A compromise may be near on a proposal by insuranceregulators–one that's met stiff industry opposition–to havecarriers assemble and disclose information related to the impact ofclimate change on their organizations, trade groups say.

Indeed, a new direction for filing such data could beestablished during a conference call of the Climate Change andGlobal Warming Task Force on Dec. 17, according to insuranceorganizations that attended the National Association of InsuranceCommissioners meeting here.

Among the groups lobbying on the issue at the meeting wererepresentatives of the National Association of Mutual InsuranceCompanies, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America,and the American Council of Life Insurers.

The latest draft of the survey of climate change items was madepublic on Dec. 3. The document, after the Dec. 17 conference call,would move out of the task force chaired by Wisconsin InsuranceCommissioner Sean Dilweg, and could possibly be voted on by theNAIC's Executive Committee by year's end, the insurer groupssaid.

In one major compromise, insurer representatives are pleased thenew survey will not be part of the Annual Statement filingrequirement, but rather would be collected in a separatesurvey.

Robert Detlefsen, NAMIC's vice president of public policy, saidinsurers will have to respond to eight questions and provide themto the regulator in the company's domiciliary state. If a companyhas a number of subsidiaries, the regulator of the holdingcompany's state would receive the information, he noted.

(For a sample of the questions regulators will likely askinsurers, see the accompanying infographic.)

Insurers said requiring filings forcing them to make statementsand hazard guesses would be an invitation for lawsuits.

Andrew Melnyk, ACLI's managing director of research, said thatremoval of the survey from the Annual Statement filing was apositive development. Other positives he cited include the factthat there is not a requirement for quantitative information, andthat the document is forward looking.

One compromise insurers agreed to, he said, is that the eightquestions insurers answer will be made public. Previously, insurerswould have been required to answer nine questions–three of whichwould have been public.

Mr. Melnyk said ACLI had contended that climate change reallydid not affect life insurers, but noted regulators had counteredthat it could impact life insurer investments, and could affectmortality if there were extreme climate changes.

David Kodama, director of policy analysis for PCI, noted in astatement that the task force would not be taking action on thelatest climate data proposal until after a comment period and theinterim meeting/teleconference call of the Climate Risk DisclosureWorking Group.

“Though PCI still questions the general regulatory relevance ofsuch disclosure requirements, in terms of insurer solvency andconsumer protection, we do acknowledge the positive revisions tothe latest draft,” he said. “The proposed disclosure via astate-conducted survey–rather than through a supplement to theAnnual Statement filing–addresses a critical element of PCI'sadamant opposition to prior versions.”

Meanwhile, the NAIC last week adopted a conflict-of-interestpolicy for consumer representatives whose expenses to attend itsmeetings are funded by the regulator group.

The proposal was unanimously passed by the NAIC's ExecutiveCommittee and Plenary–and the possibility of taking further actionon the issue is being left open, according to statements madeduring the discussion of the topic.

A policy statement on conflicts was developed by the ConsumerBoard of Trustees (CBOT), which includes NAIC-funded consumerrepresentatives and regulators led by Wisconsin CommissionerDilweg. The policy states that representatives who takecompensation from a company or organization defined as “a regulatedentity” may compromise effective funded consumerrepresentation.

It goes on to say that if a consumer rep or an immediate familymember receives compensation, then it must notify the CBOT and theNAIC staff person within seven days of the receipt of thecompensation, or agreement to receive compensation. Items that willbe looked at include expense reimbursement, employment income,receipt of gifts and honoraria.

During the NAIC's discussion of the issue, Connecticut InsuranceCommissioner Tom Sullivan called the document “a good first step,”and mentioned the possibility of expanding the statement beyond“regulated entities”–given the fact that “every one of us lives ina transparent world.”

Although there is no formal charge to expand the conflictstatement, the possibility of raising the issue at the next CBOTmeeting was mentioned.

Following the vote, Birny Birnbaum–executive director of theCenter for Economic Justice in Austin, Texas, as well as anNAIC-funded consumer representative–said: “We'll be happy to talkabout this when it comes up. I wish that the commissioners coulddevote the same time and effort in responding to recommendationsmade by consumer advocates as they do worrying about a handful ofconsumer advocates who volunteer their time to come to theNAIC.”

Mr. Birnbaum–who was part of the CBOT during the conflictstatement's development–asked whether industry groups such as NAMICare required by the NAIC to reveal what individual member companiescontribute in dues.

NAMIC sent a letter on Nov. 24 applauding a consumer conflictstatement and calling on the NAIC to make it more comprehensive bygoing beyond disclosing associations with “regulated entities” toinclude any organization with an interest in insuranceregulation.