Phoenix, Arizona March 29, 2015

Transcription

1 Attachment One Draft: 4/2/15 Phoenix, Arizona March 29, 2015 The met in Phoenix, AZ, March 29, The following members participated: Scott J. Kipper, Chair (NV); John G. Franchini, Vice Chair, represented by Alan Seeley (NM); Lori K. Wing-Heier represented by Michael Ricker (AK); Chester A. McPherson represented by Robert Nkojo (DC); Karen Weldin Stewart represented by Linda Nemes (DE); Ken Selzer represented by Jason Lapham (KS); Sharon P. Clark represented by Maggie Woods (KY); Mike Rothman represented by Tammy Lohmann (MN); John M. Huff represented by Angela Nelson (MO); Wayne Goodwin represented by Ted Hamby (NC); Mary Taylor represented by Tom Botsko (OH); John D. Doak represented by Cuc Nguyen (OK); Laura N. Cali represented by Annette C. Boyce (OR); Teresa D. Miller represented by Peter Camacci (PA); David Mattax represented by Katrina Daniel (TX); Todd E. Kiser represented by Tanji Northrup (UT); Jacqueline K. Cunningham represented by Bob Grissom (VA); and Mike Kreidler represented by Lee Barclay (WA). 1. Adopted its Interim Minutes Mr. Hamby made a motion, seconded by Ms. Nelson, to adopt the March 5, 2015, minutes (Attachment One). The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Seeley made a motion, seconded by Ms. Nelson, to adopt the Nov. 18, 2014, minutes (see NAIC Proceedings Fall 2014, ). The motion passed unanimously. 2. Adopted the Report of the Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group Mr. Barclay said the Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group met March 27, during which it approved SERFF data reports and a three-page preface to its recommendations. The recommendations are nearly complete, with the only outstanding issue being a decision on the development of an interstate compact for commercial lines. The IIPRC will be making a presentation to the group on April 7 to answer questions and, after that, the Working Group will discuss that option and complete its draft recommendations. Mr. Barclay made a motion, seconded by Mr. Seeley, to adopt the report of the Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group (Attachment Two). The motion passed unanimously. 3. Adopted the Report of the Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group Mr. Botsko said the Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group met Jan. 22, during which it adopted criteria changes to the turnaround calculations. The recommended changes were presented to this Task Force in early March for the uniform filing metrics. The Working Group members considered the filing metrics and agreed upon the following criteria changes: a. Remove from the turnaround calculation the time the state reviewer is waiting on a response from the filer. b. For filings that are reopened, do not include inactive days in the turnaround calculation. c. Leave the turnaround goal set at its current goal of 40 days for all business types. The Working Group also completed its work on the filing turnaround report and the workflow report to allow SERFF rate and form supervisors and managers to monitor turnaround statistics, workload, etc. The filing turnaround report will be released with SERFF version 7.1 on April 2. Development has not been started on the workflow report. The Working Group is also charged with editing the Product Filing Review Handbook to incorporate the review changes in health filings as a result of the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA). Work will probably not begin on this project until after the Plan Management cycle finishes in late August, as the subject-matter experts needed to assist with editing the handbook will be busy until that time. Mr. Botsko made a motion, seconded by Ms. Nelson, to adopt the report of the Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group (Attachment Three). The motion passed unanimously National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

2 Attachment One 4. Received an Update on the SERFF Implementation Projects/Activity Bridget Kieras (NAIC) said the SERFF s transaction volume in 2014 was 7.9% over budget; revenue was 8.9% over budget. This overage is attributable to overall growth across all business types. There is a 5% increase in revenue anticipated in the 2015 budget and, through February, transactions and revenue are both close to the budgeted amounts. SERFF v6.7.4 was released Dec. 11, 2014, and contained the final piece of the SERFF Filing Access (SFA) project, which allows Plan Management binders to be viewed via the interface, as well as an IIPRC enhancement to allow companies to be added to a draft compact filing. SERFF version 7.0 contained the move to the new JBoss platform. This migration was anticipated to be done in early January, but was delayed due to some infrastructure issues. The user interface was migrated in mid-march and the Web services are expected to be moved in the next few weeks. SERFF version has Plan Management enhancements for the industry and the states. SFA was also modified in this version to allow a search by tracking number and so that the IIPRC statement of intent could be made available in SFA. The implementation team is hosting calls with each state to: 1) identify changes in their submission requirements for plan management; 2) gather deadline information for issuers; and 3) discuss the federal deadlines. Federal validation services for the 2016 plans became available March 16. All plans must be transferred via the federal transfer services by May Received a Report from the SERFF Advisory Board The SERFF Advisory Board met March 28. During that meeting, the Board reviewed the reports on marketing, development and implementation activities, as well as SERFF revenue and expenses. Those numbers indicate SERFF finished 2014 in a cumulative position of revenue over expenses of $1.2 million. That positive financial position is expected to continue in There are a couple of NAIC initiatives that are impacting SERFF s project schedule for There is heightened concern over data security in light of the recent breaches in the insurance industry and the NAIC has begun evaluation and analysis in anticipation of taking steps to improve data security. While those steps are not fully defined at this time, the SERFF Advisory Board is aware that security initiatives could delay projects such as the SERFF Integration Expansion, the filing workload report and IIPRC enhancements. The SERFF Advisory Board will keep the Task Force informed as the security changes unfold. 6. Heard a Report from the IIPRC Karen Schutter (IIPRC) said the IIPRC released its annual report and elected the following officers: Chair Commissioner Mattax; Vice Chair Commissioner Cunningham; Treasurer Commissioner Ángela Weyne (PR). IIPRC staff is also presenting a seven-part webinar series for its customers. The IIPRC is currently working on a five-year review of its annuity standards and will begin a five-year review of its long-term care standards beginning in July. Ms. Schutter said the implementation of SFA for the IIPRC has cut down on staff hours needed for the support of public access requests. 7. Considered a Request to Expand Functionality of the SFA Interface Commissioner Kipper said Birny Birnbaum (Center for Economic Justice CEJ) requested an enhancement to SFA functionality to reference the existence of redacted information. The request was for an indication on the filing as to whether information had been redacted, and if so, what kind of information was being redacted and why. In November 2014, the Task Force heard feedback from the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), America s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) and the ISO, who were all generally opposed to the proposal. Mr. Birnbaum said he is now requesting an estimate of the effort to modify SERFF for this purpose. Ms. Northrup said Utah would not support providing information that the state has determined is not available to the public. Ms. Nelson said Missouri would like to have the ability to choose to use the feature. Mr. Barclay made a motion, seconded by Mr. Seeley, to request SERFF staff to prepare a two-part estimate to assist in the decision-making process to modify SERFF: 1) to enhance SERFF to allow the states to indicate on a disposition report any items that have been withheld from public access; and 2) to add a note to the disposition report with additional detail as to why the item has been withheld. This information would then need to be made viewable via the SFA. The motion passed, with Utah dissenting. Having no further business, the adjourned. W:\National Meetings\2015\Spring\TF\Speed\S2MTF Minutes Draft docx 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 2

