• 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

ALASKA ISSUES BULLETIN ON REGULATIONS MODIFYING SURPLUS LINES REQUIREMENTS

September 11, 2014 by Carlton Fields

Alaska’s Division of Insurance has released a bulletin notifying licensees, surplus lines insurance companies in the State of Alaska, and other interested parties that it has adopted regulations modifying surplus lines requirements to conform to Alaska statutory changes due to the federal Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010. The regulations include modifications to diligent search requirements, additional requirements for the notice of nonrenewal and premium increases, and additional fees for certain licenses. All affected parties must comply with the new requirements as of September 4, 2014, the effective date of the regulations. Alaska Ins. Bulletin No. 14-05 (Aug. 13, 2014).

This post written by Renee Schimkat.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation

NAIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ADOPTS FRAMEWORK FOR CHANGES TO CAPTIVE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS

September 2, 2014 by Carlton Fields

NAIC’s Executive Committee met at NAIC’s annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky on August 16 and 17, 2014. The Executive Committee furthered its action on reserve requirements for captive reinsurers (as reported here last year) and adopted the “XXX/AXXX Reinsurance Framework” which will guide development of proposed regulatory changes to the types of assets and securities required to meet statutory reserve requirements.

Arising from worries about potentially abusive use of captives creating a “shadow insurance industry (as reported here in 2012), the framework would, among other things, require ceding companies to disclose the assets backing their risk-based-capital (RBC) computations.

As noted in the Principle-Based Reserving (PBR) Implementation (EX) Task Force’s report to the Executive (EX) Committee, the framework:

  • addresses concerns regarding reserve financing transactions without encouraging such transactions to move off-shore. The changes would be prospective and apply to XXX term life insurance business and AXXX universal life with secondary guarantees.
  • requires the ceding company to collateralize a portion of the total statutory reserves with hard assets such as cash and securities, collateralize the remainder with other assets and forms of security identified as acceptable by regulators, disclose the assets and securities used; and hold an RBC cushion as required for other business.
  • will be codified through the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law, with the creation of a new model regulation.

The PBR subcommittee’s report is based on the June 4 Rector & Associates, Inc. report’s recommendations (a copy of which is available on the PBR taskforce’s website: http://www.naic.org/committees_ex_pbr_implementation_tf.htm).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

RESPA CLASS ACTION ALLEGING “CAPTIVE REINSURANCE SCHEME” ALLOWED TO PROCEED

August 27, 2014 by Carlton Fields

A Pennsylvania federal court recently denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit in which homeowners claim violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 based on an alleged “captive reinsurance scheme” related to private mortgage insurance.

The plaintiffs allege that between January 2006 and December 2008, they obtained residential mortgage loans from National City Mortgage (“National City”), which contracted with certain primary insurers to provide private mortgage insurance. These insurers subsequently reinsured with National City’s captive reinsurer, National City Mortgage Insurance Company, Inc. (“NCMIC”), pursuant to a captive reinsurance arrangement. Under this arrangement, the primary insurers paid NCMIC a portion of the borrowers’ insurance premiums in exchange for NCMIC assuming some of the primary insurers’ risk. The plaintiffs claim this reinsurance arrangement violated RESPA’s prohibition on kickbacks because premium payments from the primary insurers to NCMIC were made in return for National City’s referral of business. According to the plaintiffs, this arrangement also violated RESPA’s prohibition on fee-splitting because it was only sham reinsurance. They allege that NCMIC provided no service in return for the portion of the insurance premiums it accepted.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, making a variety of arguments. The district court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable tolling due to alleged fraudulent concealment by the defendants and had set out facts sufficient to meet the federal pleading standards for a violation of RESPA and unjust enrichment. White v. PNC Financial Services Group, Case No. 11-7928 (USDC E.D. Pa., August 18, 2014).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation

MARYLAND ADOPTS CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE REGULATIONS

August 26, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The Maryland Insurance Commissioner adopted regulations regarding Credit for Reinsurance effective August 18, 2014. The regulations will implement changes made to Title 5, Subtitle 9 of the Maryland Insurance Article, and are based upon recent amendments to model law and regulation developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners entitled “Credit for Reinsurance Model Law” (No. 785) and “Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation” (No. 786), respectively. The regulations provide standards for a licensed ceding insurer to receive credit for reinsurance ceded to a certified reinsurer as a reduction of collateral requirements and include provisions that establish: 1) eligibility requirements to be considered for certification as a certified reinsurer; 2) eligibility requirements of a jurisdiction in which an assuming insurer may be domiciled to be considered a qualified jurisdiction; 3) eligibility requirements to be considered for approval as an accredited reinsurer; 4) a rating method to be used in the certification process; and, 5) a sliding scale with the level of required collateral varying from 0% to 100% of ceded liabilities based on the certified reinsurer’s rating.

