SAN FRANCISCO–States wishing to be accredited by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners would have to adopt model laws regulating insurer liquidations and internal audits under an NAIC proposal discussed here.

The NAIC action at its summer meeting came despite concerns of some industry representatives that such laws should not be part of the accreditation process.

Members of the NAIC Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation (F) Committee exposed for comment for one year the Insurance Receivership Model Act (IRMA) and the Annual Financial Reporting Regulation Model, sometimes referred to as the Model Audit Rule. The process could lead to states having to adopt the models if they want to remain accredited.

Steven Bennett, assistant general counsel of the American Insurance Association, said in comments to the committee that accreditation standards should be related to solvency issues only.

“IRMA only comes into play after a carrier is in receivership,” he said. “The model does not relate to adequate solvency regulation but rather concerns the process of handling insolvent insurers.”

Mr. Bennett said the IRMA lacks support of many stakeholders in the receivership process. “IRMA contains numerous controversial provisions that make its enactment in all jurisdictions unpredictable at best,” he commented.

Former Nebraska regulator Douglas Hartz, who assisted the NAIC in developing the IRMA law, said the model in question relates to solvency because it provides means of early detection that could stave off receivership and, ultimately, assessments to insurance guaranty funds.

“This will not open the door to creating market conduct accreditation standards,” he said.

The committee also put the recently amended Annual Financial Reporting Model Regulation on the accelerated path to accreditation.

Stephen Broadie, financial regulation manager for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), said that accreditation is appropriate for the model in question because it relates to solvency.

While he noted his group initially opposed the regulation, which is based on the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act and imposes requirements to report annually on internal financial controls and also sets new auditor independence rules, Mr. Broadie said a non-uniform adoption will spell trouble for the industry.

“Since the model law applies to all licensed companies in a state and not just those domiciled in the state, multistate writers could incur significant additional costs if some states they are writing in adopt the revised model audit rule and their state of domicile does not, or if different states adopt significant revisions on the parts of the rule,” he said.

Rhode Island State Rep. Brian Kennedy, D-Hopkinton, said he opposed what he termed the accelerated path to accreditation for both laws.

The National Conference of Insurance Legislators vice president said there was a time accreditation took five years and that in general the NAIC has been pushing the process too fast.

He suggested that no NCOIL model law become an accreditation standard until at least 26 states adopt it.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies continued its steadfast opposition to any form of enactment or accreditation for the model audit rule.

Special Reports /

NAIC Accreditation Process Under Debate

Related Stories

Recommended For You