3 Attachment Two Draft: 7/7/15 Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group Conference Call June 29, 2015 The Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group of the met via conference call June 29, The following Working Group members participated: Lee Barclay, Chair (WA); Joel Laucher (CA); Peter Galasyn (CT); Joan Dutill (MO); Cuc Nguyen (OK); Mark Worman (TX); and Mary Bannister (VA). 1. Adopted Recommendations for Improvements to Commercial Lines Rate Regulation Mr. Barclay said the Working Group received comment letters as a result of exposure of recommendations to improve commercial lines rate regulation (Attachment 1). He presented a revised document with changes made based on prior Working Group conversations and the comment letters. Mr. Barclay said the header for recommendation #1 was changed to add clarity. The header was changed from Commercial lines products sold to individual consumers to Commercial lines products where individual consumers are charged for coverage. A similar change was made in the explanation section. Clarity was added to the description of lender-placed insurance. The Working Group discussed the header and decided to change where to for which but not add additional words in order to keep the header short. In recommendation #2, the attribution of comments to industry representatives was modified to some industry representatives. To provide the NAIC a way forward, a change was made to add specificity that the Property and Casualty Insurance (C) Committee would be charged with studying the appropriate models. When discussing the federal Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010, Mr. Barclay changed uses to incorporates when referencing the term qualified risk manager. In recommendation #4, he added the following sentence: Multistate policies under which coverage is sold to individual consumers or for which individual consumers may be assessed a charge under a master policy should not be eligible for this regulatory exemption (see recommendation 1). He said he believes that is consistent with past discussions. Mr. Nguyen made a motion, seconded by Mr. Galasyn, to adopt the recommendations to improve commercial lines rate regulation (Attachment 1). The motion passed unanimously. 2. Adopted a Letter to States Regarding the Recommendations Mr. Barclay suggested a letter to states to present the recommendations. He said the states would be asked to report their actions on the recommendations to the. He said the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) summited a comment letter proposing one change to the letter (Attachment 2). Mr. Barclay said the Working Group has already surveyed the states as part of its charges. Mr. Laucher agreed, but suggested that states might have an additional action or proposal to share. Some wanted to make sure it was clear that the work of the Working Group is complete. The Working Group decided to add a sentence referencing that the provides a forum for states to discuss and recommend changes to product filings, efficiencies and effective consumer protection. Dave Snyder (PCI) said he agrees with some mention of continued progress. He said that as new things occur, people should be encouraged to provide suggestions to the. Ms. Bannister asked if there should be a time limit for state response. The Working Group decided to leave a blank in the letter for the to select a response date. Steve Clark (Insurance Services Office ISO) suggested adding to recommendation #4 that such review should consider the ability to increase efficiency through process improvement to minimize unnecessary procedures. Mr. Barclay said the letter is intended to match exactly to the recommendations that were adopted. Mr. Laucher made a motion, seconded by Ms. Bannister, to adopt the letter to states regarding its recommendations as amended on the call (Attachment 3). The letter will be sent to the for consideration and distribution National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

4 Attachment Two 3. Adopted a Recommendation to Disband Mr. Barclay said the Working Group has completed its charges. Mr. Laucher made a motion, seconded by Ms. Nguyen, to adopt a recommendation for the Working Group to disband. The motion passed. Having no further business, the Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group adjourned. W:\National Meetings\2015\Summer\TF\Speed\CommercialLinesWG\06-29 CommercialLinesWGmin.docx 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 2

