NAIC Report: 2016 Spring National Meeting

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) held its 2016 Spring National Meeting from April 1 through April 6 in New Orleans, Louisiana. As host, Louisiana provided beautiful weather and bountiful great food. The Spring National Meeting was also highlighted by spirited discussions regarding cybersecurity and big data, further consideration of the Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation, and the potential achievement of an important milestone on the path to the implementation of Principle-Based Reserving (PBR). 

The following are some highlights from the Spring National Meeting. We do not cover every meeting in this report; rather, we comment on select noteworthy developments and matters of interest to our clients. 

  1. Cybersecurity

  2. Big Data
  3. Issues of Particular Interest to Property and Casualty Insurers
    1. Terrorism Insurance Market Data Calls
    2. Workers’ Compensation (C) Task Force
    3. Flood Insurance
    4. Price Optimization White Paper
  4. Issues of Particular Interest to Life Insurers
    1. Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation 
    2. Adoption of Certified Reinsurance Requirements as an Accreditation Requirement
    3. PBR Update
    4. Life Insurance and Annuities (A) Committee
    5. Privacy
  5. International Issues
    1. Group Capital Calculation (E) Working Group
    2. IAIS Relationship
  6. Updating RBC Factors for Bonds and Common Stock
  7. ORSA Summary Report/Form F Survey 
  8. Briefly Noted
    1. DOL Fiduciary Rule
    2. Issues Related to Seniors
    3. Removal of MetLife’s SIFI Designation
    4. Commissioner Departures
    5. 2020 NAIC National Meeting Sites
  1. Cybersecurity

A highlight of the Spring National Meeting was a spirited discussion at the Cybersecurity (EX) Task Force meeting regarding the controversial first draft of the Insurance Data Security Model Law. The draft is intended to establish “the exclusive standards for data security and notification of a breach of data security” applicable to insurance licensees within a particular state. It would require licensees to: (1) develop a comprehensive written information security program containing safeguards for the protection of personal information; (2) provide consumers with information regarding the types of personal information collected and stored by the licensee and third-party service providers it contracts with; and (3) provide regulators, affected consumers, and other parties with notice regarding data security breaches that are “reasonably likely to cause substantial harm or inconvenience to the consumers to whom the information relates.” 

The Task Force solicited comments on the draft through March 23. Due to the large number of persons interested in offering oral comments during the meeting, comments were limited to three minutes each. 

Industry representatives noted multiple major concerns with the draft and requested an open dialogue moving forward and an opportunity to work through the issues in a deliberate manner. Specific concerns were expressed regarding the information security program requirements, the breach notification provisions, and the definitions of “licensees” and “personal information.” Consumer representatives, on the other hand, seemed impressed with the proposal, with the Center for Economic Justice noting that the proposal goes a long way toward establishing a “best practices” approach to regulating cybersecurity issues. 

Despite extensive industry criticism of the draft, the Task Force intends to proceed quickly toward adoption of the Model Law given the importance of cybersecurity issues. Task Force Chair Adam Hamm from North Dakota, who would like the Model Law to eventually be an accreditation requirement, noted that the Task Force would “run a marathon as quickly as possible” in order to secure passage in 2016. He also noted in a meeting of the NAIC’s Executive Committee that he hopes the Model Law will be presented to the Executive (EX) Committee and Plenary at the NAIC’s Summer National Meeting so that states can put the Model Law in their legislative packages for 2017. 

  1. Big Data 

Another highlight of the Spring National Meeting was a public hearing held by the Big Data (D) Working Group regarding the use of “big data” in the insurance industry. Although an official definition of “big data” has not been agreed upon by regulators, the term refers generally to the use of large data sets to discern patterns or trends that can be used by insurers in a variety of ways, including to market, price and underwrite policies and prevent fraud. 

The hearing was viewed as a first step for the Working Group in obtaining a broad understanding of how big data is used in the insurance industry, the potential positive and negative impacts on consumers, and how state insurance regulators can use big data to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of insurance regulation. 

The Working Group heard presentations from panels representing academic, industry, consumer and state insurance regulator perspectives on big data. Howard Weston, an associate professor at Georgia State University, represented the academic perspective and opened the panel by discussing the lack of a consensus definition for big data and ethical parameters regarding its use. 

