• 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 / Archives for Reinsurance Regulation

Reinsurance Regulation

CONNECTICUT REVISES FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

January 7, 2015 by Carlton Fields

The Connecticut Insurance Department has issued two Bulletins revising certain financial reporting requirements for certain insurers.  Bulletin FS-4AR-14 (November 25, 2014) revises the annual financial filing requirements for accredited reinsurers, requiring the submission of an annual statement that complies with the NAIC’s Annual Statement Instruction Manual, an actuarial opinion and management discussion and analysis, a copy of the reinsurer’s annual independent audit report as of December 31, 2014 and a list of insurers domiciled in Connecticut ceding business to the accredited reinsurer as of December 31, 2014.  Bulletin FS-4C-14 (November 24, 2014) requires that all captive insurance companies domiciled in or, in the case of a branch captive insurance company, licensed in Connecticut, file annual financial statements verified under oath by two executive officers.  The annual financial statements must be certified by an independent public accountant and must include certain actuarial certifications.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROVES AMENDMENTS TO CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT OF 2004

December 24, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The Council and Mayor of the District of Columbia have approved enacting amendments to the Captive Insurance Company Act of 2004 to, in part, strike references to segregated accounts; clarify certain statutory requirements for protected cell captive insurers and protected cells; confirm the confidentiality of capital insurers’ license application materials and clarify when they may be shared; and permit the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking to extend or waive the requirement to conduct a financial examination of captive insurers every 5 years upon the satisfaction of specified criteria. The amendments will take effect following a 30-day period of congressional review and will be cited as the “Captive Insurance Company Amendment Act of 2014.” D.C. Act 20-497 (Dec. 8, 2014).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation

NAIC APPROVES SEVEN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AS QUALIFIED JURISDICTIONS FOR REINSURANCE COLLATERAL REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND ANNOUNCES ACTION ON INSURANCE PRIORITIES

December 22, 2014 by Carlton Fields

At its December 11, 2014 meeting, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) approved seven foreign countries as Qualified Jurisdictions so that reinsurers licensed and domiciled in those jurisdictions will be eligible for reinsurance collateral reduction requirements under NAIC’s Credit for Reinsurance Model Law. Four of those jurisdictions – Bermuda, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, were previously on NAIC’s list of Conditional Qualified Jurisdictions. Effective January 1, 2015, these four, along with Japan, Ireland and France, will be full Qualified Jurisdictions subject to a 5-year term, after which they will be re-evaluated under the provisions of the Qualified Jurisdiction Process.

NAIC also adopted the Revised Insurance Holding System Regulatory Act and Actuarial Guideline 48. The Act, in part, updates the model to clarify the group-wide supervisor for a defined class of internationally active insurance groups. AG 48 establishes national standards regarding certain captive reinsurance transactions and includes regulation of the types of assets held in a backing insurer’s statutory reserve. AG 48 takes effect in 2015. NAIC issued a news release on its actions, which can be found here.

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance, Reinsurance Regulation, Reserves, Week's Best Posts

UNITED STATES TAX COURT RULES ON CAPTIVE INSURANCE ARRANGEMENT

November 12, 2014 by Carlton Fields

In 2003 and 2004, the Internal Revenue Service disallowed deductions taken by SHI Group, a subsidiary of the Swedish company Securitas AB, for insurance expenses related to a captive insurance arrangement established by Securitas AB. SHI Group, which maintained an office in California, petitioned the disallowance of these deductions in the United States Tax Court. The Internal Revenue Code permits deductions for insurance premiums as business expenses. Although the insurance premiums may be deductible, amounts placed in reserve as self-insurance are not and can only be deducted at the time the loss for which the reserve was established is actually incurred. While neither the Code nor the regulations define insurance, courts have looked primarily to four critieria in deciding whether an arrangement constitutes insurance for income tax purposes: (1) the arrangement must involve insurable risks; (2) the arrangement must shift the risk of loss to the insurer; (3) the insurer must distribute the risk of loss to the insurer; and (4) the arrangement must be insurance in the commonly accepted sense. Based on the complicated facts before it, the Tax Court determined that the captive arrangement at issue constituted insurance, allowing deductions for the related expenses. Securitas Holding, Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 21206-10, T.C. Memo 2014-225 (U.S.T.C. Oct. 29, 2014).

This post written by Leonor Lagomasino.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Accounting for Reinsurance, Reinsurance Regulation

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION REGARDING CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE SIGNED INTO LAW

October 30, 2014 by Carlton Fields

On September 16, 2014, Assembly Bill No. 2734 (“AB 2734”) was signed into law. AB 2734 authorizes trusteed surplus to be reduced to not less than 30% of the assuming insurer’s liabilities attributable to reinsurance ceded by United States ceding insurers covered by the trust if the Insurance Commissioner expressly finds that appropriate circumstances justify a lower level of minimum required trusteed surplus. AB 2734 also reduces the period during which the Insurance Commissioner is prohibited from taking final action on an application for certification as a reinsurer from 90 days to 30 days after posting the required notice concerning receipt of the certification application.

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 32
  • Page 33
  • Page 34
  • Page 35
  • Page 36
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 107
  • Go to Next Page »

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.