Tag Archives: united kingdom

The FIO Report on Insurance Regulation

The December 2013 issuance of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) report, How to Modernize and Improve the System of Insurance Regulation in the United States, may in hindsight be regarded as more momentous an occasion for the industry and its regulation than the muted initial reaction might suggest. History’s verdict most likely will depend on the effectiveness of the follow-up to the report by both the executive and legislative branches, but current trends in financial services regulation may serve to increase the importance and influence over time of the FIO even in the face of inaction in Washington.

Insurance regulation has traditionally been the near-exclusive province of the states, a right jealously guarded by the states and secured by Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled insurance could be regulated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Any fear that the FIO report would call for an end to state regulation proved unfounded, but industry members might be well-advised to prepare for the eventualities that may result as the FIO uses both the soft power of the bully pulpit and the harder power of the federal government to achieve its aims. As the designated U.S. insurance representative in international forums that more and more mold financial services regulation, and as an arbiter of standards that could be imposed on the states, the FIO and this report should not be ignored.

Having met with the FIO’s leadership team, we believe there are concerns that uniformity at the state level cannot be achieved without federal involvement. We further believe the FIO plans to work to translate its potential into an actual impact in the near future, making a clear-eyed understanding of the report and what it may herald for insurers a prudent and necessary step in regulatory risk management.

The concerns

The biggest surprise about the FIO report may well have been that there were no surprises. There were no strident calls for a wholesale revamp of the regulatory system, and praise for the state regulatory system was liberally mingled among the criticisms.

The lack of any real blockbusters in the details of the FIO report may seem to lend implicit support to those who foresee a continuation of the status quo in insurance regulation. But, taken as a whole, this report and the regulatory atmosphere in which it has been released should be considered a subtle warning of changes that may yet come.

The report may quietly help to usher in an acceleration of the current evolution of insurance regulation. The result could be a regulatory climate that offers more consistency and clarity for insurers and reduces the cost of regulation. The result could also be a regulatory climate that offers more stringent regulatory requirements and increases both the cost of compliance and capital requirements. Most likely, the result could be a hybrid of both.

Either way, preparing to influence and cope with any possible changes portended in the report would be preferable to ignoring the portents.

Part of the disconnect between the short-term reception and the long-term impact of this report may be because of the implicit FIO recognition in the report of the lack of political will needed to enforce any real changes in current U.S. insurance regulation, most especially any that would require increased expenditures or personnel at the federal level. In our current economic and political environment, plugging gaps in state regulation by using measures that would require federal dollars may quite reasonably be construed to be off the table.

But the difference between identified problems and feasible solutions may offer an opportunity. States, industry and other stakeholders could act together to bring needed reform to the insurance regulatory system in a way that adds uniform national standards to regulation, reduces the possibility of regulatory arbitrage and maintains the national system of state-based regulation, all while recognizing the industry’s strengths and needs and not burdening the industry with unnecessary, onerous regulation.

There is much to praise in the current state regulatory system. A generally complimentary federal report on the insurance industry and the fiscal crisis of the past decade noted, “The effects of the financial crisis on insurers and policyholders were generally limited, with a few exceptions…The crisis had a generally minor effect on policyholders…Actions by state and federal regulators and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), among other factors, helped limit the effects of the crisis.”

While the financial crisis demonstrated the effectiveness of the current insurance regulation in the U.S., it is also evident that, as in any enterprise, there are areas for improvement. There are niches within the industry – financial guaranty, title and mortgage insurance come to mind – where regulatory standards and practices have proven less than optimal.

There are also national concerns that affect the industry. The lack of consistent disciplinary and enforcement standards across the states for agents, brokers, insurers and reinsurers is one obvious concern. Similarly, the inconsistent use of permitted practices and other solvency-related regulatory options could lead to regulatory arbitrage. At a time when insurance regulators in the U.S. call for a level playing field with rivals internationally, these regulatory differences represent an example of possible unlevel playing fields at home that deserve regulatory attention and correction.

A Bloomberg News story in January 2014, for example, quoted one insurer as planning to switch its legal domicile from one state to another because the change would allow, according to a spokeswoman for the company, a level playing field with rivals related to reserves, accounting and reinsurance rules.

For insurers operating within the national system of state-based regulation, one would hope that that level playing field would cross domiciles, and no insurer would be disadvantaged because of its domicile in any of the 56 jurisdictions.

But perhaps one of the greatest challenges to the state-based system of regulation is the added cost of that regulation, partly engendered by duplicative requests for information and regulatory structures that have not been harmonized among states. How to respond to that may represent the biggest gap in the FIO report. It may also be the biggest opportunity for both insurers and regulators to rationalize the current regulatory system and ensure the future of state-based regulation.

Cost

The FIO report notes that the cost per dollar of premium of the state-based insurance regulatory system “is approximately 6.8 times greater for an insurer operating in the United States than for an insurer operating in the United Kingdom.” It quotes research estimating that our state-based system increases costs for property-casualty insurers by $7.2 billion annually and for life insurers by $5.7 billion annually.

According to the report, “regulation at the federal level would improve uniformity, efficiency and consistency, and it would address concerns with uniform supervision of insurance firms with national and global activities.”

Yet the report does not recommend the replacement of state-based regulation with federal regulation, but with a hybrid system of regulation that may remain primarily state-based, but does include some federal involvement.

At least one rationale for this is clearly admitted in the report. As it says, “establishing a new federal agency to regulate all or part of the $7.3 trillion insurance sector would be a significant undertaking … (that) would, of necessity, require an unequivocal commitment from the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government.”

The result of that limitation is a significant difference between diagnosis and prescription in the FIO report. Having diagnosed the cost of the state-based regulatory system as an unnecessary $13 billion burden on policyholders, the FIO's policy recommendations may possibly be characterized as, for the most part, the policy equivalent of “take two aspirin and call me in the morning.”

