California Bans the Inclusion of Policy Provisions Giving Insurance Companies Discretionary Authority to Decide Claims

In a major victory for consumers, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that makes discretionary clauses – typically contained in ERISA-governed life, health and disability insurance policies/ERISA plans void and unenforceable in new or renewed policies.  SB 621 was authored by Senate Insurance Committee Chair Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) and sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, and was similar to AB 1686 vetoed by Governor Schwarzenengger in 2010.  

Discretionary clauses are provisions typically found in group life, health and disability plans that give the administrator/insurer the sole discretion to interpret the policy and to decide if a plan participant or beneficiary is entitled to plan benefits.  In ERISA cases, federal courts have interpreted these clauses to give administrators/insurers a higher standard of review when courts review their decisions.  This meant that the federal courts were required to give greater deference to decisions denying plan benefits under life, health or disability coverages, rather than weighing all the evidence under a “de novo” standard of review and making their own determination as to whether the insured was entitled to benefits under the policy or employee welfare benefit plan.

Continue Reading

New California Law Requires That Insurers and Agents Verify that an Annuity is Suitable for the Consumer

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a new law that will provide increased protection to seniors and other consumers who are interested in purchasing an annuity.  AB 689, which was sponsored by the California Department of Insurance and authored by Assembly Budget Committee Chair Bob Blumenfield (D-San Fernando Valley), requires that insurers verify that an annuity purchase is suitable and appropriate for the consumer based on an evaluation of his or her age, income, financial objectives and ten other factors.  The bill was unanimously passed by both the state Senate and the state Assembly.

Continue Reading

California Insurance Commissioner Jones Announces New Regulations On Annuities For Seniors

In recent years there have been many cases of insurance agents selling unsuitable annuities to members of the public, especially seniors.  These annuities typically involve large premiums and very large cash surrender charges.  The large cash surrender charges are often in place for at least the first five years of the annuity and usually exist because of the very large commissions that are paid to the insurance agents selling them.  Also, the rates of return in the annuities are often misrepresented.  Insurers and their agents also often sell unsuitable annuities as part of 412(i) plans (named by the IRS Code section which applies to them), and sometimes the IRS disallows deductions, classifying them as abusive tax shelters.  In order for these annuities to be financially viable for persons or businesses buying them, the purchasers must keep them in force for many years.  Because many individuals and some businesses are not in a position to keep them in force for many years, and because they do not provide flexibility, they are often grossly unsuitable for the individuals or businesses purchasing them. 

On March 7, 2011, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced new regulations aimed at protecting seniors from financial abuse by those selling seniors an unsuitable annuity.  Here is the press release:

Continue Reading

Dave Jones Reveals the Priorities for His Tenure as California's Insurance Commissioner

California’s new Insurance Commissioner, Dave Jones, identified his priorities at his inauguration on January 3.  He plans to accomplish his objectives by making the California Department of Insurance “the strongest consumer protection agency in the nation”, and he plans to “set the standard for other consumer protection agencies.”   His priorities are:

  • Implementation of federal health care reform, and that includes continuing his fight for the authority to reject excessive health insurance premium increases;
  • “[T]o level the playing field for consumers and business as they deal with insurance companies . . . to make sure that consumer complaints are being addressed and that insurance companies are not taking advantage of consumers;”
  • Ensuring that California has a viable and competitive insurance market.
Continue Reading

California's Office of Administrative Law Approves Homeowners Underinsurance Regulations

House and MoneyBecause of fairly recent California wild fires and California’s history of rising property values (at least this was the case a few years ago), many California homeowners have found themselves underinsured for fire losses.  The California Department of Insurance has been considering new regulations governing standards and training for estimating replacement value on homeowners' insurance for some time.  California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner had previously called for regulations that would provide more comprehensive and reliable estimates of what it might cost to completely rebuild a destroyed home.  Such estimates were previously unregulated and led homeowners to believe they needed less coverage than they truly did in the event of a disaster. 

Continue Reading

California's Largest Health Insurers are Fined by California Department of Managed Health Care for Inadequate Claims Practices

Health Care Fined

In today’s Los Angeles Times Business Section, Duke Helfand writes about an 18-month investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care into the payment practices of Aetna Inc., Anthem Blue Cross of California, Blue Shield of California, Cigna Corp., Health Net Inc., Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and United Healthcare/PacifiCare. 