Industry representatives extolled the benefits of giving insurers wide latitude to use big data, citing its value in preventing fraud, improving the efficiency and decision-making of the underwriting process, and increasing the affordability of insurance products. They also expressed concern about the prospect of increased regulation. David Snyder of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) noted that a good balance has now been achieved with regulators and expressed concern that enhanced regulatory action could result in consumers moving to unregulated products. 

Consumer representatives, in contrast, highlighted the need for proactive regulation. Brenda Cude, a Professor at the University of Georgia, noted that the traditional NAIC approach of requiring increased disclosure to consumers will not be sufficient to regulate big data because consumers are not aware of all the activities they undertake that generate information used by insurers. On a similar note, Birny Birnbaum of the Center for Economic Justice observed that market forces will not protect consumers from unfair practices relating to big data, adding that regulatory involvement can both promote competition and protect consumers. He is recommending that regulators create a template to collect information from insurers regarding the types of big data that they use. 

The state insurance regulator panel included a presentation by Angela Nelson, Missouri’s Director of Market Regulation, regarding the use of big data by regulators in market conduct and other analytic exercises, followed by a presentation by Mike McKenney, Pennsylvania’s Actuarial Supervisor, who posed key questions regarding the use of big data by the industry touching on such topics as whether big data will be sold to third parties and the degree of faith being put into data modelers. The panel concluded with a presentation by Joel Laucher, California’s Deputy Commissioner of Rate Regulation, in which he highlighted key concerns with the use of big data by insurers, including the transparency of such use, the potential for disparate impact of low-income or disadvantaged populations, and the potential for dramatic changes in rates due to a single change in a consumer’s risk profile (referred to as the “whipsaw effect”). 

View the agenda for the public hearing and the related meeting materials.

  1. Issues of Particular Interest to Property and Casualty Insurers
  1. Terrorism Insurance Market Data Calls

The Terrorism Insurance Implementation (C) Working Group heard a report on the data calls to be made by participating states to collect countrywide data on terrorism risk insurance. The data calls will be made by 12 states (including Delaware, which volunteered to be added as the twelfth state during the meeting) where most of the companies writing this type of coverage are located. The first part of the state data call was to begin collecting workers’ compensation data in April, while the second part of the data call will collect commercial lines data during the fall.

As previously reported, the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) is separately undertaking a data call pursuant to Section 111 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 (TRIPRA) (which reauthorized the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) through 2020), which requires Treasury to collect data beginning in 2016 and to provide an annual report to Congress on the state of the terrorism insurance market and the effectiveness of the TRIA program. The state data call is expected to be more detailed in nature than the FIO data call, except that the FIO data is more granular with respect to reinsurance matters. The Working Group intends to share any data it receives with FIO. 

The Working Group also heard a report from NAIC staff on various federal activities, including: (1) a Federal Register notice requesting comments on the effectiveness of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program in order to help the FIO prepare its report for the U.S. Congress; (2) a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement changes to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program; and (3) the first meeting of the Treasury Department’s Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms. 

  1. Workers’ Compensation (C) Task Force

The Workers’ Compensation (C) Task Force received a report from the Joint (C) NAIC/IAIABC (International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions) Working Group on the Large Mega/Deductible Study. 

As previously reported, the study is an update to the 2006 Workers’ Compensation Large Deductible Study that was prompted when, after the Nevada Insurance Department observed a trend in late 2014 toward the use of very large deductibles by employers in its state, the NAIC conducted a brief survey of states and determined that very few states maintained records of accounts written with large deductibles. Among other objectives, the study aims to serve as a resource to insurers, third-party administrators (TPAs), professional employer organizations (PEOs), guaranty associations and regulators showing how large deductible policies work and special issues that can arise with them. 

Sixty-eight comments were considered during the drafting phase, and an executive summary and recommendations were added to the draft. The comment period for the paper expired on April 11. Following such expiration, additional editorial changes (where appropriate) were expected to be made and the task force expected to conduct a conference call to formally adopt the paper before recommending its adoption by the NAIC’s Property and Casualty Insurance (C) Committee. 

  1. Flood Insurance

The Property and Casualty Insurance (C) Committee held a panel discussion regarding potential reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is scheduled to be reauthorized in 2017. Participants in the panel expressed support for reauthorization and discussed the prospect of the eventual transfer of risk in the market to private insurance markets. Earlier in the meeting, the Committee adopted a revised proposed Blank related to the collection of private flood insurance data. The proposal would collect data on private insurance policies separately from those that are part of the NFIP and is expected to be useful to regulators and policymakers when evaluating potential reforms to the NFIP. 

