NU Online News Service, Sept. 9, 3:15 p.m. EDT

The Thursday decision of the Senate Banking Committee to support the idea of splitting the difference on the wind-v-water issue is setting off a fierce, albeit behind-the-scenes, lobbying campaign within the insurance industry.

The bill is the Consumer Option for an Alternative System To Allocate Losses Act of 2011, or COASTAL Act, S. 1091, introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

Thursday, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.C., chairman of the committee, and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., ranking member, announced their support for the bill.

Wicker says in a statement that Johnson and Shelby have agreed to include the COASTAL Act legislation reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which passed through the committee yesterday.

Including the provision could be done by adding it to the bill considered by the full Senate, or as part of a manager's amendment to the bill offered by Johnson and Shelby, implying bipartisan support.

Wicker says his bill would help determine wind-versus-water claims and provide greater certainty to homeowners and the insurance market, "ensuring certain losses from future storms are settled in a timely and equitable manner."

It would divvy up losses after a major coastal storm between wind insurers and the NFIP through an alternative loss-allocation system that would be based on the timing, location, and magnitude of wind speeds and storm surges before, during, and after the storm.

But the industry appears split on the issue.

Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, says "Terms like 'inappropriate' and 'abuse' [in industry handling of claims from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005] are a little hyperbolic."

Grande says that almost 98 percent of claims resulting from the 2005 storm season were resolved with no dispute at all.

"We share the senator's goal of a swift and fair claims-resolution system, but worry that his bill may offer more complications than solutions," Grande says.

"We're also concerned about the precedent it sets usurping contract law and state-regulatory authority, even in its limited scope," Grande said.

For these reasons, "we would prefer to see Congress conduct a thorough study of this proposal by way of a study by the Government Accountability Office," Grande says.

On the other side, Joel Kopperud, a director of federal affairs for the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, said the Council supports the Wicker amendment.

"We should focus on efficiency and taking the customer out of the whipsaw between flood-program and wind-carrier coverage when they were properly and fully insured," Kopperud says. "That is the promise of the Wicker proposal."

An industry official in Washington would not comment on the record, but adds, "I've heard this '98 percent of all claims were easily taken care of' line too many times. How much more evidence does anyone need to present than the thousands of pages of documentation from State-Farm engineers about how to categorize every claim as flood?" the official says.

Special Reports /

Industry Cites Benefits, Concerns Regarding Wicker’s Wind-Vs.-Water Proposal

Related Stories

Recommended For You