Continue Reading

Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoes AB 1868 That Would Have Banned Discretionary Clauses in Group Insurance Policies

Today Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 1868 that would have banned discretionary clauses in group insurance policies.  This is a disappointment to consumer groups but not to insurers who rely on them.  Currently, the Department of Insurance bans them in group policies anyway.  Here are the Governor’s comments on why it was vetoed:

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1868 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit the Insurance Commissioner from approving any disability or

life insurance policy if it includes a provision that would reserve discretionary authority

to the insurer to determine eligibility for benefits, and voids certain provisions of a policy

or agreement if it provides or funds life insurance or disability insurance coverage.

This bill is unnecessary, as the Insurance Commissioner already has the authority to

prohibit the use of discretionary clauses.

For this reason I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Certain Health Insurance Reforms Go Into Effect as of September 23

On September 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, part of the recently enacted health care reform law, went into effect for insurance plans that begin on or after this date.  Health care reforms beginning Sept. 23, 2010 include:

  • No pre-existing condition exclusions for children under age 19: requires insurers to cover children of insured patients. “Grandfathered health plans” established before March 23, 2010, may continue their existing policy until 2014, at which time all health insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions are prohibited.
  • No arbitrary rescissions of health insurance: insurers cannot rescind policies except in cases of patient fraud or intentional misrepresentation. All health insurers are subject to this new rule.
  • No lifetime limits on health insurance coverage: The new provision prohibits lifetime limits on any plan issued or renewed after Sept. 23.
  • No annual limits on coverage: Similarly, annual limits will be gradually phased out. Initially, health insurance plans will not be able to set annual limits lower than $750,000 per year. That minimum limit rises to $1,250,000 next year on Sept. 23, 2011, and $2,000,000 the following year. Beginning Jan 1, 2014, annual limits will be prohibited for most health plans.
  • Protecting choice of health care provider: Patients will have the option to select and keep a primary care doctor from among the insurance company's participating provider network.
  • Adult children covered to age 26. Children will have extended access to health insurance coverage under their parents' health insurance plan until age 26, unless they qualify for health insurance through their employer.
Continue Reading

Disability Policy Discretionary Clauses Come Under Congressional Attack

Senate Finance CommitteePolicyholder/Employee groups who have group disability insurance coverage through their employers and who find themselves operating in the byzantine world of ERISA have long criticized discretionary clauses contained in such ERISA policies.  These often have the effect of giving insurance companies firmer ground to support claim denials because the “abuse of discretion” standard of review typically applies.  This higher standard of review makes it more difficult for policyholders/employees to challenge disability claim denials. 

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has the opportunity to sign California Assembly Bill 1868 (“AB 1868”) and to prohibit these discretionary clauses.  In the recent case of Standard Insurance Company v. Morrison, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the California Insurance Commissioner has the authority to disapprove any disability insurance policies that contain discretionary clauses.

Continue Reading

The Waiver Doctrine, Alive And Well in ERISA Cases

The Wednesday August 11, 2010 edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal featured my article, entitled “The Waiver Doctrine, Alive And Well in ERISA Cases,” in the Perspective column. It explains a very recent case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mitchell v. CB Richard Ellis Long Term Disability Plan, 2010 DJDAR 11532 (9th Cir. July 26).  The article is posted below with permission of Daily Journal Corp. (2010). 

The Waiver Doctrine, Alive And Well in ERISA Cases

New Regulations Take Aim at Policy Rescissions

Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has announced new regulations that go into effect aimed at combating improper rescissions by insurance companies.  These will go into effect on August 18, 2010.  Poizner said in his press release of August 6, 2010: “Keeping your health insurance can literally be a matter of life and death, and I have zero tolerance for insurers who use pretexts to illegally rescind policies.  These tough regulations embody my commitment to enforce the law and protect consumers who buy medically underwritten insurance coverage.” 