  1. Price Optimization White Paper

The NAIC’s Executive (EX) and Plenary adopted the Price Optimization White Paper drafted by the Casualty Actuarial and Statistical (C) Task Force. A summary of recent price optimization developments can be found at: Sutherland Legal Alert: Price Optimization: 2015 Year in Review and Look Ahead. As previously reported, the purpose of the White Paper is to aid state regulators in making decisions about actions to take regarding the use of price optimization by personal lines property and casualty insurers. It provides background on what price optimization is and how it compares to traditional ratemaking, and it identifies potential benefits and drawbacks to the use of price optimization and makes recommendations to regulators. 

  1. Issues of Particular Interest to Life Insurers
  1. Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation

The Reinsurance (E) Task Force discussed comments received on the draft of the XXX/AXXX Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation exposed on February 26. The draft had previously been subject to a 30-day comment period ending on March 27, during which the Task Force received written comments from regulators and other interested parties.

Meeting participants discussed two key issues related to the proposed regulation. First, under the proposed draft, insurers who fail to remediate shortfalls in Primary or Other Security are denied all reinsurance credit (the “all or nothing” consequence). The severity of this measure was intended to provide insurers with a strong incentive to meet the regulation’s Primary Security requirement, but a few regulators now seem open to an alternative approach. The Vermont Department of Financial Regulation, for example, issued a comment letter before the Spring National Meeting indicating that it had changed its mind on the issue and now feels that a “proportional” approach (credit for reinsurance is reduced by a proportional percentage of the shortfall in the required level of security) is more appropriate than an “all or nothing” approach if there is a shortfall in Other Security. Industry representatives are also divided on the issue; the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) has proposed an approach using the proportional approach for shortfalls in Primary Security and a “dollar for dollar” option for shortfalls in Other Security (credit for reinsurance is reduced dollar for dollar by the shortfall), while Northwestern Mutual and New York Life both support the “all or nothing” consequence.

Second, the Task Force discussed a proposal by ACLI that would exempt from the regulation treaties with reinsurers licensed in at least five states with an RBC ratio above 400 percent of Authorized Control Level. This exemption applicable to small reinsurers would apply in addition to the professional reinsurer exemption included in the recent amendments to the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law (#785) applicable to treaties with reinsurers with $250 million in capital and surplus that are licensed in at least 26 states (or licensed in at least 10 states and licensed or accredited in a total of 35 states). A few regulators seemed receptive to this new proposal. The representative from Arkansas, for example, expressed an interest in putting small professional reinsurers on the same playing field as large professional reinsurers and noted that the additional exemption seemed reasonable if the XXX/AXXX regulation is really targeted at captive reinsurers. 

The Task Force also received a referral of comments on the regulation from the Life Actuarial (A) Task Force (LATF). Under the current draft of the regulation, for policies issued before the Valuation Manual Operative Date, an adjustment is made to the Required Level of Primary Security for an exempt yearly renewable term (YRT) reinsurance arrangement to an assuming reinsurer, but this adjustment changes after the Operative Date. LATF is recommending revisions to the current draft to provide that, for policies issued before the Operative Date, the adjustment used before the Operative Date continues after the Operative Date. LATF also provided other recommendations for reorganizing and editing the proposal regulation.

The Task Force directed NAIC staff and consultants to work with the XXX/AXXX Captive Reinsurance Regulation Drafting Group to draft a revised regulation that considers the comments received and these discussions held during the meeting, which will be presented to the Task Force for future consideration and exposure. The Task Force also received an extension from the Financial Condition (E) Committee until the Summer National Meeting to complete drafting on the regulation. 

  1. Adoption of Certified Reinsurer Requirements as an Accreditation Requirement

The Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation (F) Committee adopted the certified reinsurer provisions from the revised Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation (Reinsurance Models) as a state accreditation requirement. The revised Reinsurance Models allow highly rated non-U.S. reinsurers to reinsure U.S. domestic cedents with reduced collateral requirements. The reduced collateral requirements are currently optional under the Part A; Laws and Regulations Accreditation Standards, but will become mandatory as of January 1, 2019. 