5 Attachment Two Draft: 5/28/15 Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group Conference Call May 18, 2015 The Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group of the met via conference call May 18, The following Working Group members participated: Lee Barclay, Chair (WA); Michael Ricker (AK); Joel Laucher (CA); Peter Galasyn and Moira Herbert (CT); Cuc Nguyen (OK); Paula Pallozzi (RI); Mark Worman (TX); and Mary Bannister (VA). 1. Discussed Improvements to Commercial Lines Rate Regulation Mr. Barclay said the Working Group s remaining charge is to provide recommendations to the Speed to Market (EX) Task Force regarding commercial lines products. He described changes made to the revised draft recommendations, including mentioning the definition of an exempt commercial policyholder included in the 2010 federal Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (NRRA) and adding a recommendation regarding a potential interstate compact. In the first recommendation, Mr. Laucher said the description that lender-placed insurance and portable electronics insurance are products sold to individual consumers is confusing. He agrees that the consumers pay for coverage, but the product is not always sold to them. He suggested a header such as Commercial lines products where the cost of coverage is passed through to individual consumers. Mr. Barclay said that might be too long, but he will work on revising the title. Mr. Laucher said the first sentence in the recommendation should be modified to more clearly differentiate between these products and a businessowner s policy, which is also sold to an individual consumer. In the second recommendation, Ms. Pallozzi said the wording to refer to the NRRA definition is confusing. Mr. Laucher suggested changing the wording in the recommendation to the NRRA references or incorporates the term qualified risk manager. In the last recommendation, Ms. Pallozzi asked about the reconsideration of a commercial lines interstate compact within five years. Mr. Barclay said the point is that the issue should be revisited. He said five years was only selected for discussion. Mr. Laucher said five years seems reasonable. Mr. Barclay said having few comments on the call would suggest that the Working Group might be able to finalize its recommendations soon after a comment period. Ms. Pallozzi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Laucher, to expose the revised recommendations for a 30-day comment period ending June 17. Having no further business, the Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group adjourned. W:\National Meetings\2015\Summer\TF\Speed\CommercialLinesWG\05-18 CommercialLinesWGmin.docx 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

6 Attachment Two 8//15 Draft: 5/18/15 Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group Conference Call April 7, 2015 The Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group of the met via conference call April 7, The following Working Group members participated: Lee Barclay, Chair (WA); Michael Ricker (AK); Joel Laucher (CA); Angela Nelson (MO); Cuc Nguyen (OK); Mark Worman (TX); and Tom Davy (VA). 1. Heard an IIPRC Presentation Mr. Barclay said the Working Group asked for a presentation regarding IIPRC in order to assess whether to recommend a commercial lines interstate compact. Karen Schutter (IIPRC) provided an overview of the IIPRC compact, discussing the origins of the compact, the structure of the commission, the filing and review process, the uniform standards, and some operational features. Ms. Schutter said in the 1980s, there were calls for modernization in state-based approval, especially of asset-based products. Industry was looking for uniformity, speed to market equivalence with products regulated at the federal level and a central point of filing for consistency. Regulators wanted to maintain state-based consumer protection. The overall goal was to have a single point of filing with uniform national standards. With the asset-based products, there was recognition of more uniformity in products and an increased mobility of population whereby consumers can move from one state to another without having to change their policy. Prior to creating the IIPRC, the NAIC established a trial through the Coordinated Advertising Rate and Form Review Authority (CARFRA). Ten states participated. The aims of the program were to create a single point of filing, create uniform standards, be voluntary for states and insurers, be staffed by department regulators, and have standards that could be rejected by a state. In a limited test environment, CARFRA did not work. Even with agreement to uniform standards, the state law might differ, and that law would have to be applied. States were able to object to a particular form and were required to apply any state laws that existed, thereby trumping the approval. A legal mechanism was needed. Ms. Schutter said interstate compacts are recognized in the U.S. constitution. An interstate compact is an agreement between states, has a lot of attributes of contracts and trumps other state laws. The IIPRC compact model was adopted at the NAIC in Products covered are asset-based lines: life, individual and group life, annuities, disability income, and long-term care (LTC). The NAIC incorporated amendments in 2003 (mostly to address legislators concerns): added specificity in how the IIIPRC would operate in meetings and maintain records, as well as made sure powers of the attorney general and state law remedies were preserved. The IIPRC was the first model to be adopted by all three organizations: the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) and the NAIC. In March 2004, the IIPRC, a joint public agency, was created when Colorado and Utah enacted legislation and became operational after either 26 states or states with 40% of premium volume adopted the legislation. Both targets were reached in May 2006 when 27 states had enacted the legislation. The inaugural meeting was held in June The IIPRC now has 44 compacting states, representing approximately 75% of premium volume. Uniform standards were developed by the NAIC s s National Standards (EX) Working Group for approximately 12 years. The Working Group created uniform standards and governing documents. Today 93 standards are developed, which is approximately 60% complete. The IIPRC also has standards for rate review for disability income and LTC products. The IIPRC is developing standards going forward. Ms. Schutter said the NAIC provided $500,000 to get the compact operational and has provided additional lines of credit. The current debt is $3.2 million. She said the IIPRC has broken even in the past two years, although payment on the credit lines is currently deferred. She said the IIPRC pays a service fee for NAIC services such as office space, computer, human resources, finance, SERFF system, etc National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