Continue Reading

New Appeal Regulations For Health Plans Require Final Claims Decision To Be Made By External Reviewer

The Department of Health and Human Services issued new appeal regulations under the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act”).  These regulations give claimants the right to appeal decisions made by their health plan to an outside, independent decision maker, regardless of what state they live in or what type of health coverage they have, i.e., both group and individual coverage.  If a particular health plan or insurance is governed by a state law, the state regulations will apply as long as the protections offered to consumers is at least as strong as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) Model Act.  At a minimum, the state external review process must provide:

Continue Reading

Cell Phone Users Catch a Break

The Thursday August 5, 2010 edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal featured my article entitled “Cell Phone Users Catch a Break,” in the Perspective column. It discusses the U.S. Copyright Office's recent announcement regarding its decision to exempt wireless telephone handsets from the anti-circumvention provision under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The article is posted below with permission of Daily Journal Corp. (2010).

Cell Phone Users Catch a Break

Federal Insurance Office Is Now A Reality

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 4173).  The Act directs the U.S. Treasury Department to create a Federal Insurance Office ("FIO")  The FIO has the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry, establish Federal policy on international insurance matters, serve as a liaison between the Federal government and the several States regarding insurance matters, and serve as an advisory to the Treasury regarding the export promotion of United States insurance products and services.  The scope of the FIO's authority extends to all lines of insurance, except health insurance.  Also excluded from the FIO's authority is long-term care insurance, except long-term care insurance that is included with life or annuity insurance components. 

This is a departure from an earlier bipartisan proposal by Congressmen Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) that would have enacted a federal insurance charter designed to mandate a national framework of state based regulation or market conduct, licensing, the filing of new products and reinsurance. 

The FIO is seen as a "win" by many State Insurance Commissioners who had been advocating for closer collaboration with the federal government in the regulation of insurance companies. 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

District Court Provides Additional Guidance on Scope of Discovery Under Glenn

Administrative Record

In the last several years, the scope of discovery in ERISA cases has been a point of contention between plaintiff and defense counsel.  Plaintiffs typically want free range to conduct discovery on any potentially relevant information addressing the conflict of interest issue while defense counsel would like discovery requests to be as narrow as possible.  Generally, discovery in ERISA cases is limited to what was before the plan administrator at the time the claim decision was made.  In other words, the administrative record.  However, in 2008, the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008) held that a conflict of interest “should be weighted as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion.”  Id.  As a result, most Circuit courts have held that Glenn allows for discovery outside the administrative record, when it pertains to whether the plan/claims administrator acted in a manner consistent with the conflict of interest.  Recently, in Zewdu v. Citigroup Long Term Disability Plan, 264 F.R.D. 622 (N.D. Cal 2010), Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James addressed the scope of discovery under Glenn and allowed the Plaintiff to subpoena the following information:

Continue Reading

Submission of the Claim File: Seal or Redact?

For most insurance litigation, the majority of the evidence used by both sides comes from the claim file, also known as the administrative record in ERISA cases.  The claim file represents the insurance carrier’s written record of its handling and processing of an insurance claim.  Obviously, this information is highly relevant whenever coverage or a claim is disputed.  Moreover, in the case of life, health, or disability insurance cases, the claim file will also be full of personal and confidential information such as medical records and social security numbers.

Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Applies Montour to the Conflict of Interest Analysis in ERISA Case

In the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court holding in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 2348 (2008), the courts have struggled to apply this holding. The Ninth Circuit did so in Montour v. Hartford Life & Accid. Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2009). In turn, the District Courts have applied Montour in several decisions.

One of the latest is the unpublished opinion in Sterio v. HM Life, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4615 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 4, 2010) which represents the first case out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to substantively discuss the application of the conflict of interest analysis set forth in Montour. This case provides valuable insight into how may courts will apply the factors set forth in Montour.

Continue Reading

Documents Reviewed by Independent Medical Examiner Sufficient to Satisfy Plan Obligation to Consider All Relevant Documents

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished decision, addressed the question of whether documents reviewed by an independent medical examiner, but not by the plan administrator, was sufficient to satisfy the Plan’s obligation to consider all relevant documents. Sun Sun Lin v. Mellon Long Term Disability Plan, 2010 WL 1917305 (Decided May 13, 2010).

In Sun Sun Lin, the Mellon Long Term Disability Plan was administered by a Corporate Benefits Committee (“CBC”). The plaintiff, Sun Sun Lin (“Lin”), challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment by arguing that CBC failed to give her a full and fair review of the denial of her claim for long term disability benefits. In making this argument, she relied on a statement from the Plan’s attorney “that the CBC did not directly consider those documents in making its determination to deny [Lin's] claim,” but did “‘indirectly’ consider[ ] these documents to the extent they were reviewed and considered by” an independent medical examiner retained by the CBC in its review of Lin’s appeal. The question before the court was whether the review by the independent examiner was sufficient.

