NAMIC: State Actions Render Proposed NAIC Claims History Model “Irrelevant”

Creating a model act to establish a property claim history database would be “irrelevant,” given legislative action that has already occurred in the states wrote the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) on Friday.

Providing comments on the inquiry of the Market Regulation and Consumer Affairs (D) Committee into claims history database issues, NAMIC Regulatory Affairs Counsel Marsha Harrison wrote that,

“NAMIC does not believe it is necessary for the NAIC to develop a model act. Most jurisdictions have already deliberated over the issue and creation of a model law by the NAIC at this point would be irrelevant.”

* Statutes or regulations addressing the use of property claim databases have been adopted in more than one third of the states in the past several years;
* Many other states have considered similar legislative or regulatory change but have rejected such change; and
* As of last month, a national model developed by the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) became available for introduction in any remaining state that wishes to institute regulation of the use of claims history data.

“For the NAIC to attempt to develop a model law now would accomplish little of value,” wrote Harrison. “Such a model would result in ‘competing models,’ would cause confusion across the states and, in view of action already taken by a majority of states, would not likely be adopted in more than a few jurisdictions.”

Additionally, NAMIC does not perceive any necessity for the NAIC to take additional action on the use of claims history information for underwriting and rating.

“For the NAIC to take any action encroaching upon the ability of insurers to underwrite and rate their own risks in an environment that should be looking to less regulation, not micromanagement of essential company operations, only invites a less competitive marketplace and less choice for consumers,” wrote Harrison.

“NAMIC encourages individual regulators to work with their state legislators in crafting statutory changes, if any such changes are deemed necessary, that will incorporate those issues deemed critical to the particular state,” Harrison wrote.

“NAMIC does not suggest that the NAIC adopt the NCOIL model, or any other model law or enacted law, as its own. NAMIC again stresses that, in its opinion, there is no need for the NAIC to develop or adopt any model law on the use of property claims data at this time,” concluded Harrison.

The full text of NAMIC’s comments can be read at:
http://www.namic.org/pdf/050805NAICClaimsDatabaseLtr.pdf