7 Attachment Two 8//15 By enacting the IIPRC, the compacting states agreed that the uniform standards apply over conflicting state laws. States still have a sovereign right to opt out through: 1) legislation, at any time; or 2) regulation, within a certain time after a uniform standard has been adopted. Unfair trade practices (not associated with product content requirements) and unfair claim processes still apply in a state. Governance consists of the compact law, bylaws, promulgated uniform standards, and rules and operating procedures. The compact statute provides a limited scope of authority to the commission to receive, review and approve product filings adopted by the commission. Statute-required operating procedures (how to promulgate standards, fees, etc.) were required to be based on the Model State Administrative Procedures Act; therefore, they are very similar to state agencies procedures. Periodic review of rules and notice/hearings before certain actions are required. Numerous NAIC committees and working groups are established. Since two years ago, the commission decided to create the uniform standards. There is a minimum 60-day notice to state legislative committees and comment period. A supermajority (two-thirds) of membership is required for adoption of uniform standards. A standard is effective at least 90 days after promulgated. This allows states time to put any regulatory opt-out in place. Filings are not accepted for products whereby a standard is not yet adopted. State regulators can view the IIPRC filings through SERFF read-only access. Most reviews are prior approval, although the commission can receive products under self-certification when specified in the uniform standard. There is no deemer provision, but at 60 days, the reviewer must report to the management committee. So far when they are beyond 60 days, additional resources are allocated by the management committee. The compact is planned to be revenue-neutral, with no membership dues and without modifying the state filing fees. Companies pay an annual IIPRC registration fee and a per-filing fee. Small and regional companies pay lower fees. Higher fees are required when actuarial review is necessary. Ms. Schutter said industry support was a key success factor in the implementation of the interstate compact. Mr. Barclay said this is important for the Working Group given that some large commercial insurers expressed interest in a commercial lines interstate compact, but there was also a lot of caution and hesitation. He said the Working Group should consider if this support is different from what occurred with the original interstate compact. Dave Snyder (Property Casualty Insurers Association of America PCI) asked whether the commercial lines could be added to the IIPRC and what state-by-state process would be needed. Ms. Schutter said the compact is specific to particular lines of business, so state legislation would be required. Mr. Snyder questioned whether state laws in commercial lines differ more than life insurance laws. Ms. Schutter said the compact offers flexibility to accommodate different structures. Some states do not allow attained age rating. All states accept issue age. She said the compact accommodates this in a uniform standard for attained age that says if a state does not allow attained age, then the compact does not allow filings using attained age. Ms. Schutter said there is general satisfaction by those actively participating in the contract. She said 200 companies are filing through the IIPRC today. Industry has expressed interest in having additional states in the compact and faster standards development. 2. Discussed Improvements to Commercial Lines Rate Regulation Mr. Barclay said the Working Group might be able to finalize its recommendations and complete it charges prior to the Summer National Meeting. Mr. Barclay will revise the draft recommendations based on comments received. He said the Working Group might want to mention the definition of an exempt commercial policyholder included in the 2010 federal Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (NRRA). He said he will also draft a recommendation on the interstate compact issue for discussion. Having no further business, the Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group adjourned. W:\National Meetings\2015\Summer\TF\Speed\CommercialLinesWG\04-07 CommercialLinesWGmin.docx 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 2

8 COMMERCIAL LINES (EX) WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS June 29, Commercial lines products for which individual consumers are charged for coverage Attachment Two States should ensure that individual consumers are protected when they are charged for commercial lines coverage. Consumer representatives have called the Working Group s attention to products that are often filed and regulated as commercial lines, but for which individual consumers are charged for coverage. Examples include lender-placed insurance (LPI) and portable electronics insurance. With LPI, an insurer sells a master policy to an auto lender or mortgage servicer. When the borrower fails to provide evidence of required insurance under the loan agreement, coverage is issued under a master LPI policy to the lender or servicer, and the lender or servicer may assess a charge to the individual borrower for LPI. With portable electronics insurance, the master policy is sold to a commercial service provider, which sells certificates of coverage to individual consumers. In situations such as these, states should ensure that rate and form regulation provides an appropriate level of protection for consumers. Such products should not be regulated on the assumption that they are similar to other commercial lines. The Working Group chose not to propose a precise definition of commercial lines for purposes of rate and form regulation, so each state that implements this recommendation should tailor its action to its own legal and regulatory framework. In some states this may require revisions to statutes and regulations. Other states may be able to implement this recommendation by issuing bulletins and changing review procedures and priorities. 2. Definition of exempt commercial policyholder The NAIC should revise the definition of exempt commercial policyholder ( ECP ). Currently, based on the compendium recently updated by the Working Group, only 22 states have specific criteria in statutes or regulations exempting policies pertaining to large commercial risks from rate or form filing requirements. Several states have different definitions (thresholds) for filing rates and forms. Some provide exemptions for rate filings but still require form filings. Other states apply identical criteria to rates and forms, respectively. Few states use the exact criteria outlined in the NAIC Property and Casualty Model Rate and Policy Form Law Guideline (GDL-1776) and the NAIC Property and Casualty Model Rate and Policy Form Regulation Guideline (GDL-1781), preferring instead to use thresholds much lower

9 Attachment Two than those recommended in the guidelines. It is unclear whether a lower NAIC standard for ECP would encourage states to take action to achieve uniformity, but the issue warrants investigation. In comments made to the Working Group, some insurance industry representatives have indicated that the states failure to adopt uniform definitions of ECP is a significant problem. However, the industry prefers lower thresholds over uniformity, asserting that no state should increase its existing ECP threshold to achieve uniformity. The NAIC should charge its Property and Casualty Insurance (C) Committee with studying states existing ECP thresholds to identify best practices and determine whether the NAIC guidelines should be amended in order to encourage more states to introduce exemptions for commercial lines rates and forms. In particular, an industry suggestion that the threshold for form filing exemption should be higher than that for rate filing exemption merits consideration, because businesses may find it easier to understand a premium calculation than to understand the nuances and possible consequences of various policy form provisions. Another threshold to consider is the definition of exempt commercial purchaser in the federal Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of Section 527 of this Act defines this term in subsection (5). This definition in subsection (5) incorporates the term qualified risk manager, which is defined in subsection (13). 3. Manuscript policies States should consider allowing manuscript policies to be used without prior approval. Manuscript policies are policies written on unique forms designed to cover only a single policyholder (in some states such policies may be used for up to three different policyholders). These policies are often written to cover large commercial risks with unique exposures. In many states, manuscript policies are not required to be filed or, if filed, are not subject to prior approval. Other states should consider implementing one of these approaches. 4. Policies for multistate risks States should consider establishing conditions for exempting policies for multistate risks from form and rate filing requirements. On several occasions insurance industry representatives expressed to the Working Group their concerns that state form and rate filing requirements, as they are applied to policies for multistate risks, can result in significant inefficiencies. When an insurer issues one policy to cover the risks or exposures in all states in which the insured has operations, the insurer may need to consider: The multiple (and possibly conflicting) amendatory endorsements required by various states;

