Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

You are here: Home / Archives for Reinsurance Transactions / Accounting for Reinsurance

Accounting for Reinsurance

Nebraska Adopts Reinsurance Credit Amendments to Insurance Law Based on NAIC Model

by

On April 11, 2018 Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) signed Legislative Bill 815 into law, joining the surge of states amending their insurance laws regarding when ceding insurers may claim credit for reinsurance. The introducer’s “Statement of Intent” indicates the bill’s intent to “adopt the latest updates to the credit for reinsurance model law” published by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The bulk of the amendments provide additional authority to the state Director of Insurance to regulate the circumstances and requirements for authorizing credit for reinsurance. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Director to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the valuation of assets or reserve credits, amount and form of security backing reinsurance agreements, or the circumstances surrounding reduction or elimination of credit. It also grants the Director the authority to promulgate specialized rules and regulations applicable only to reinsurance relating to specialized term and universal life insurance policies, variable annuities, and long-term care policies.

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

Michigan Amends Reinsurance Credit Statute To Conform To NAIC Model Law

by

On April 10, 2018 Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) signed Michigan Senate Bill 638 into law to amend the state’s insurance code to conform to the National Association of Insurance Commissioner (“NAIC”)’s model law on reinsurance regarding when ceding insurers may claim credit for reinsurance. The Michigan legislative staff has published an analysis of the bill. The Michigan Insurance Code previously authorized reinsurance credit where the reinsurance is ceded to a reinsurer authorized in Michigan or met one of three different sets of requirements. Senate Bill 638 amends those three requirements as follows:

  • Where the Code allows reinsurance credit if the reinsurer is accredited as a Michigan reinsurer, the bill removes a prohibition on receiving credit where the reinsurer’s accreditation was revoked, requires the reinsurer to bear the expense of the state’s examination of its books and records to gain accreditation, removes the specific surplus requirement of $20 million required for accreditation, and institutes instead a requirement that the reinsurer satisfy the state that it has “adequate financial capacity” to meet its reinsurance obligations.
  • Where the Code allows reinsurance credit if the reinsurer maintains a qualified trust fund for reinsurance claims payments, the bill adds provisions regarding single assuming insurers that permanently discontinue writing new business secured by the trust, changes the dates for various criteria of the trusts maintained by groups of underwriters, and adds requirements for groups of unincorporated underwriters under common administration.
  • The bill maintains the Code’s provisions for reinsurance credit if the insured risks are located in jurisdictions where reinsurance is required under local laws and regulations.

The bill also adds two new scenarios that qualify for reinsurance credit:

  • Where the reinsurer is domiciled in or entered through a state that employs standards regarding reinsurance credit “substantially similar” to Michigan’s standards, provided that the reinsurer maintains a surplus of $20 million and submits to Michigan’s books and records examination authority and bears the expense thereof.
  • Where the reinsurer has been certified as a certified reinsurer in Michigan and secures its obligations as provided in the bill and the Code, provided that it meets certain certification requirements.

Additionally, the bill adds provisions governing the suspension and revocation of accreditation and certification under the Code, requiring ceding insurers to manage reinsured assets in proportion to its business and diversify their reinsurance programs, and granting the state Director of Insurance and Financial Services authority to promulgate reinsurance regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The bill takes effect July 9, 2018.

This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .

See our disclaimer.

West Virginia Amends Credit For Reinsurance Statute To Conform To NAIC Model, Effective January 1, 2019

by

West Virginia House Bill 4230, approved by Governor Justice on March 27, amends the statutory requirements relating to when an insurer may claim credit for reinsurance to conform to the NAIC model law. The bill establishes requirements for:

  • Domestic insurers to be allowed credit;
  • Reinsurers to meet in order for credit to be granted to ceding insurers;
  • The location where assets that provide security to fund United States obligations must be maintained by a non-United States insurer or reinsurer;
  • The filing and valuation of claims; and
  • Provision of an asset or reduction from liability for reinsurance ceded by a domestic insurer.

The bill also provides for the distribution of assets of an insolvent non-United States insurer or reinsurer, in addition to providing the Insurance Commissioner with authority to promulgate related legislative and emergency rules.

The bill takes effect January 1, 2019 and applies to all cessions under reinsurance agreements that have an inception, anniversary, or renewal date on or after that date.

