• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Reinsurance Regulation / CALIFORNIA SUES ITSELF OVER IRAN INVESTMENT POLICY

CALIFORNIA SUES ITSELF OVER IRAN INVESTMENT POLICY

November 24, 2010 by Carlton Fields

In response to the determination by the Office of Administrative Law (“the Office”) that the California Insurance Department’s “request” for a “moratorium” on investments in Iran’s energy industry (see our November 4 post), the Insurance Commissioner has sued the Office in a Petition for Writ of Mandate. While most insurance companies had complied with the request, which practically amounts to a divestiture requirement, several trade associations challenged it as an “underground regulation,” and those trade associations were named in the Commissioner’s lawsuit. Commissioner Poizner, who is about to leave office, ‘retained” Attorney General (and soon to be Governor) Brown to represent it against the small 20 employee Office. The Director of the Office has written to the Deputy Attorney General who signed the Petition pointing out that there is a conflict of interest because Attorney General Brown is representing the Office in other “underground regulation” cases, stating that the Office declines to waive the conflict. The letter invites an exchange of legal authorities and discussion of the issue, concluding with “[n]o matter what agency is involved and no matter what praiseworthy objective the agency has in mind, nevertheless, the law calls for the proper procedure to be utilized.” The Petition contends that the directive is a valid implementation of the Commissioner’s authority to regulate insurance company investments due to the political, economic and reputational risk that companies take on in such investments, and that “[t]he action taken by the Commissioner is similar to statutes passed by the California legislature and Congress to force companies to divest in Iranian companies.” How the Commissioner may take action similar to legislative action without the benefit of the rulemaking process is not alleged. The Office found out that it was about to be sued by the receipt of a request from the Deputy Attorney General for the Office’s administrative record in the determination matter. So much for inter-departmental courtesies. The position of the incoming Commissioner and Attorney General with respect to this issue is unknown. Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner v. Office of Administrative Law, et al., Cal. Super. Ct.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.