Tag Archives: washington

States of Confusion: Workers Comp Extraterritorial Issues

As states passed workers compensation laws, each state established its own system. This resulted in a mishmash of laws, benefits, compensability and eligibility from state to state. Courts have ruled that a state has the right to apply its own workers compensation rules and standards to each case. Hence, most states simply don’t care what other states allow, only what is required under their workers compensation laws. There is little meaningful cooperation or coordination among states. Challenges for agents, employers, insurance companies and adjusters include understanding:

  • When coverage is required in jurisdictions where the employer has operations or employees working, living or traveling in or through.
  • How coverage is provided for various jurisdictions.
  • What jurisdictional benefits an employee can collect.

The policy

The two items that reference what states are insured under a workers compensation policy are 3.A. and 3.C. on the information page. (Federal coverage can only be added by endorsement.) 3.A. is fairly simple. The insurance agent for the employer instructs the insurance carrier to list the states where the employer operates when the policy goes into effect or is renewed. 3.C. is a safety net – at least most of the time. That item lists states where an employer expects it may have employees traveling to or through or working in. If an employer begins work in any state listed in 3.C. after the effective date of the policy, all provisions of the policy apply as though the state were listed in 3.A. Notice must be given “at once” if work begins in any state listed in 3.C., although “at once” is not defined in the policy. If the employer has work in any state listed in 3.C. on the effective date of the policy, coverage will not be afforded for that state unless the carrier is notified within 30 days.

It should be noted the insurance policy does not determine what law applies at the time of injury. The law determines what is payable. In addition, note that the workers compensation policy does not apply to Ohio, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming, “monopolistic” states where coverage may only be purchased from the state. Although larger employers may self-insure in Ohio and Washington (but not North Dakota or Wyoming), no private insurance carrier can write workers compensation coverage for an employer.

It would seem the safe bet is to add all states except monopolistic states to 3.A. However, most underwriters are unwilling to do this or even add the ideal wording for 3.C.: “All states, U.S. territories and possessions except Washington, Wyoming, North Dakota, Ohio, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and states designated in Item 3.A. of this Information Page.” The reason for the underwriters’ unwillingness varies. Common reasons underwriters provide include:

Licensing issue

The insurer is not licensed in all states. Many regional insurers are only licensed in a handful of states while other carriers may only be licensed in one state…often for strategic reasons. Carriers frequently assert it is impossible — and possibly illegal — to list a state they are not licensed in (even though policies contain wording whose clear intent is to allow carriers to pay benefits in states where they are not licensed).

Underwriting considerations

The insurance carrier may not want to provide insurance in certain states it considers more challenging from a workers compensation standpoint or because carriers do not want to write in states where they have little or no claims adjusting experience, established provider networks and knowledge of the nuances of the law.

Underwriters’ lack of awareness or knowledge

Underwriters are not claims adjusters and do not always have a full understanding  of workers compensation’s jurisdictional complexity and the employer’s risk (no coverage) and agents’ risk (errors and omission claims) for not securing coverage for all states with potential exposure. Agents are often told the employer does not need coverage in the state in which the agent is requesting coverage — which the home or primary state benefits will pay. However, the chance that an employee will be successful in securing another state’s benefits — even if the employee is only there temporarily — is just too much of a risk.

Physical location

Carrier underwriters frequently cite the “physical location” — actually needing an address — as a roadblock to adding a state to 3.A. The National Council for Compensation Insurance (NCCI) has rules on this issue. Most states that follow NCCI rules allow entry of “no business location” — but not all.  States that follow NCCI rules (including the independent bureaus like Texas) will often modify some rules. Arizona, Kentucky, Montana and Texas do not allow “no business location.” It is a regulatory reporting issue. Possible solutions to secure 3.A. coverage include:

  • Providing an entry of “Any Street, Any Town” or “No Specific Location, Any City” for the state. Many carriers will use this.
  • Using an employee’s home address in the state if there is an employee working from home there.
  • Using the agent/brokers address if they have an office there.