10 Attachment Two Each state s regulatory framework (prior approval, file and use, use and file, etc.); and The policy s effective date and the timing of individual state approvals. To address the issues related to policies for multistate risks, states should consider establishing conditions for exempting policies for multistate risks from form and rate filing requirements. This exemption would recognize the precedence of transactions that occur outside of a state where perhaps only a small part of the insured exposure is located. To prevent misuse of the exemption, states should consider all elements of the transaction. Specifically, the insured must not be headquartered in the state, and the entire transaction (negotiations, correspondence, policy deliverance, payment) must take place outside of the state. For example, an insurer issues one policy to an insured headquartered in state A with operations also in states B and C. The entire transaction takes place in state A, including policy negotiations, correspondence, policy deliverance, and payment of premium. Because no part of the transaction takes place in states B or C, the policy would be exempt from form and rate filing requirements in states B and C. Multistate policies under which coverage is sold to individual consumers or for which individual consumers may be assessed a charge under a master policy should not be eligible for this regulatory exemption (see recommendation 1). 5. Review of existing authority Each state should review its existing authority to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rate and form review for commercial lines. Many states have laws that allow the Commissioner (or Director or Superintendent) to modify or eliminate filing requirements for certain types of policies or certain lines of business. In some states the Commissioner can do this only by adopting rules. In other states the process may be less formal. Each state should review its existing statutory authority with respect to commercial lines rate and form filings and look for changes that could be made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rate and form review for commercial lines. 6. Interstate compact for commercial lines The NAIC should not pursue the development of an interstate compact for commercial lines at this time. The idea of creating an interstate compact for review and approval of rates and forms for commercial lines products was raised in the Working Group s earliest discussions. The issue was highlighted when the Federal Insurance Office in December 2013 issued its report How to Modernize and Improve the System of Insurance Regulation in the United States. This report (on page 48) recommended: State regulators should pursue the development of nationally

11 Attachment Two standardized forms and terms, or an interstate compact, to further streamline and improve the regulation of commercial lines. In order to develop a recommendation regarding an interstate compact, the Working Group surveyed the largest writers of commercial lines insurance to gauge their interest in supporting the enactment of an interstate compact by state legislatures and in making commercial lines rate and form filings through an interstate compact. The Working Group also attended a webinar presentation by the Interstate Insurance Product Review Commission (IIPRC) to gain an understanding of how the existing interstate compact (for life, annuity, disability income, and long-term care insurance products) was developed, and how it operates. The industry survey responses and other comments made to the Working Group show that there is some industry interest in the development of an interstate compact for commercial lines. Many responses, however, are tentative and cautious, and there is no consensus as to which commercial lines would be most appropriate for filing through an interstate compact. The Working Group believes that, at this time, there is insufficient support and unity for the NAIC to undertake the development of an interstate compact for commercial lines. For now, the NAIC, state insurance regulators, the property and casualty insurance industry, and insurance buyers would all be better served by regulators expending their resources on implementing the other five recommendations of this Working Group. The NAIC should review the situation within five years to determine whether conditions have changed enough to support the NAIC s proceeding with creation of an interstate compact for commercial lines. Adopted by the Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group on June 29, 2015 W://National Meetings/2015/Summer/TF/Speed/CommercialLinesWG/CLWG final recommendations docx

12 Attachment Two Version: June 29 (Adopted by CLWG) To: From: Date: Re: State Regulators of Commercial Lines Rates and Forms Commissioner, Chair, Lee Barclay (WA), Chair, Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group June, 2015 (Note: use date adopted by Speed to Market TF) Recommended Improvements to Commercial Lines Rates and Forms Regulation The Commercial Lines (EX) Working Group of the was charged to provide recommendations to the NAIC as to what it and the states can do to assist in making commercial lines regulation as effective and efficient as possible. As initially proposed by the Working Group, the Task Force recommends the following actions for states to take: States should: 1) Ensure that individual consumers are protected when they are charged for commercial lines coverage. Consumer representatives have called the Working Group s attention to products that are often filed and regulated as commercial lines, but for which individual consumers are charged for coverage. Examples include lender-placed insurance (LPI) and portable electronics insurance. With LPI, an insurer sells a master policy to an auto lender or mortgage servicer. When the borrower fails to provide evidence of required insurance under the loan agreement, coverage is issued under a master LPI policy to the lender or servicers, and the lender or servicer may assess a charge to the individual borrower for LPI. With portable electronics insurance, the master policy is sold to a commercial service provider, which sells certificates of coverage to individual consumers. In situations such as these, states should ensure that rate and form regulation provides an appropriate level of protection for consumers. Such products should not be regulated on the assumption that they are similar to other commercial lines. The Working Group chose not to propose a precise definition of commercial lines for purposes of rate and form regulation, so each state that implements this recommendation should tailor its action to its own legal and regulatory framework. In some states this may require revisions to statutes and regulations. Other states may be able to implement this recommendation by issuing bulletins and changing review procedures and priorities. 2) Consider allowing manuscript policies to be used without prior approval. Manuscript policies are policies written on unique forms designed to cover only a single policyholder (in some states such policies may be used for up to three different policyholders). These policies are often written to cover large commercial risks with unique exposures. In many states, manuscript policies are not required to be filed or, if filed, are not subject to prior approval. Other states should consider implementing one of these approaches. 3) Consider establishing conditions for exempting policies for multistate risks from form and rate filing requirements. On several occasions insurance industry representatives expressed to the Working Group their concerns that state form and rate filing requirements, as they are applied to policies for multistate risks, can result in significant inefficiencies. When an insurer issues one policy to cover the risks or exposures in all states in which the insured has operations, the insurer may need to consider: The multiple (and possibly conflicting) amendatory endorsements required by various states; Each state s regulatory framework (prior approval, file and use, use and file, etc.); and The policy s effective date and the timing of individual state approvals.