Continue Reading

New California Health Insurance Legislation Moves Forward

The debate over national health care reform has moved to the California Legislature, which will begin taking the initial steps to implement the complex series of health insurance overhauls prescribed by the federal government.

The Legislature seeks to enact reforms signed into law by President Obama this year. Among other things, certain Bills would prohibit health insurers from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions and create an exchange through which individuals could buy insurance.  In addition, they would require prior approval of health insurance rates and create a new independent review panel.

Continue Reading

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act Summary and Implementation Timelines

Eric M. Peterson from the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney LLP has done a nice job summarizing the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Peterson’s article, ‘Health Care Reform is Here is set forth verbatim immediately below, followed by the Democratic Policy Committee's implementation timeline for both Acts.

Health Reform and Reconciliation Bills Passed by the House Senate to Consider Reconciliation Bill The House passed both H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act), and H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the Reconciliation Act) on Sunday, March 21, 2010. The President signed the Affordable Care Act on Tuesday, March 23, 2010.
Continue Reading

The NAIC Announces Hearings on Stranger-Owned Annuities

Stranger-Owned Annuities allow investors to purchase an interest in the life of an elderly or terminally ill person, inducing the insured to purchase the policy largely for the benefit of unrelated and sometimes unknown beneficiaries. The NAIC will examine whether greater regulation of the Stranger-Owned Annuity market is warranted and whether consumers are adequately protected.

In recent history, as discussed in the firm’s California Insurance Litigation Blog, the insurance industry has focused on Stranger-Originated Life Insurance Policies and many states, including California, have now regulated them. Numerous states such as California have outlawed them.

Stranger-Owned Annuities are less well known, but equally concerning to the industry. The investors have no insurable interest in the owner of the annuity, and generally purchase the annuity to receive an enhanced death benefit or some other advantage. Other than scattered lawsuits challenging the validity of Stranger-Owned Annuities, the market is largely unregulated. Many states have strict laws regarding insurance interests in life insurance policies, but have little or no regulation regarding annuities.

For a copy of the NAIC’s press release, click here: http://www.naic.org/Releases/2010_docs/stranger_owned_annuities.htm

California Insurance Commissioner Says Anthem Blue Cross Violated California Law More Than 700 Times

Just when you thought the bad news for Anthem Blue Cross (“Anthem”) could not get any worse, it does.  According to an article by Duke Helfand appearing in today’s Los Angeles Times, California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner reported that Anthem, California's largest for-profit health insurer, violated California law more than 700 times over a three-year period by failing to pay medical claims on time and misrepresenting policy provisions to customers.

Anthem could face fines of up to $7 million stemming from the alleged violations from 2006 to 2009. Poizner said that Anthem repeatedly failed to respond to state regulators in a "reasonable time" as they investigated complaints over the last year.

"We believe there is evidence to suggest there are serious issues with how Anthem Blue Cross pays claims," Poizner said at a Sacramento news conference. "Most disturbing to us is that they don't even respond" to the Department of Insurance "in a timely way."

Anthem's parent company, WellPoint Inc., said that it had not seen the enforcement action but would cooperate fully with Poizner to resolve the matter "in the best interests" of its policyholders.

"We take the issues raised by Commissioner Poizner very seriously," Anthem said in a statement. "As the largest insurer in California, our responsibility is to pay the many millions of claims on behalf of our members each year fairly, fully and promptly."

As reported in this blog, WellPoint and Anthem have faced intense criticism from consumers, regulators, members of Congress and the Obama administration over rate hike proposals of as much as 39% for customers with individual policies in California. Lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington are holding hearings this week on the increases, which have been postponed until May 1 amid the outcry.

The rate hikes would affect many of the 800,000 individual policyholders in California.

According to Poizner, nearly 40% of the violations in the Anthem case, 277, stem from allegations that the company failed to pay patient claims within 30 days as required by state law, officials said.

Poizner's office filed the enforcement action against Anthem on Monday with the Office of Administrative Hearings. An administrative law judge will hear the matter. Each violation carries a maximum penalty of $10,000.

