• 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 Week's Best Posts

Week's Best Posts

CREDIT FOR REINSURANCE ISSUES TAKING NEW TURNS?

January 6, 2014 by Carlton Fields

We have posted many times on the slowly developing changes in the area of credit for reinsurance and reinsurance collateral requirements. The recent report on insurance regulation from the Federal Insurance Office contained a recommendation in this area: “To afford nationally uniform treatment of reinsurers, FIO recommends that Treasury and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) pursue a covered agreement for reinsurance collateral requirements based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation.” FIO Report, page 37. Such an agreement likely would be an international agreement which, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, would preempt and supersede state laws in this area.

At the same time, the NAIC has been monitoring the adoption by the states of the Credit for Reinsurance Model, and has pursued a process of certifying foreign jurisdictions as “qualified jurisdictions” for purposes of of permitting reinsurers licensed or domiciled in such jurisdictions to seek certification by states for reduced collateral requirements under the Credit for Reinsurance Model. The NAIC has announced the addition of four international supervisory authorities as Conditional Qualified Jurisdictions: the Bermuda Monetary Authority; the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority; the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority; and the United Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority of the Bank of England. According to the NAIC article, this approval permits states to begin certifying reinsurers licensed or domiciled in those jurisdictions for collateral reduction purposes, with the full review of these four jurisdictions by the NAIC continuing during 2014. Individual states have the authority to approve jurisdictions not on the NAIC’s list of qualified jurisdictions. Since the NAIC/Model approach depends upon action by individual states, this route is unlikely to achieve the uniformity advocated by the FIO Report, at least in the short term.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

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

THE EFFECT AND FATE OF THE ACA’S TRANSITIONAL REINSURANCE PROGRAM IS UNCLEAR

December 31, 2013 by Carlton Fields

On November 19, Senator Thune of South Dakota introduced S. 1724, the “Union Tax Fairness Act,” which proposes to provide that the reinsurance fee to be paid by health insurers and third-party administrators (on behalf of group plans) under the transitional reinsurance program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) be applied equally to all such issuers and administrators so that no special exemptions are available. This requirement would not be waivable. The bill (which can be read here) has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. A companion house bill, H.R. 3755, was introduced by Congressman Perry of Pennsylvania on December 12 and has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

In other ACA reinsurance-related legislative activity, Congressman Tiberi of Ohio introduced on November 13 H.R. 3489, a bill to amend Section 1341 of the ACA to repeal entirely the funding mechanism for the transitional reinsurance program. The bill (which can be read here) reminds that the transitional reinsurance program was established to stabilize risk in the individual health insurance market during the first three years of the health insurance exchanges established by the ACA, but it then emphasizes (1) that the reinsurance fees to be paid to the U.S. Treasury serve as a disincentive for employers to continue offering coverage to all employees and (2) that employers do not receive any benefits of the program. That bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Health.

This post written by Kyle Whitehead.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

SPECIAL FOCUS: AN UPDATE ON CLASS ARBITRATION WAIVERS

December 30, 2013 by Carlton Fields

There has been a great deal of litigation over the past couple of years regarding the validity of class action arbitration waivers. In a Special Focus article, Re-Revisiting AT&T v. Concepcion: Yes, We Hear You Now (Mostly), John Pitblado provides an update on some of the most recent appellate cases in this area.

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions, Week's Best Posts

COURT AGREES TO PERMANENTLY SEAL CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS OF MEMORANDA AND DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN REINSURANCE DISPUTE

December 24, 2013 by Carlton Fields

In a reinsurance dispute, a court agreed to seal portions of two memoranda of law and exhibits containing excerpts of deposition testimony of the reinsurer’s vice president. The court had previously provisionally sealed the material pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order, subject to the reinsurer’s submission of the particular lines and/or passages of testimony to be sealed and the particular grounds for such sealing. After the reinsurer submitted this information, the court agreed to maintain the sealing. Regarding the relevant portions of the memoranda, the court found that they contain confidential business information, and that sealing was appropriate in light of the fact that the cedent had also filed redacted versions of both documents. The court also agreed to permanently seal the deposition excerpts because the court found that they “contain sensitive and confidential business information, disclosure of which could materially affect [the reinsurer’s] ability to compete effectively as a business,” and because the request was narrowly tailored. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., Case No. 3:11-cv-1209 (USDC D. Conn. Nov. 26, 2013).

This post written by Michael Wolgin.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims, Week's Best Posts

FIO FINALLY ISSUES INSURANCE REGULATION REPORT

December 23, 2013 by Carlton Fields

The Federal Insurance Office has finally issued the report required by the Dodd-Frank Act assessing the regulation of insurance in the United States. The report includes recommendations for the federal government to consider a limited role in helping to make the regulation of insurance more uniform. With respect to reinsurance, the report contains the following recommendations:

· States should develop a uniform and transparent solvency oversight regime for the transfer of risk to reinsurance captives (see page 32 of the report); and

· To afford nationally uniform treatment of reinsurers, FIO recommends that Treasury and the United States Trade Representative pursue a covered agreement for reinsurance collateral requirements based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation (see page 37 of the report). This would apparently be an international level agreement to introduce uniformity throughout the states, which under Dodd-Frank would pre-empt state laws.

This post written by Rollie Goss.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Regulation, Week's Best Posts

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 106
  • Page 107
  • Page 108
  • Page 109
  • Page 110
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 269
  • 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.