Compliance

Only Texas and New Jersey have workers compensation laws that are elective. New Jersey employers still, in effect, cannot go without workers compensation insurance. In Texas, any employer can “unsubscribe” to the workers compensation system and “go bare” and be subject to the tort system. All other states require employers to purchase workers compensation insurance for their employees or qualify for self-insurance.

Which benefits apply? 

If an employer has employees traveling on a limited basis from their home states, the headquarters state may have established a time limit on coverage for out-of-state injuries. The most common limit is six months. This may be written into the statute or may be silent, but over time case law has made determinations. In other words, if an employee usually worked in Michigan but spent three months working on assignment in Kentucky and was injured in Kentucky, the employee would most likely still be eligible for Michigan benefits. In states with a timeline, an employee working in another state for more than the designated duration is no longer entitled to benefits in the home state, but the employee is probably entitled to the compensation in the state in which he or she is currently working.

One of the most important factors is that an employee injured outside of his state of residence may have selection of remedies (benefits) if he lives in one state and works in another. The Michigan employee injured in Kentucky may want Kentucky benefits because Kentucky has lifetime medical and Michigan does not. Or, an employee may have been injured on the way to work, and the state where she was injured does not allow for workers compensation in this circumstance even though this would be a compensable injury in the employee’s headquarters state. Perhaps there is a disqualification in one state because of, for example, an employee’s intoxication that would not be a disqualifier in another state. In addition, the maximum amount of income benefits available to employees varies considerably from state to state.

Piggybacking benefits

Piggybacking occurs when an employee files in one state and then in another state where he qualifies for additional benefits. What is allowed in additional payments will depend on the circumstances of the claim and the states involved. This issue has become particularly dangerous for employers that have not arranged coverage in other states because they are unaware there is an exposure there. The employer then becomes liable for the benefits due in the uninsured state, including all costs to adjust and defend the claim if litigated.

Typically, if an employee collects benefits in one state and is successful in perfecting a claim in another state with higher benefits, the benefits collected in the first state are offset from the second state’s benefits payment. For example, assume an employee collects $10,000 from Indiana then files in Illinois, which grants $18,000. Only the difference between $18,000 and $10,000, or an additional $8,000, would be paid. Employers with employees in both “wage-loss” and “impairment” states face an additional challenge: Employees could qualify for both states’ benefits with no offsets.

Most states don’t care what other states have allowed, only what is required under their laws. If the employee collected under another state’s law but qualifies in our state for additional benefits, well, so be it. If an employee has traveled to, through or lived or worked in another state to create a “substantial” relationship with the state, there is a very good chance he or she will be granted workers compensation benefits in that state.

State statutes, case law, common law and tests

State statutes, case law or the common law in a jurisdiction may influence what benefits an employee may collect. Various criteria that may apply include:

  • State of hire
  • State of residence
  • State of primary employment
  • State of pay
  • State of injury
  • State in agreement between employer and employee (unique to Ohio, and only Ohio and Indiana recognize the agreement)

The “WALSH” test is a good guide to questions to ask, in order of importance:

W   Worked – Where did the employee work most of the time?

A    Accident – Where did the accident occur?

L    Lived – Where is the employee’s home?

S    Salaried – Where is the employee getting paid from?

H    Hired – Where was the contract of hire initiated?

Just about all jurisdictions indicate an employee is entitled to the benefits of their state if the employee was working principally localized in the state, was working under a contract of hire made in the state or was domiciled in the state at the time of the accident. This is why “worked” and “accident” are given the most weight.

Reciprocity

Several states will reciprocate another state’s extraterritorial provisions. Each state has its own reciprocal agreements, with as few as a half-dozen states or as many as 30. For as many states that cooperate with reciprocity, just as many states will not.