State adoption of reduced collateral requirements has become a priority for the NAIC (and other advocates of the state-based system of insurance regulation) since federal action on a “covered agreement” on reinsurance collateral requirements has become increasingly likely. On November 20, 2015, Treasury, assisted by the FIO and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), notified Congress of its intent to initiate negotiations to enter into a covered agreement with the European Union (EU) in accordance with Section 314(b)(1) of Dodd-Frank. The notice stated that the covered agreement negotiations with the EU will seek, among other things, to afford nationally uniform treatment of EU-based reinsurers operating in the United States, including with respect to collateral requirements. In February, U.S. and EU representatives met for the first time to formally discuss plans for the covered agreement, and released a joint statement agreeing to “move forward efficiently and expeditiously” and “affirmed their good faith pursuit of an agreement on matters relating to group supervision, exchange of confidential information between supervisory authorities on both sides, and reinsurance supervision, including collateral.”

Officially, the NAIC’s decision to make the certified reinsurer provisions an accreditation requirement reflects the Committee’s view that the reduced collateral requirements in the revised Reinsurance Models result in more effective financial solvency regulation and increased consumer protection to policyholders. As noted in the December 21, 2015, memo accompanying the proposed accreditation standard, this is due to several features of the provisions, including: (1) the increased financial scrutiny given to certified reinsurers by state regulators and the NAIC; (2) the review of the certified reinsurer’s domiciliary supervisory regime by the Qualified Jurisdiction (E) Working Group with respect to the effectiveness of its supervision; and (3) the process under which certified reinsurers may be “passported” for certification (which entails financial analysis conducted by the Reinsurance Financial Analysis (E) Working Group (R-FAWG) upon initial application and renewal). 

  1. PBR Update

State Adoption

In 2009, the NAIC adopted a revised Model Standard Valuation Law authorizing Principle-Based Reserving (PBR) and a Valuation Manual that sets forth the minimum reserve and related requirements for certain products under PBR. The Valuation Manual was subsequently adopted by the NAIC in 2012, over strong objections from several key states (including California and New York). The effective date for PBR (i.e., the Valuation Manual Operative Date), however, will not occur until the amended Standard Valuation Law is adopted by 42 states and state adoption reflects 75 percent of total life insurance premiums written in the United States. 

At the Spring National Meeting, it was tentatively announced that this critical milestone in the implementation of PBR has now been met, making a January 1, 2017, effective date achievable. Achievement of the threshold is now subject only to the NAIC’s determination that the laws adopted by the applicable states use “substantially similar terms and provisions” to the NAIC model. This determination will be based on a multistep review process that was approved by the NAIC Executive Committee and Plenary at the Fall National Meeting. That process entails the following steps:

  1. State Survey: States will complete a survey to document their conformance to, as well as any deviations from, the amended Standard Valuation Law.
  2. Validation of Deviations: A designated small group (potentially comprising NAIC staff and regulators) will validate completion of the surveys and document conformance to and substantive deviations from the model.
  3. Task Force Evaluation: The Principle-Based Reserving Implementation (EX) Task Force will review conformances and deviations and determine whether a state’s laws are considered “substantially similar terms and provisions” for purposes of determining the Valuation Manual Operative Date.
  4. Task Force Proposal: The Task Force will recommend a list of states counting toward the threshold to determine the Valuation Manual Operative Date. Any disagreements with the list could be submitted in writing to the Plenary Committee.
  5. Plenary Final Decision: The Plenary Committee will consider any disagreements with the list and will determine the NAIC’s final view of which states will count toward the threshold.

The NAIC is currently undertaking this review. Once a determination has been made that the threshold has been met, the effective date of PBR will trigger an approximately three-year implementation period for the new rules. 

PBR Experience Reporting Framework

The revisions to the Standard Valuation Law (SVL) to enact PBR include a provision for collection of data from companies to develop industry experience studies for various factors (e.g., mortality, lapse), and the Valuation Manual outlines the role of a statistical agent to collect and manage the data and produce reports. The NAIC has been considering how to implement such an experience data collection system on behalf of state insurance regulators, and is exploring the possibility that the NAIC might serve as the statistical agent. At the PBR Implementation Task Force Meeting, NAIC Chief Operating Officer and Chief Legal Officer Andrew Beal reported on the due diligence that NAIC staff has performed to assess the NAIC’s ability to perform in such a capacity. 