13 To address the issues related to policies for multistate risks, states should consider establishing conditions for exempting policies for multistate risks from form and rate filing requirements. This exemption would recognize the precedence of transactions that occur outside of a state where perhaps only a small part of the insured exposure is located. To prevent misuse of the exemption, states should consider all elements of the transaction. Specifically, the insured must not be headquartered in the state, and the entire transaction (negotiations, correspondence, policy deliverance, payment) must take place outside of the state. For example, an insurer issues one policy to an insured headquartered in state A with operations also in states B and C. The entire transaction takes place in state A, including policy negotiations, correspondence, policy deliverance, and payment of premium. Because no part of the transaction takes place in states B or C, the policy would be exempt from form and rate filing requirements in states B and C. Multistate policies under which coverage is sold to individual consumers or for which individual consumers may be assessed a charge under a master policy should not be eligible for this regulatory exemption (see recommendation 1). 4) Review existing state authority to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rate and form review for commercial lines. Many states have laws that allow the Commissioner (or Director or Superintendent) to modify or eliminate filing requirements for certain types of policies or certain lines of business. In some states the Commissioner can do this only by adopting rules. In other states the process may be less formal. Each state should review its existing statutory authority with respect to commercial lines rate and form filings and look for changes that could be made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rate and form review for commercial lines. The would like to track state action in these areas. Would you please respond to Terri Hiebert (THiebert@naic.org) by ---insert date selected by Speed to Market TF --- with your state s planned actions on the four recommendations. If you have any other suggestions or concerns, the provides a forum for discussion and recommendations related to product filing needs, efficiencies, and effective consumer protection. If you have questions about the recommendations, please contact Lee Barclay at or LeeB@OIC.WA.GOV or Kris DeFrain (NAIC Staff) at or kdefrain@naic.org. cc: Kris DeFrain, Bridget Kieras, Joy Morrison, Terri Hiebert (NAIC) W:\National Meetings\2015\Summer\TF\Speed\CommercialLinesWG\CLWG Letter to States_ docx 2

14 Attachment Three Draft: 8/3/15 Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group Conference Call July 15, 2015 The Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group of the met via conference call June 25, The following Working Group members participated: Maureen Motter, Chair (OH); William Lacy (AR); Moira Herbert (CT); Brenda Nelis and Ronald Coleman (MD); Tammy Lohmann (MN); Mary Mealer (MO); Hoda Nairooz (NY); Tim Johnson (NC); Marlette Bruner (OK); Annette Carter Boyce (OR); Mariam Ortiz (PR); David Boluc (TX); Lee Barclay (WA). Also participating was Valerie Baader (OH) and Sonia Domenech (PR). 1. Adopted Changes to the Property and Casualty Uniform Product Coding Matrix for 2016 There were eight suggested changes to the Uniform Product Coding Matrix for Property and Casualty for a. PCM Request #1: Add a Commercial Sub-TOI for Collateral Protection The proposed solution was to make no changes at this time. The Working Group did not have additional discussion regarding this item. b. PCM Request #2: Add a Commercial Sub-TOI for Residual Value The proposed solution was to make no changes at this time. The Working Group did not have additional discussion regarding this item. c. PCM Request #3: Add a Sub-TOI for Vehicle Protection Products Under 33.0 Other Lines of Business The proposed solution was to add Other Non-Insurance Contracts with a description of: A non-insurance contract or agreement regulated by the DOI and required to be submitted to the state in which the non-insurance contract is delivered which does not fall under Service Contracts. Such non-insurance contracts, include, but are not limited to, motor vehicle ancillary product protection contracts, such as glass repair or paint-less dent removal, tire and wheel road hazard or motor vehicle protection products, such as window etching. Note: See for contractual liability insurance issued to reimburse the non-insurance contract provider for liability assumed under these non-insurance contracts. The Working Group held additional discussion regarding the Sub-TOI name and descriptions. A decision was reached to remove all instances of non-insurance from the name and description. The name voted upon was Other Contracts with a description of: A contract or agreement regulated by the department of insurance (DOI) and required to be submitted to the state in which the contract is delivered which does not fall under Service Contracts. Such contracts, include, but are not limited to, motor vehicle ancillary product protection contracts, such as glass repair or paint-less dent removal, tire and wheel road hazard or motor vehicle protection products, such as window etching. Note: See for contractual liability insurance issued to reimburse the contract provider for liability assumed under these contracts. The Working Group discussed updating the description of Contractual Liability to Liability coverage of an insured who has assumed the legal liability of another party by written or oral contract. Incudes a contractual liability policy providing coverage for all obligations and liability incurred by a service contract or non-insurance contract provider under the terms of contracts issued by the provider. The Working Group held additional discussion regarding the updated description. The description which was voted on was: Liability coverage of an insured who has assumed the legal liability of another party by written or oral contract. Incudes a contractual liability policy providing coverage for all obligations and liability incurred by a service contract or other contract provider under the terms of contracts issued by the provider National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