In addition, not all reciprocity agreements address the “claims” aspect of compliance. In other words, the reciprocity means the employer does not have to secure “coverage” for an employee temporarily in another state; however, it does not mean that the employee could not pursue a claim in that state. If the employer was relying on the reciprocity provisions of the state law and did not secure coverage in that other state, the employer may be without coverage for that state and may also become “non-compliant” with the state and be subject to fines. The employer (or its agent) has decided to rely on the employee accepting his home state benefits. If the injured employee goes back to her home state for benefits, no harm, no foul.  However, if the employee perfects a claim in another state or in some instances simply chooses to file a claim in that state, then the employer would be considered a non-complying employer and could be subject to penalties.

Washington does not reciprocate in construction employment unless there is an agreement in place. Washington has these agreements with Oregon, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Nevada.

Some specifics

Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire New Mexico, New York, Montana, and Wisconsin require coverage in 3.A.

Kentucky allows no exceptions for family members, temporary, part time or out-of-state employers performing any work in the state of Kentucky. Kentucky does not accept the Ohio C110 form.

New York made a significant change in its workers compensation law [Section 6 of the 2007 Reform Act (A.6163/S.3322)] that affected employers if they conducted any work in New York or employed any person whose duties involve activities that took place in New York. Effective Feb. 1, 2011, the New York board clarified coverage requirements. Detailed information can be found on the New York Workers Compensation Board’s website: http://www.wcb.ny.gov/content/main/onthejob/CoverageSituations/outOfStateEmployers.jsp

Florida, Nevada and Montana require all employers working in the construction industry to have specific coverage for their state in 3.A. Ohio and Washington require that employers purchase coverage from the state for all employers working in the construction industry. Otherwise, Florida, Nevada, Montana, Ohio and Washington will honor coverage for temporary work from other jurisdictions. Florida also requires the coverage be written with a licensed Florida carrier. 3.A. coverage status is required for any employer having three or more employees in New Mexico and Wisconsin even on a temporary basis.

The standard workers compensation policy exclusion for bodily injury occurring outside the U.S., its territories or possessions and Canada does not apply to bodily injury to a citizen or resident of the U.S. or Canada who is temporarily outside these countries. State workers compensation will apply, however, for those employers that have employees regularly traveling out of the country; the Foreign Workers Compensation and Employers Liability endorsement should be added to their workers compensation policy. This endorsement is used for U.S.-hired employees who are traveling or residing temporarily outside the U.S. The coverage is limited to 90 days. For employees out of the country for long periods or permanently, coverage needs to be arranged under an international policy.

The extraterritorial issues arise because many states — Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin — permit concurrent jurisdiction between State and Longshore coverage. Some states — notably Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Texas, Virginia and Washington —  do not permit this concurrent jurisdiction, and Longshore becomes the sole remedy. In concurrent jurisdictions, the employee can file in both state and federal court, and the employer must defend both.

Summary

  • Recognize that having employees who work, live or are temporarily traveling to or through other states creates premium and coverage challenges for employers and agents.
  • Take time to understand the rules of the state where there is potential exposure.
  • States requiring coverage in 3.A. for some or all situations tend to be strict and impose severe penalties for non-compliance. Many carriers are often aware of the challenges these states present and will work with the agent/employer and add on an “if any” exposure basis.
  • Always attempt to secure the broadest coverage possible under the workers compensation policy, adding to 3.A. as many states with even minimal exposure. As a fallback, get the state in 3.C.
  • Obtain coverage for operations in monopolistic states separately.
  • Address out-of-state exposures when insured by a state-specific state fund or regional carrier that only writes in one or a few states. Remember, the 3.C. wording is designed to pay benefits — by reimbursing the employer — if the carrier cannot pay directly to the employee.
  • Check for employees traveling out of the country and arrange to expand coverage with the foreign endorsement or through an international policy.
  • Check with a marine expert to assess the exposure to the Longshore Act and whether coverage is required.  Longshore is very employee-friendly.

The white paper on which this article was based can be found here.

