After five years of being subject to what some publicly argued was an unlevel playing field, state attorneys general relented, agreeing to lift the ban and allowing the three major insurance brokerage firms to collect contingent commissions.

That would not put an end to the controversy in 2010, however, as one broker voluntarily continued the ban, turning its stance into a marketing position. In addition, one state's attempt to mandate tighter regulations over disclosure would be met with protest and a legal challenge.

In early 2010, the attorneys general in New York, Connecticut and Illinois reached agreements with the three major insurance brokerage firms–Marsh & McLennan, Aon Corp. and Willis Group–to lift the ban on contingent commissions imposed on them after former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer found evidence of fraud and steering of insurance contracts at one insurance firm and steering of insurance contracts at others.

Insurance brokers Aon, Marsh and Willis reached an agreement in February that allowed them to once again accept contingents. The deal came with strings attached, however.

The brokers had to agree to disclosure requirements based on regulations the New York Insurance Department set up to go into effect for all agents and brokers in the state at the beginning of 2011. The disclosure regulations for the three brokers would be instituted in all states, Washington, D.C. and all U.S. territories.

The disclosure requires brokers to describe to clients their role in the transaction and how they are paid. More detailed information will have to be provided at the client's request.

Aon and Marsh would later announce the limits on the contingents they would accept, with Marsh saying it would not take contingents on core U.S. business, but Aon has remained vague about what it will and will not accept.

However, Willis said it has no intention of accepting contingents–"aggressively" pushing its principles of "trust, transparency and disclosure."

Joe Plumeri, chairman and chief executive officer of Willis Group Holdings, who is a longtime critic of contingent commissions, said in a speech, "Simply telling clients that you are taking contingents does not make it okay," adding that it gives an incentive for someone to act not in the best interest of their client.

In April, during the Risk and Insurance Management Society's Conference in Boston, Willis launched its multichannel "Clients Before Contingents" campaign "to educate insurance buyers about the conflicts of interest inherent in contingent commissions."

Mr. Plumeri used the campaign to urge risk managers "to use their wallets to send a strong signal against the controversial payments."

Willis would find itself in the minority on this issue, and the idea of regulatory disclosure was greeted with strong resistance from the producer community in New York.

Three producer associations objected strenuously to New York's Insurance Regulation 194 mandating brokers reveal information about their compensation to clients, whether it is asked for or not, and that records of the disclosure be maintained for a period of time.

The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of New York, along with the Council of Insurance Brokers of Greater New York, filed suit in New York State Supreme Court in Albany County in an attempt to block implementation of the regulation on Jan. 1, 2011.

While the associations battled it out in court with the New York State Insurance Department, the Professional Insurance Agents of New York decided not to pursue legal action. PIANY instead found itself as the negotiator with the department over refining language in the regulation to clear up such questions as how it would affect out-of-state producers.

By early November, PIANY said the department cleared up some points but work still needed to be done.

Despite the controversy, legal wrangling and language questions, IIABNY and PIANY went ahead with education classes on the regulations, noting that agents still needed to be ready to comply with regulation come the first of the year.

By mid-November, the state court handed down its decision, saying the new regulation was lawful and could be implemented.

IIABNY has not decided if it will appeal the ruling but has vowed to be on the lookout for any legislation that would place even more disclosure burdens on producers.

Special Reports /

#8 Major Brokers Start Accepting Contingents Again--With One Exception

Related Stories

Recommended For You