Still, as the Dodd-Frank Act showed, even Congress can muster the will to impose regulatory solutions if a crisis becomes acute enough and broad enough. Unlikely as that may now seem, the threat of federal radical surgery should not be what is required for states to move toward addressing the recommendations of the FIO report.

Indeed, actions of the NAIC over the past few years have addressed much of what is in the FIO report. Now the NAIC, industry and other stakeholders can take the opportunity provided by the report to work to resolve some of the issues identified in it. The possible outcome of an even greater federal reluctance to become involved in insurance regulation would only be a side benefit. The real goal should be a regulatory system that is more streamlined, less duplicative, more responsive, more cost-efficient and more supportive of innovation.

Kevin Bingham has shared this article on behalf of the authors of the white paper on which it is based: Gary Shaw, George Hanley, Howard Mills, Richard Godfrey, Steve Foster, Tim Cercelle, Andrew N. Mais and David Sherwood. They can reached through him. The white paper can be downloaded here

The Fallout From Ill-Advised Tweets

During the presidential debate on Oct. 3, 2012, a KitchenAid employee used the corporate account to send a tasteless (some would say disparaging and grossly offensive) tweet regarding the president’s grandmother. KitchenAid quickly apologized to the president and his family and explained what happened. In other words, KitchenAid followed the “rules” of reactive reputation management.  

KitchenAid was praised for responding quickly. But the outrage about the tweet was overwhelming, if only for a short period, and underscores that companies need to consider their potential liability from ill-advised tweets.

A bit of background: Libel (written) and slander (spoken), collectively known as “defamation,” which is the general term used internationally, are civil wrongs (sometimes carrying criminal penalties) that harm a reputation, decrease respect, regard or confidence or induce disparaging, hostile or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. 

Contrary to a general belief that insulting tweets (or comments online through Facebook, online message boards, etc.)  are exempt from libel laws because they are fleeting, libel laws apply to the Internet the same way they do to newspapers, magazines, books, films, etc. The same technology that gives you the power to share your opinion with thousands of people also qualifies you to be a defendant in a lawsuit.    

In considering your legal exposure if an employee may have committed libel, you must consider the country you live in, as well as your exposure to libel laws around the world.

U.S.

The medium for communication is irrelevant; even an email to a single person can be libelous if the sender knew a statement to be false, acted with reckless disregard for the facts or was otherwise irresponsible. To be libelous, the statement must also cause some damage.

United Kingdom 

The basis of British libel law is not substantially different from that in the U.S.: to protect the reputation of an individual from unjustified attack. In British law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose a person to hatred or ridicule, cause a person to be shunned, lower a person in the estimation in the minds of “right-thinking” members of society or disparage a person in his work. In the U.K, though, the burden of proof is with the defendant, while in the U.S. the plaintiff must provide the proof. Unlike in the U.S., there is also no provision in the U.K. that makes it harder for public figures to win a judgment–in the U.K., a public figure does not have to prove a statement was made with malice.

Almost all of the rest of the world

There is ever-expanding concern about the use of social media, especially Twitter, to post harassing, offensive and false statements that are defaming or invade another’s privacy. As one judge said: “Twitter as we all know is widely used by individuals and organizations to disseminate and receive information. It is inconceivable that grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages sent in this way would not be potentially unlawful.” ([2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin) at {23}. In India, amendments to the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT ACT) specify that defamation via a computer or communication can lead to a prison term of three years and a fine. (The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates the right to freedom of expression and  is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The impact of this ruling, if any, is not part of the discussion in this article.) 

Now, let’s consider liability if you or an employee is the “retweeter”:

U.S.

If you retweet a libelous statement in the U.S., you or the company you work for  may be protected from defamation liability based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Simply put, this means you cannot be sued for something you retweet, even if the original tweet is libelous, so long as the libelous content was created by a third party. However, if you did have control (it was KitchenAid’s corporate Twitter account)  or you add something defamatory, you could be held responsible. 

United Kingdom

Keir Starmer QC was addressing the London School of Economics about social media in 2012 when he was asked: “Is it an offense to retweet something grossly offensive?” He replied: “You retweet, you commit an offense under the Act.”

The “Act” is the Communications Act, which outlaws sending a tweet that is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” A person can be prosecuted if he “causes any such message or matter to be so sent.”

For example: In 2012, the British Broadcasting Corporation settled a libel suit for about $300,000 with a UK politician. (The BBC reported that he was involved in a child sex abuse scandal but should have known the statement was false.) The UK politician then sought libel damages from at least 20 “high profile” people who tweeted and retweeted the report. 

Because tweets cross borders so easily, Twitter users in the U.S. and elsewhere should take the UK law into account.

India

Some legal scholars in India say that even accidentally retweeting an offensive tweet can create liability.

Freedom of Speech?

While freedom of speech in the U.S. is a constitutional right, legal exceptions make that right limited. For example: Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of a privilege for those stating opinions. Therefore, the  position that nothing should stand in the way of unabashed free speech on the Internet is like the ostrich with its head in the sand. Defamation and speech intended to inflict severe emotional distress is not protected.States can and do regulate this type of speech.

So here is the takeaway:

If you or an employee tweets or retweets something defamatory, you may face a libel claim. It doesn't matter how quickly you delete the entry or whether you follow up with a correction or an apology. It also doesn't matter where in the world you are.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is provided only as general information and may or may not reflect the most current developments legal or otherwise pertaining to the subject matter hereof. Accordingly, this information is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete, and is not intended to create, or constitute formation of an attorney-client relationship. The author expressly disclaims all liability in law or otherwise with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or part of this article.