Same-Sex Marriage: An Update on Handling Claims

The pace of legislative and judicial activity surrounding same-sex marriage has quickened.

Currently, 17 states plus the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry. Several states have expanded the legal rights available to spouses in same-sex relationships through civil unions and domestic partnerships. On June 26, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in  Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307 that section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage, is unconstitutional. Since this decision, several state attorneys general have announced that they will no longer defend their state’s same-sex marriage bans.

Here is an update on the issue of same-sex marriage and claims handling considerations:

Same-Sex Marriage Overview

In the states that recognize these unions, the legal status of same-sex marriages is identical to opposite-sex marriages.

The first states that allowed same-sex marriage did so as a result of court decisions—Massachusetts in 2004, Connecticut in 2008 and Iowa in 2009. However, most states and the District of Columbia provided for same-sex marriage through legislation. Below is a summary of changes in the states over the past two years on this fast-moving issue:

2012

Washington

Legislation establishing same-sex marriage was approved February 2012, but opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue on the November 2012 ballot. Voters upheld the law, and same-sex marriages began on Dec. 6, 2012.

Maryland

Gov. Martin O’Malley signed same-sex marriage legislation into law on March 1, 2012. However, opponents of the legislation obtained enough signatures to file a referendum challenging the law during the November 2012 election. The law was upheld by the voters and became effective on Jan. 1, 2013.

Maine

During the November 2012 election, voters approved a ballot measure legalizing same-sex marriage. The measure became effective Dec. 29, 2012.

New Jersey

The legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill in February 2012, but the measure was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie. A legal challenge was raised to the state’s law that only provided civil unions for same-sex couples, and a lower court ruled that the state had to allow same-sex couples to marry beginning Oct. 21, 2013. After the New Jersey Supreme Court denied an appeal for delay, Gov. Christie announced that the state would drop its appeal, making same-sex marriage legal in New Jersey.

2013

Rhode Island

Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed legislation that legalized same-sex marriage, eliminated the availability of civil union and recognized civil unions and same sex marriage from other states on May 2, 2013. This bill became effective Aug. 1, 2013.

Delaware

Gov. Jack Markell signed into law on May 7, 2013, same-sex marriage legislation that also recognized civil unions and same-sex marriage from other jurisdictions. The law became effective July 1, 2013.

Minnesota

Following the defeat of a constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage during the November 2012 election, the legislation passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage May 2013. The law went into effect on Aug. 1, 2013.

California

On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to decide the California challenge to Proposition 8, concluding that it had no authority to consider the question in the case. The effect of that decision was to reinstate the federal district court decision overturning Proposition 8, thus allowing same-sex marriage in California.

Hawaii

During a special session held in October and November 2013, same-sex marriage was passed after both houses agreed to the addition of an amendment that strengthened the exemption of religious organization from being required to provide facilities, goods or services for the marriage or celebration of the marriage if it violates their religious beliefs. Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed the bill on Nov. 13, 2013, and it became effective on Dec. 2, 2013.

Illinois

Gov. Pat Quinn signed Senate Bill 10 into law on Nov. 20, 2013, and same-sex marriages will be available beginning June 1, 2014. A ruling by a U.S. district judge allowed residents of Cook County, Ill., to begin marrying on Feb. 21, 2014.

New Mexico

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 19, 2013, that same-sex couples are allowed to marry. The ruling went into effect immediately.

Of the 33 states that still prohibit same-sex marriage, 29 have done so through constitutional provisions. Efforts to overturn state constitutional prohibitions have been initiated in the federal courts and have moved, or are about to move, into four federal appellate courts.

  • The Virginia case, Bostic v. Rainey, is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va.
  • The Oklahoma case, Bishop v. U.S., 04-cv-848, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa) is to be heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, Colo., along with the Utah case, Kitchen v. Herbert, 13-cv-00217, U.S. District Court, District of Utah (Salt Lake City). Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard separately for these two cases in April 2014.
  • The Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, 12-17668, will be heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, Ca.