STOLI and Life Settlement Transactions Soon to be Regulated in California

Insurance Contract Life settlements, also known in the industry as  “stranger-originated life insurance” (“STOLI”) transactions have existed for several years but most states have not regulated them, at least until recently.  The life insurance industry has for years attempted to eliminate such transactions as they typically are not in the insurer's best financial interest.  However, in recent years the industry has increased their support for efforts to differentiate between legitimate life settlements and STOLI.  Both sides agree to the following general definition: A life settlement is the legitimate liquidation of a life insurance policy by an owner who has outlived the insurable interest upon which the policy was originally purchased. On the other hand, a STOLI transaction is initiated by a third party who offers monetary inducements to entice someone to purchase a life insurance policy with no legitimate insurable interest. The intended recipient of the policy’s value is the third party actually paying the premiums.

Legislative activity in the various states has substantially increased over the years as states have passed laws designed to stop, or at least regulate, STOLI transactions.  This occurred recently in California.  In October 2009, the California legislature enacted, and the governor signed, Senate Bill 1543 that regulates life settlement and STOLI transactions. The new law is known as the Life Settlements Act (“Act”) and it becomes effective on July 1, 2010. It is noteworthy that this bill provides that, with certain exceptions, it does not apply to any life settlement contract entered into on or before July 1, 2010. This bill would provide that it would apply to any transaction involving any life insurance policy in effect, or entered into, on or after the operative date of the bill.

Continue Reading

President Obama Favors Repealing Antitrust Exemption

Last year the House passed legislation which would repeal the limited exemption the insurance industry received when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. The law shields insurance companies from federal antitrust laws as long as they are subject to state regulations.

Among those opposed to a repeal of the exemption is Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat who provided the 60th vote that cleared the way for the Senate’s Dec. 24 passage of its health bill. Nelson, a former insurance company executive and state insurance regulator, says a repeal would hurt small insurers.

House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter told reporters that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is negotiating with Nelson on the exemption to try to get his support.

“There is no earthly reason for the insurance companies to be exempt from the antitrust laws,” she said.

President Obama has now voiced his support for the repeal of the exemption.  We’ll see who wins this healthcare battle very soon.

California to Announce New Rules for HMO Members

On Wednesday, the California Department of Managed Health Care (“CDMH”) is scheduled to roll out new regulations that limit HMO members' wait times for an appointment with a physician or specialist, the Los Angeles Times reports. The rules stem from a 2002 state law that called for HMOs to provide faster access to medical care. Since the initial passage of the law, DMHC has been in negotiations with health plans, hospitals, physician groups and others to work out details of the regulations.

Continue Reading

California's 2009 Insurance Legislation: It Was an Important Year

2009 was an important year for insurance legislation in California.  An excellent review of this legislation was posted on December 4, 2009 by the Barger & Wolen LLP legal blog (quoted verbatim from the blog) as follows: “LIFE, HEALTH AND DISABILITY INSURANCE"

1. AB 23: Cal-COBRA Premium Assistance

  • Establishes notice requirements that must be provided to eligible qualified beneficiaries regarding the availability of premium assistance under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
  • Qualified beneficiaries eligible for federal assistance may elect coverage under Cal-COBRA, and those enrolled in Cal-COBRA as of February 17, 2009 may request the federal premium assistance.

2. AB 76: Life and Annuity Consumer Protection Fund

  • Extends the provision creating the Life and Annuity Consumer Protection Fund to January 1, 2015.
  • Requires the California Insurance Commissioner (“Commissioner”) to publish an annual report on its Web site detailing certain protections for consumers of insurance products.

3. AB 108: Individual Health Care Coverage

  • Prohibits, except as specified, rescission, canceling, limiting the provisions, or raising premiums of a contract or policy due to omission, misrepresentation, or inaccuracy in the application after 24 months following issuance of the same.

4. AB 119: Pricing of Health Care Coverage

  • Prohibits premium, price or charge differentials based on the gender of specified individuals, commencing January 1, 2011.

5. AB 381: Unemployment Compensation Disability Benefits

  • Permits a community college district to elect to become an employer, subject to specified requirements pertaining to disability compensation.