15 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 2 Attachment Three d. PCM Request #4: Separate Commercial Umbrella and Excess Liability into Three Sub-TOIs of Commercial Umbrella, Excess Liability, Excess Umbrella The proposed solution was to make no changes at this time. The Working Group did not have additional discussion regarding this item. e. PCM Request #5: Add a Sub-TOI Under Professional Liability for General Professional Liability Products The proposed solution was to update the description of Commercial General Liability to Flexible & broad commercial liability coverage with two major sub-lines: premises/operations sub-line and products/completed operations subline. For general professional liability see The Working Group did not have additional discussion regarding this item. f. PCM Request #6: Create a New TOI and Sub-TOI for Excess Lines for Professional Liability (Occurrence, Not Claims Made) for Excess Directors and Officers and Excess Errors and Omissions The proposed solution was to update the description of Commercial Umbrella and Excess to Coverage for the liability of a commercial venture above a specific amount set forth in a basic policy issued by the primary insurer; or a selfinsurer for losses over a stated amount; or an insured or self-insurer for known or unknown gaps in basic coverages or selfinsured retentions. Note: Does not include excess workers compensation insurance. Does include excess directors and officers and excess errors and omissions products. The Working Group did not have additional discussion regarding this item. g. PCM Request #7: Create New TOI for Provider Excess Loss The proposed solution was to add Provider Excess Stop Loss with a description of: An insurance policy that provides excess coverage to a health care provider from catastrophic patient losses or adverse cash flow, including, but not limited to, shortfalls from capitated payment agreements. A provider may be, but is not limited to, a physician, hospital, group medical practice, nurse, nursing home, or a pharmacy. Another proposed solution was to add Excess Stop Loss with a description of: Insurance coverage extended to either a health plan or a self-insured employer plan to insure again the risk that any one claim will exceed a specific dollar amount or that an entire plan s losses will exceed a specific amount. For provider excess stop loss, use Does not include stop-gap/employer s liability insurance. The Working Group discussed the addition of one more Sub-TOI to separate Self-Insured Employer Plan Excess Stop Loss from Other Excess Stop Loss. The Working Group proposed the addition of Other Excess Stop Loss with a description of: Insurance coverage extended to a health plan to insure again the risk that any one claim will exceed a specific dollar amount or that an entire plan s losses will exceed a specific amount. For provider excess stop loss, use For self-insured employer plan excess stop loss, use Does not include stop-gap/employer s liability insurance. Additionally, update the Sub-TOI name Self-Insured Employer Excess Plan Stop Loss with a description of: Insurance coverage extended to a self-insured employer plan to insure again the risk that any one claim will exceed a specific dollar amount or that an entire plan s losses will exceed a specific amount. For provider excess stop loss, use For any other excess stop loss, use Does not include stop-gap/employer s liability insurance. h. PCM Request #8: Create a New Sub-TOI For Cyber Liability Under the Other Liability TOI The proposed solution was to add Cyber Liability with a description of Stand-alone comprehensive coverage for liability arising out of claims related to unauthorized access to or use of personally identifiable or sensitive information due to events including but not limited to viruses, malicious attacks or system errors or omissions. This coverage could also include expense coverage for business interruption, breach management and/or mitigation services. When cyber liability is provided

16 Attachment Three as an endorsement or as part of a multi-peril policy, as opposed to a stand-alone policy, use the appropriate Sub-TOI of the product to which the coverage will be attached. The Working Group discussed updating the Sub-TOI name because of the addition of a new Sub-TOI under PCM Request #7. The new Sub-TOI name will be Cyber Liability. Ms. Mealer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Herbert to adopt all eight proposed solutions. The motion passed unanimously. Having no further business, the Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group adjourned. W:\National Meetings\2015\Summer\TF\Speed\OEWG\0715-OEWGmin.docx 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 3

17 Attachment Three Draft: 8/3/15 Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group Conference Call July 9, 2015 The Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group of the met via conference call July 9, The following Working Group members participated: Maureen Motter, Chair (OH); William Lacy (AR); Peter Galasyn (CT); David Altmaier (FL); Tammy Lohmann (MN); Hoda Nairooz (NY); Ted Hamby (NC); Cuc Nguyen (OK); Tammy Vance (OR); Bob Simons (TX); Rebecca Nichols (VA); Gail Jones (WA); Susan Ezalarab (WI). 1. Discussed Suggested Changes to the Property and Casualty Uniform Product Coding Matrix for 2016 There were eight suggested changes to the 2016 Uniform Product Coding Matrix for Property and Casualty. The Working Group discussed the final suggestion and provided description clarification for the items discussed by the Working Group on its June 25 conference call. a. PCM Request: Add a Sub-TOI for Vehicle Protection Products Under 33.0 Other Lines of Business The Working Group proposed adding a new Sub-Type of Insurance (TOI) of Other Non-Insurance Contracts during its June 25 conference call. Ms. Motter presented the following description: A non-insurance contract or agreement regulated by the DOI and required to be submitted to the state in which the non-insurance contract is delivered which does not fall under Service Contracts. Such non-insurance contracts, include, but are not limited to, motor vehicle ancillary product protection contracts, such as glass repair or paint-less dent removal, tire and wheel road hazard or motor vehicle protection products, such as window etching. Note: See for contractual liability insurance issued to reimburse the non-insurance contract provider for liability assumed under these non-insurance contracts. Additionally, a revision to the description for Contractual Liability was presented: Liability coverage of an insured who has assumed the legal liability of another party by written or oral contract. Incudes a contractual liability policy providing coverage for all obligations and liability incurred by a service contract or non-insurance contract provider under the terms of service contracts issued by the provider. The Working Group accepted these descriptions. b. PCM Request: Create New TOI for Provider Excess Loss The Working Group proposed adding a new Sub-TOI of Provider Excess Stop Loss during its June 25 conference call. A description for this new Sub-TOI was received by Ms. Taylor-Hargrove the description was provided to the Working Group: A provider excess insurance policy provides excess coverage to a health care provider from catastrophic patient losses or adverse cash flow where managed care organization payment is capitated (limited) by agreement, but treatment expense temporarily exceeds the capitation amount. The Working Group expressed concern with the use of the word capitated in the proposed description. Ms. Motter stated that she would revise the description for Provider Excess Stop Loss based on the discussion and create a description with Excess Stop Loss for the Working Group to review on a subsequent conference call. c. PCM Request: Create a new Sub-TOI for cyber liability under the other liability TOI The Working Group discussed either updating the description of Internet Liability to include cyber liability, renaming the Sub-TOI to Cyber Liability or creating an entirely new Sub-TOI for cyber liability. The Working Group decided to add a new Sub-TOI of Cyber Liability. Ms. Motter stated that she would create a description for the Working Group to review on a subsequent conference call. a. PCM Request: Add a Commercial Sub-TOI for Residual Value As requested on the June 25 conference call, this request was discussed further. The Working Group decided that there will be no changes. New York and Oregon are the only two states that said this addition would be useful. Having no further business, the Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group adjourned National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