In all four cases, the rulings are stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages cannot occur at this time. It is anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court will be again asked to review this issue in 2015 or soon thereafter. Meanwhile, more action through legislation and ballot initiatives is expected to occur this year.

Civil Unions

A civil union is a category of law created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides, and no federal protection is included.

In 2013, the Colorado legislature passed a bill to establish civil unions for same-sex couples. The bill also provides recognition of civil unions from other jurisdictions. Gov. John Hickenlooper signed  SB 11 into law on March 21, 2013, and it became effective on May 1, 2013.

Delaware and Rhode Island replaced their civil union provisions with same-sex marriage, as previously occurred in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.

In Hawaii, civil unions remain available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. The status of civil unions in Illinois and New Jersey are not yet clear with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Domestic Partnerships

Domestic partnership is a civil contract between same-sex or opposite-sex, unmarried, adult partners who meet statutory requirements. Laws vary among states, cities and counties for domestic partnerships. Several states register these partnerships.

Washington has recently announced that registered domestic partnerships for same-sex partners will be converted to marriages on June 30, 2014, if marriage has not occurred or the partnership has not been dissolved by that time. The conversion will not apply to the domestic partnerships of heterosexual couples.

Reciprocal Beneficiaries

A reciprocal beneficiary agreement is a consensual and signed declaration of relationship for two adults unable to marry each other. Reciprocal beneficiary laws in Colorado, Hawaii and Maryland allow some benefits of marriage such as workers’ compensation survivor and health-related benefits.

Claim-Handling Considerations and Suggestions

The definitions of “spouse,” “dependent” and “marriage” are changing, and these changes affect the handling of casualty claims as we determine who is an eligible dependent or has legal standing to file certain causes of action. It is important that we are mindful of the state laws and any case law in the particular jurisdiction relating to same-sex unions.

Some state insurance departments have issued bulletins regarding their compliance expectations. For example, the Minnesota Departments of Commerce and Health issued  Administrative Bulletin # 2013-3 to advise property and casualty insurers that any policy issued in Minnesota on or after Aug. 1, 2013, providing dependent coverage for spouses must make that coverage available on the same terms and conditions regardless of the sex of the spouse. The bulletin reminds insurers that defining a spouse in a way that limits coverage to an opposite-sex spouse would be discriminatory and unfair and a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 72A.20, subdivision 16.

When evaluating the eligibility of dependents, one area of uncertainty involves same-sex couples that have a valid marriage but move to a state that does not recognize their marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Windsor did not address Section 2 of DOMA, which does not require states to give effect to same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states. In the past, most federal laws looked to the state of residence at the time benefits are sought, rather than where the marriage occurred.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court DOMA decision, the U.S. Department of Labor published  Technical Release  2013-4 on Sept. 18, 2013. This release indicates that the rule of recognition to be applied is based on the state where the marriage was celebrated, regardless of the married couple’s state of domicile. Guidance is also provided on the meaning of “spouse” and “marriage,” as these terms appear in the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Internal Revenue Code that the department interprets.

This release likely also applies to the following four major disability programs administered by the Department of Labor's Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP):

  • Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Program and its extensions, including the Defense Base Act
  • Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
  • Black Lung Benefits Program
  • Federal Employees' Compensation Program

Additional recommendations include:

  1. Ascertain whom the employer shows as the spouse.
  2. In addition to determining marriage or civil union, domestic-partnership registration should be confirmed.
  3. If interviewing a claimant in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex unions, in addition to “spouse” add the terms “domestic partner or designated beneficiary” to the questions.
  4. It might be necessary to find out when and in what state the marriage occurred.
  5. Any questions or concerns should be discussed with your supervisor, team leader, manager or defense attorney.

Sometimes, our duties as claims examiners are affected by laws seemingly unrelated to insurance. It is important that we consider the impact of headlines and changes in the law on our handling of workers’ compensation claims.

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