6. AB 389: Long-Term Care Insurance

  • For long-term care insurance policies issued before new premium rate schedules are approved and for which rate revisions are filed on or after January 1, 2010, changes the calculation for determining what benefits are deemed “reasonable” in relation to premiums.
  • Permits the Commissioner to approve a rate revision based on less than a certain loss ratio in order to protect the financial condition of the insurer.
  • Revises the required qualifications of actuaries used by the Commissioner to review rate applications relative to long-term care insurance.

7.  AB 1541: Health Care Coverage (Late Enrollment)

  • An individual, or dependent, who has lost or will lose Healthy Families Program coverage, Access for Infants and Mothers Program coverage, or Medi-Cal program coverage can requests enrollment within 60 days (changed from 30 days) after termination of that coverage without being considered a “late enrollee.”

8. AB 1543: Medicare Supplement Coverage[1]

  • Adopts changes and provisions as required by the federal Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
  • Adopts other amendments relating to open enrollment and guaranteed-issue.

LIFE SETTLEMENTS

  • SB 98 defines when certain trusts and special interest entities do not have an insurance interest in a life insurance policy. It also establishes a number of new provisions to regulate viatical and life settlements. It adds two new license classifications for “Life Settlement Provider” and “Life Settlement Broker.”

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE 1. AB 63: Service Contract, Retailers

  • Requires retailers of service contracts to maintain certain information about a contract that is in effect and provide such information or a copy of the contract to the contract purchaser or beneficiary upon request.
  • Does not apply to vehicle service contracts.

2. AB 601: Motor Vehicle Insurance, Special Assessments

  • Extends until January 1, 2015, the special assessment imposed on insurers, which is charged per motor vehicle insured.

3. AB 1179: Motor Vehicle Insurance, Damage Assessments

  • Requires that additional information regarding right to independent estimate be included in the Auto Body Repair Consumer Bill of Rights.

4. AB 1200: Motor Vehicle Insurance, Direct Repair Programs

  • Provides that insurers may (notwithstanding prohibition against requiring use of specific auto repair shop) provide truthful and nondeceptive information regarding the services and benefits available to the claimant.

5. SB 291: Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Reserves

  • Amends definition of “face amount of an insured mortgage” for purposes of determining surplus requirements. 
  • Requires notice to Commissioner before insurer falls below surplus threshold and creates ability to seek waiver of requirement.

MISCELLANEOUS 1. AB 299: Insurance Omnibus     Among other things, the bill:

  • Requires the California Department of Insurance to remove from, or clarify on, its Web site any pleading, order or document relating to an enforcement action that has been withdrawn.
  • Requires the Commissioner to consider additional criteria when examining the business and affairs of the insurer.
  • Allows the Commissioner to disclose market analysis data to any state or country insurance department, law enforcement officials, federal agency or NAIC.
  • All analyses pursuant to authorized examinations are at the expense of the insurer.
  • Requires insurer annual audits to be conducted in conformity with “standards adopted by the [NAIC],” and allows the Commissioner to grant multiple 30-day extensions to the audit due date.
  • Permits domestic insurers to invest in credit unions.
  • Prohibits excess fund investments in a loan or any other obligation to any one borrower or obligor as specified.
  • Requires insurers to provide to the Commissioner advance notice of the intent to enter into a tax sharing agreement.
  • Requires auto liability policy to provide for replacement of a child seat, as defined, that was damaged in a covered accident.

2. AB 328: Electronic Transactions

  • Deletes the exclusion of certain insurance statutes from applicability of Civil Code provisions permitting parties to conduct transactions by electronic means.
  • With respect to certain automobile insurance transactions, prohibits electronic delivery of certain documents unless the transaction commenced electronically.
  • Permits required notices related to certain types of insurance to be made electronically with consent of the parties, and imposes certain system and records requirements on the insurer related to the same.
  • Permits an insurer to pay claims with electronic fund transfer, with the consent of the insured.

3. AB 409: California Insurance Guarantee Association

  • Provides that the initial premium charge shall be adjusted by applying the same rate of premium charge as initially used to each insurer’s written premium as shown on the annual statement for the 2nd year following the year on which the initial premium charge “was based” (change from “is made”).

4. AB 470: Insurance Information Confidentiality

  • Authorizes the disclosure of information from an accident report, supplemental report, or investigative report to an insured’s lawyer if the insured is otherwise entitled to obtain the report.