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (“NYDFS”) ADOPTS EMERGENCY REGULATION REGARDING EXCESS LINE PLACEMENTS GOVERNING STANDARDS (INSURANCE REGULATION 41)

August 4, 2014 by Carlton Fields

The Emergency Regulation, effective April 21, 2014, conforms 11 NYCRR 27 to the requirements of the Non-Admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 (“NRRA”). The amendments make the following changes to Insurance Regulation 41:

  • Defines three new terms: “exempt commercial purchaser,” “insured’s home state,” and “United States.”
  • Provides an exception for an Exempt Commercial Purchaser (“ECP”) consistent with Insurance Law Section 2118(b)(3)(F)
  • Regarding ECPs requires:
    • An excess line broker or the producing broker to affirm in part A or part C of the affidavit that the ECP was specifically advised in writing, prior to placement, that the insurance may or may not be available from the authorized market that may provide greater protection with more regulatory oversight.
    • Requires an excess line broker to identify the insured’s home state in part A of the affidavit; and (4) clarify that the premium tax is to be allocated in accordance with Section 27.9 of Insurance Regulation 41 for insurance contracts that have an effective date prior to July 21, 2011
  • Revises the address to which reports required by Section 27.7 should be submitted.
  • Requires a licensed excess line broker to:
    • Electronically file an annual premium tax statement unless the broker is granted an exemption pursuant to Section 27.23 of Insurance Regulation 41.
    • Acknowledge that payment of the premium tax may be made electronically.
  • Clarifies how an excess line broker must calculate the taxable portion of the premium for insurance contracts that have an effective date prior to July 21, 2011 and insurance contracts that have an effective date on or after July 21, 2011 and that cover property or risks located both inside and outside the United States.
  • Requires an excess line broker to obtain, review, and retain certain trust fund information if the excess line insurer seeks an exemption from Insurance Law Section 1213.
  • Requires an excess line insurer to file electronically with the NYDFS a current listing that sets forth certain individual policy details.
  • Specifies that that in order to be exempt from Insurance Law Section 1213 pursuant to Section 27.16 of Insurance Regulation 41, an excess line insurer must establish and maintain a trust fund, and to permit an actuary who is a fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society (FCAS) or a fellow in the Society of Actuaries (FSA) to make certain audits and certifications (in addition to a certified public accountant), with regard to the trust fund.
  • Specifies that an excess line insurer will be subject to Insurance Law Section 1213 unless the contract of insurance is effectuated in accordance with Insurance Law Section 2105 and Insurance Regulation 41 and the insurer maintains a trust fund in accordance with Sections 27.14 and 27.15 of Insurance Regulation 41, in addition to other current requirements.
  • Clarifies that the requirements set forth Sections 27.3 27.4, 27.5, 27.6, 27.10, 27.11, 27.12, 27.17, 27.18, 27.19, 27.20, and 27.21 apply when the insured’s home state is New York.
  • Repeals existing Section 27.23 and adds new Section 27.23 titled, “Exemptions from electronic filing and submission requirements”. An insurer or excess line broker may request exemption from electronic filing and submission requirements; however, the request must be in writing and filed with the NYDFS at least 30 days prior to the filing due date. The request for exemption must:
    • Identify the insurer’s NAIC number or the excess line broker’s New York license number;
    • Identify the specific filing or submission the insurer or excess line broker is applying for the exemption;
    • State whether the request for an exemption is based upon undue hardship, impracticability, or good cause;
    • Provide a detailed explanation for the reason(s) why the request should be approved;
      and
    • Specify whether the request for an exemption extends to future filings or submissions,
      in addition to the specific filing or submission identified in the exemption request.
  • Amends Appendix 4, which sets forth the premium tax allocation schedule, to apply to insurance contracts that have an effective date prior to July 21, 2011.
  • Adds a new Appendix 5 setting forth the premium tax allocation schedule to apply to insurance contracts that have an effective date on or after July 21, 2011 and that cover property and risks located both inside and outside the United States.

11 NYCRR 27 (Insurance Regulation 41) (2014).

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 34
  • Page 35
  • Page 36
  • Page 37
  • Page 38
  • 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.