This post written by Benjamin E. Stearns.
See our disclaimer.

UPDATE ON NAIC ACTION TO IMPLEMENT THE COVERED AGREEMENT

by

We recently posted a Special Focus article on a hearing held by the NAIC’s Reinsurance Task Force concerning the implementation of the reduced collateral for reinsurance provisions of the Covered Agreement between the U.S. and the E.U. The NAIC is attempting to move quickly on the implementation of the Covered Agreement, with a recent flurry of activity.  At the NAIC Spring National Meeting earlier this week, the Reinsurance Task Force approved and forwarded to the Financial Condition (E) Committee a Memorandum report on the February 20, 2018 public hearing, which also contained a number of recommendations for action.  The next day the Financial Condition (E) Committee adopted those recommendations and included them in its report to the Executive (EX) Committee, which “received” the report of the (E) Committee the following day.

The description of the hearing in the report of the Task Force and its recommendations are consistent with the discussion in our Special Focus article.  The basic approach in the Task Force’s Memorandum report is to revise the Model Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Model Regulation so that they comply with the requirements of the Covered Agreement, and to extend the reduced collateral benefit of the Covered Agreement to reinsurers domiciled in the non-E.U. NAIC-approved Qualified Jurisdictions, on condition that those jurisdictions agree to the group supervision, group capital, and information-sharing provisions in the Covered Agreement.  Qualified jurisdictions outside the E.U. that would benefit from this approach include Bermuda, Japan, Switzerland, and, after Brexit, the United Kingdom.  This portion of this process is anticipated to be completed by the NAIC’s 2018 Fall National Meeting in November of this year.  The concern raised in the context of the public hearing concerning the possible need for “guardrails” due to the increased credit and collection risk to which ceding insurers would be exposed as a result of reduced collateral resulted in recommendations by the Reinsurance Task Force for review and monitoring of the financial and risk impact of the collateral changes, and recommendations for modifications to the Models, risk-based capital rules, and financial statement presentation requirements, if needed, with this portion of the process to take longer, with target completion dates for different aspects of this part of the implementation process of the NAIC’s 2019 and 2020 Fall National meetings.

The Task force made a number of specific recommendations to the Financial Condition (E) Committee, which took the following action:

  1. Adopted the Reinsurance Task Force’s request for the development of revisions to the Model Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Model Regulation to bring the Models into compliance with the terms of the Covered Agreement.  The NAIC has a process for the development of model laws and regulations.
  2. Adopted charges to the Reinsurance Task Force, the Qualified Jurisdiction (E) Working Group, and the Reinsurance Financial Analysis (E) Working Group, which would have to develop processes to implement the anticipated revisions to the Models.
  3. Adopted charges to the Capital Adequacy (E) Task Force and the Statutory Accounting Principles (E) Working Group to address related reduced reinsurance collateral issues.

Details of the actions of the Financial Condition (E) Committee are found in the Reinsurance Task Force’s Memorandum report.  This process anticipates a very aggressive schedule, with the proposed revisions to the Models (and possibly other changes) being ready for consideration by the Reinsurance Task Force at the NAIC’s 2018 Summer National meetings in August, and by the NAIC’s membership at the NAIC’s 2018 Fall National meetings in November.  One possible timing complication is that any agreement of non-E.U. Qualified Jurisdictions to the group supervision, group capital, and information-sharing provisions in the Covered Agreement might have to be documented through a Memorandum of Understanding with each such jurisdiction, which might take more time to negotiate and finalize.  It was the clear sense of the participants in the public hearing, and of the Reinsurance Task Force’s subsequent Memorandum report to the Financial Condition (E) Committee, that reinsurers domiciled outside the E.U. should not have the benefit of reduced collateral for reinsurance without there being an agreement with their domiciliary jurisdictions with respect to group supervision, group capital, and information-sharing issues.  Absent such an agreement, reinsurers domiciled in non-E.U. jurisdictions would, from the standpoint of the United States and U.S. domiciled ceding insurers, have a more favorable agreement than those domiciled in Covered Agreement jurisdictions.  There is likely to be great resistance to such a potential scenario.

This post written by Rollie Goss.
See our disclaimer.