5. AB 800: Insurance Producer Omnibus     Makes a number of changes with respect to producer licensing, including that it:

  • Deletes pre-licensing education requirement for resident applicants with current nonresident licenses.
  • For persons licensed in 2010 or after, eliminates certain exemptions from education requirement.
  • Permits licensed California nonresident business entity producers to use licensed California resident individual producers to transact insurance.”

[1] AB 1543 was enacted as an urgency statute. As such, it became effective when it was chaptered on July 2, 2009.

Will Healthcare Reform Affect the Rate of Claim Denials?

On Monday October 19, 2009, Lisa Girion of the Los Angeles Times reported on the healthcare reform bills being debated in Congress and their potential impact on claim denials by insurers. Girion states that, “Despite growing frustration with the way health insurers deny medical treatments, major healthcare bills pending in Congress would give patients little new power to challenge those sometimes life-and-death decisions.” She further explains that “a patient's ability to fight insurers' coverage decisions could be more important than ever because Congress, in promoting cost containment and price competition, may actually add to the pressure on insurers to deny requests for treatment.”

The article discusses the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Hilda and Grigor Sarkisyan, whose daughter Nataline died in 2007 after Cigna decided not to cover a liver transplant. The lawsuit against Cigna over the transplant denial was dismissed this year by a federal judge, who ruled that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) preempts suits with state law claims for damages over such health benefit decisions. The Sarkisyans traveled to Washington this year to try to persuade members of Congress to pass legislation which would remove ERISA’s bar of certain types of damages that are now available under state law.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who met with the Sarkisyans in Washington, said that there are not enough votes in Congress to pass such legislation.  Insurers and employers strongly support ERISA’s limitations on damages. They say any increase in litigation would drive up costs and could force some employers to drop health benefits.

The healthcare reform bill pending in the House would extend the right to sue under state law for damages to anyone who buys coverage through one of the health insurance exchanges it envisions. That could include small businesses. However, the pending legislation does not remove ERISA’s barrier to such suits by employees who procure coverage in the employment-based insurance market.

House Committee Votes to Strip Health Insurance Industry of Exemption from Federal Antitrust Laws

As reported by the Associated Press, a House committee has voted to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws as senators announced plans to take the same step.  The House Judiciary Committee voted 20 to 9 to repeal a law that exempted the health insurance industry from federal controls over certain antitrust violations, including price-fixing.  It is our belief that this repeal will not likely survive any national healthcare bill.

No More Gender Rating in California

The practice of paying different rates based on gender for the same insurance is called gender rating.  Effective January 1, 2010, health insurance companies and HMO's writing insurance in California will not be able to charge men and women different rates for the same type of insurance policy.  It has been reported that currently, California women pay anywhere from 5% to 30% more than male counterparts for equivalent insurance, even on policies without maternity coverage.

The issue was helped along by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera who sued state officials for gender rating, claiming that the practice violates provisions of the California Constitution.   The suit was stayed while details of the bill were negotiated and, in light of the new California health insurance law, will likely be dismissed.

President Proposes National Insurance Office

The Obama Administration is proposing the formation of a new office within the Treasury Department that would oversee the insurance industry. This announcement comes in the wake of statements from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in February that some form of federal insurance oversight will likely be a part of a forthcoming financial regulatory overhaul.

Congressional bill H.R. 2609, also known as the Insurance Information Act of 2009, will establish within the Department of the Treasury the Office of Insurance Information. This new office will have the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry, establish Federal policy on international insurance matters, serve as a liaison between the Federal government and the several States regarding insurance matters, and serve as an advisory to the Treasury regarding the export promotion of United States insurance products and services.

Congress is also debating legislation by Congressmen Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) which would create an optional federal charter through an Office of National Insurance. A federal charter would create a framework for a national system of state-based regulation and create uniform standards in such areas as market conduct, licensing, the filing of new products and reinsurance.  California Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, has come out against the Royce-Bean legislation and is lending his support for the administration’s bill.

The administration's plan avoids the trap of creating a federal insurance regulator, which I have consistently opposed. It appropriately acknowledges the primary role the states play in regulating the insurance business to benefit consumers. State oversight of insurance companies, coordinated among all state regulators, is the reason that, among all the financial players in this country, it is the insurers who are and remain the most stable and the least in need of federal assistance.

Although it is unclear which bill has more political support, the House Committee on Financial Services will review both the Insurance Information Act and the proposed federal charter in the coming months.