One thing we can definitely count on during the late spring legislative “rush” is that a significant number of bills are signed into law, with multiple impacts on the property and casualty insurance industry. Four states in particular offer prime examples of this type of activity:

Maryland

While Maryland's recent enactment of SB 531, effective Oct. 1, 2013, allows for insurers to take action on the discovery of a material risk factor during the underwriting period, it also imposes a notice requirement on insurers availing themselves of this option. Specifically, “if the insurer discovers a material risk factor during the underwriting period, the insurer shall recalculate the premium for the policy or binder based on the material risk factor as long as the risk continues to meet the underwriting standards of the insurer in accordance with the rates and supplementary rating information filed by the insurer.” However, to the extent that an insurer does recalculate the premium, the insurer is bound to provide a written notice to the insured. The notice must be on a form approved by the commissioner and must state the following:

Amount of the recalculated premium.
Reason for the increase or reduction in the premium.
Insured's right to terminate the policy.

Alabama

There has been increased regulatory activity over the past few years as states take additional steps in fighting insurance fraud. This includes the expansion of existing fraud warning requirements, adopting new warning statements, and requiring the implementation of anti-fraud plans by insurers.

We have already seen that Maryland has a revised fraud warning effective Jan. 1, 2013, but now Alabama has its own fraud warning requirement. The warning, which states the consequences of presenting false/fraudulent claims or information, must be used in at least one of the following documents: claim release forms, applications, reinstatements for insurance, participation agreements, declaration pages, and claim documents, regardless of the method or form of transmission of the form.

Alabama's fraud warning requirement is effective six months after Aug. 1, 2012.

Louisiana

Louisiana's HB 154 addresses refunds due to insureds based on the cancellation, elimination, or reduction of coverage by either the insurer or the insured. This bill allows for an optional manner in which the funds can be returned to the insured. If the insured continues to maintain a policy of insurance with the insurer, or an affiliated insurer, and the amount of the refund plus interest is $25 or less, the insurer may credit the amount of the payment against future premiums. The insurer must provide written notice to the insured of the credit and the amount at policy renewal.

Another Louisiana enactment, HB 308 effective Aug. 1, 2012, actually repeals two laws regarding unfair trade practices in automobile insurance because they were found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The statutory sections are: R.S. 22:1965, which prohibited agreements for performing repair work, and R.S. 22:1966, which prohibited agreements for performing glass work.

Indiana

Indiana is joining many other states in providing trade secret protection for insurers' form, rate and rule filings. Effective Jan. 1, 2013, provisions created under HB 1226 apply to filings and supporting information filed under IC 27-1-22-4. Specifically, the bill's criteria indicates that if the filer marks the filing or supporting information “confidential,” “trade secret,” or “proprietary,” the filer must provide the commissioner with “sufficient basis” for determining whether it can remain confidential or not.

There is also a 30-day deemer provision for insurers, which allows the filing to be presumed approved if not disapproved within the specified time period. However, if the commissioner determines that a filing or supporting information is not confidential, the entire filing will be returned to the filer upon request before the filing or supporting information is open to public inspection.

More new and revised requirements will likely be created in the rush to meet pending gubernatorial signing deadlines. However, for many of these, the states are providing lead time in order for processes to be adapted to achieve compliance. Keeping an eye on these changes can better prepare insurers to make good business decisions across their organizations.

Special Reports /

The Legislative Rush Is Here

Related Stories

Recommended For You