18 Attachment Three W:\National Meetings\2015\Summer\TF\Speed\OEWG\0707-OEWGmin.docx 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 2

19 Attachment Three Draft: 8/3/15 Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group E-Vote July 8, 2015 The Operational Efficiencies (EX) Working Group of the conducted an e-vote which concluded July 8, The following Working Group members participated: Maureen Motter, Chair (OH); William Lacy (AR); Shirley Taylor (CO); Richard Robleto (FL); Cindy Colonius (IL); Brenda Nelis (MD); Tammy Lohmann (MN); Mary Mealer (MO); Rajat Jain (NV); Ted Hamby (NC); Cuc Nguyen (OK); Lee Barclay (WA); Susan Ezalarab (WI). 1. Adopted Nine Product Coding Matrix (PCM) and Uniform Transmittal Document Requests (UTD) During the e-vote, the Working Group considered the adoption of nine requests for changes to the Life, Accident and Health, Annuity, Credit PCM and the UTD. a. PCM Request #1: Create a separate Sub-Type of Insurance (TOI) for Blanket Coverage Sold as Student Health Insurance Under the Federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) This change was requested in order to allow state insurance regulators to track these plans separately from other types of health insurance. The proposed solution to this PCM request is as follows: H22 Student Health Insurance with a description of A health insurance contract that covers a class of students as contemplated under ACA. o H Student Health Insurance Update description of H Student to A health insurance contract that covers a class of students not individually identified in the contract. If student health insurance is contemplated under the ACA use the TOI of H22 Student Health Insurance. b. PCM Request #2: Create Additional Sub-TOIs under H04 Health Blanket Accident/Sickness This change was requested in order to differentiate products for sickness only, accident only and other blanket accident/sickness products. The proposed solution to this PCM request is as follows: H Health Blanket Sickness Only with a description of A health insurance contract that covers sickness only of a class of persons not individually identified in the contract. H Health Blanket Accident Only with a description of A health insurance contract that covers accident only of a class of persons not individually identified in the contract. c. PCM Request #3: Create the Ability to Separate Between Group and Individual Products Under H21 Health Other The proposed solution to this PCM is to make no changes at this time. d. PCM Request #4: Create a Sub-TOI for Pediatric Dental Under H10I Health - Dental This change was requested in order to allow state insurance regulators a separate Sub-TOI for pediatric dental under the ACA in order to allow regulators to track these plans separately from other types of dental insurance. The proposed solution to this PCM request is as follows: H10I.001 Health - Pediatric Dental with a description of Pediatric dental as contemplated under the ACA. e. PCM Request #5: Create New Sub-TOIs for Pediatric Dental under H10G Health Dental for Each Group Size 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 1

20 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners 2 Attachment Three This change was requested in order to allow state insurance regulators a separate Sub-TOI for pediatric dental under the ACA in order to allow regulators to track these plans separately from other types of dental insurance. The proposed solution to this PCM request is as follows: H10G.001 Health Pediatric Dental with a description of Pediatric dental as contemplated under ACA. f. PCM Request #6: Create New Sub-TOIs Under H14 Health Hospital Indemnity This change was requested in order to cover Sickness Only Indemnity and Accident Only Indemnity policies that do not seem to fit anywhere in the existing PCM. The proposed solution to this PCM request is as follows: H23G Group Health - Indemnity Other than Hospital with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of injury, sickness, and/or medical condition. If hospital indemnity, use the TOI of H14G Group Health Hospital Indemnity. o H23G.000Accident Only Indemnity with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of an accident only. o H23G.001 Sickness Only Indemnity with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of sickness only. o H23G.002 Accident/Sickness Indemnity with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of an accident or sickness only. o H23G.003 Other Indemnity with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of injury, sickness, and/or medical condition, not specifically described above. H23I Individual Health - Indemnity Other than Hospital with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of injury, sickness, and/or medical condition. If hospital indemnity, use the TOI of H14I Individual Health Hospital Indemnity. o H23I.000Accident Only Indemnity with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of an accident only. o H23I.001 Sickness Only Indemnity with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of sickness only. o H23I.002 Accident/Sickness Indemnity with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of an accident or sickness only. o H23I.003 Other Indemnity with a description of An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred as a result of injury, sickness, and/or medical condition, not specifically described above. Update description of H14G.000 Health Hospital Indemnity to An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred for each day the covered person is confined to the hospital as a result of injury, sickness, and/or medical condition. If other than hospital indemnity, use the TOI of H23G Group Indemnity Other than Hospital. Update description of H14I.000 Health Hospital Indemnity to An insurance contract that pays a fixed dollar amount without regard to the actual expenses incurred for each day the covered person is confined to the hospital as a result of injury, sickness, and/or medical condition. If other than hospital indemnity, use the TOI of H23I Individual Indemnity Other than Hospital. g. PCM Request #7: Add a TOI and Sub-TOIs for Benefit Plan Wraparound Policies That Would Cover The Out-of- Pocket Expenses of an ACA Plan The proposed solution to this PCM request is as follows: H24G Group Health Limited Wraparound Coverage with a description of Coverage designed/intended to comply with federal regulations defining excepted limited wraparound coverage such as 45 CFR , or as permitted by the state. o H24G.001 Any Size Group with a description of Coverage designed/intended to comply with federal regulations defining excepted limited wraparound coverage such as 45 CFR , or as permitted by the state that may be issued to any size group.