: Antifraud, low politicization, auto insurance market,home insurance market, workers' comp market
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation, desk drawer rules, littleregulatory modernization
||
27. Connecticut
|Grade: B-
|Total score: 61.4
|Strengths: Fiscal efficiency, auto insurance market, homeinsurance market, workers' comp market
|Weaknesses: Rate regulation, desk drawer rules, littleregulatory modernization
||
28. Texas
|Grade: B-
|Total score: 61.3
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, autoinsurance market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: None
||
Next page: States that received a 'C'grade
||
29. South Dakota
|Grade: C+
|Total score: 60.9
|Strengths: Antifraud, low politicization, auto insurance market,home insurance market, workers' comp market
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation, little regulatorymodernization
||
30. Alabama
|Grade: C+
|Total score: 60.4
|Strengths: Low politicization, auto insurance market, few ratingrestrictions, regulatory modernization
|Weaknesses: Rate regulation, desk drawer rules
||
31. Alaska
|Grade: C+
|Total score: 59.8
|Strengths: Antifraud, consumer protection,low politicization
|Weaknesses: Little regulatory modernization
||
32. South Carolina
|Grade: C+
|Total score: 59.6
|Strengths: Low politicization, auto insurance market, homeinsurance market, workers' comp market, regulatory clarity, fewrating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation, fraud, little regulatorymodernization
||
33. North Dakota
|Grade: C+
|Total score: 59.1
|Strengths: Antifraud, consumer protection, fiscal efficiency,auto insurance market, home insurance market, few ratingrestrictions
|Weaknesses: Workers' comp market, little regulatorymodernization
||
34. Arkansas
|Grade: C
|Total score: 58.6
|Strengths: Antifraud, auto insurance market, home insurancemarket, low politicization, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation, fiscal efficiency, desk drawerrules, little regulatory modernization
||
35. Maryland
|Grade: C
|Total score: 57.9
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, low politicization, fiscalefficiency, home insurance market, workers' comp market
|Weaknesses: Desk drawer rules
||
36. Georgia
|Grade: C
|Total score: 57.2
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, auto insurance market, workers'comp market, regulatory modernization, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Desk drawer rules
||
37. West Virginia
|Grade: C
|Total score: 56.8
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, antifraud, low politicization,home insurance market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Fiscal efficiency, little regulatorymodernization
||
38. Oklahoma
|Grade: C
|Total score: 55.3
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, auto insurance market, fewrating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Home insurance market, little regulatorymodernization
||
39. Delaware
|Grade: C-
|Total score: 54.5
|Strengths: Antifraud, fiscal efficiency, home insurance market,workers' comp market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Desk drawer rules, little regulatorymodernization
||
Next page: States receiving a 'D'grade
|| 
40. Florida
|Grade: D+
|Total score: 52.3
|Strengths: Antifraud, fiscal efficiency, auto insurance market,workers' comp market, regulatory modernization
|Weaknesses: Home insurance market, rate regulation, desk drawerrules
|41. Mississippi
|Grade: D+
|Total score: 51.9
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, auto insurance market, workers'comp market, few rating restrictions
|Weaknesses: Desk drawer rules, little regulatorymodernization
||
42. Washington
|Grade: D+
|Total score: 51.3
|Strengths: Auto insurance market, home insurance market
|Weaknesses: Workers' comp market, little regulatorymodernization
||
43. Louisiana
|Grade: D
|Total score: 50.8
|Strengths: Regulatory clarity, workers' comp market, few ratingrestrictions
|Weaknesses: Politicization, fiscal efficiency
||
44. Michigan
|Grade: D
|Total score: 50.5
|Strengths: Fiscal efficiency, home insurance market, workers'comp market
|Weaknesses: Fraud, auto insurance market, little regulatorymodernization
||
45. Massachusetts
|Grade: D
|Total score: 49.1
|Strengths: Low politicization, home insurance market, workers'comp market
|Weaknesses: Fiscal efficiency, desk drawer rules, littleregulatory modernization
||
46. New York
|Grade: D
|Total score: 48.4
|Strengths: Low politicization, home insurance market, few ratingrestrictions
|Weaknesses: Fiscal efficiency, desk drawer rules, littleregulatory modernization
||
47. Hawaii
|Grade: D
|Total score: 48.0
|Strengths: Solvency regulation, fiscal efficiency, workers' compmarket
|Weaknesses: Home insurance market
||
48. Montana
|Grade: D-
|Total score: 46.7
|Strengths: Antifraud, auto insurance market, home insurancemarket
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation, fiscal efficiency, workers'comp market, little regulatory modernization
||
Next page: States that received a failinggrade
|| 
49. North Carolina
|Grade: F
|Total score: 44.9
|Strengths: Workers' comp market, regulatory clarity
|Weaknesses: Solvency regulation, consumer protection,auto insurance market, rate regulation, little regulatorymodernization
||
50. California
|Grade: F
|Total score: 44.2
|Strengths: Antifraud, fiscal efficiency, auto insurance market,workers' comp market
|Weaknesses: High politicization, rate regulation, desk drawerrules, rating restrictions, little regulatory modernization
|
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
- Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
- Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
Already have an account? Sign In
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