The prospect of the NAIC acting in the role of statistical agent is not without some controversy, as there are concerns among industry groups regarding the confidentiality of information submitted to the NAIC and the NAIC’s ability to perform such duties in a cost-effective manner. At the Task Force meeting, the ACLI commented that the selection of a statistical agent should be made after an open, competitive bidding process so that multiple entities can submit plans regarding their capabilities and cost-effectiveness in response to a request for proposal (RFP). In response, Task Force Chair Julie McPeak of Tennessee noted that the statistical agent will be appointed by the Task Force and the Executive Committee upon consideration of all relevant information and not by NAIC senior staff. 

Proposed Net Premium Reserve (NPR) Amendments.

After a lengthy discussion regarding the Net Premium Reserve (NPR) level and approach and the current process for allocating reserves to product groups and individual policies, LATF exposed four proposed amendments to VM-20 relating to NPR for a short 21-day comment period. Some regulators remain concerned about the level of reserves, particularly for term insurance, in connection with the anticipated implementation of PBR on January 1, 2017. 

  1. Life Insurance and Annuities (A) Committee

The Life Insurance and Annuities (A) Committee discussed a proposed amendment to the life insurance policy illustration charge. The Life Insurance Illustration Issues (A) Working Group has a charge to “explore how the narrative summary required by Section 7B of the Life Insurance Illustrations Model Regulation (#582) and the policy summary under the Life Insurance Disclosure Model Regulation (#580) can be enhanced to promote consumer readability and understandability of life insurance policy summaries, including how they are designed, formatted and accessed by consumers.” In a comment letter, the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) suggested expanding the charge to include review of the Life Insurance Buyer’s Guide (Buyer’s Guide) because “an exploration would not be complete without the review of all applicable disclosures.” However, because the Committee already has an existing charge to revise the Buyer’s Guide, the Committee decided not to make the suggested changes. 
On a separate note, the Committee also voted to disband the Contingent Deferred Annuity (A) Working Group.

  1. Privacy

Late last year, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which became effective on December 4, 2015. The FAST Act included amendments to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) to eliminate the requirement for financial institutions to provide GLBA annual notices provided that certain conditions are met. The changes to the GLBA privacy provisions necessitate the adoption of conforming amendments to the NAIC’s model privacy regulation, the NAIC Privacy of Consumer Financial and Health Information Regulation (#672), in order for insurance companies to utilize this exemption from the annual privacy notice requirement (which other financial institutions were able to utilize immediately). 

At the Spring National Meeting, the NAIC Privacy Disclosures (D) Working Group received comments on proposed amendments to the model privacy regulation which, with minor proposed modifications, are supported by industry and consumer groups. However, given the time it will take to enact the proposed amendments throughout the states, ACLI and the American Insurance Association (AIA) urged the Working Group to consider the development and adoption of a model insurance department bulletin to clarify that a licensee of an insurance department that meets the requisite criteria is not required to provide annual GLBA privacy notices. At the Spring National Meeting, the Working Group adopted a draft model bulletin included in comments received by ACLI, and this model bulletin was subsequently adopted by the Market Regulation and Consumer Affairs (D) Committee.

  1. International Issues 
  1. Group Capital Calculation (E) Working Group

Since 2013, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), at the direction of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), has been developing group capital standards applicable to global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs). Prompted by concerns that international standards being developed fail to account for the U.S. approach to financial solvency regulation, the NAIC is now looking to develop a group capital assessment tool as well. 

At the recommendation of the ComFrame Development and Analysis (G) Working Group (CDAWG), the NAIC Executive Committee and Plenary charged the Financial Condition (E) Committee with constructing a U.S. group capital calculation using an RBC aggregation methodology. During a conference call of the (E) Committee on February 10, 2016, the new Chair, Superintendent Eric Cioppa of Maine, presented that charge to a newly created Group Capital Calculation (E) Working Group and requested that “members of the industry that have already expressed views to the Federal Reserve” share them with staff to the Working Group by March 2, 2016. 

At the Working Group’s meeting at the NAIC’s Spring National Meeting, Working Group Chair David Altmaier of Florida discussed the charge and stated that the calculation will be an assessment tool to assist state insurance regulators in providing a baseline quantitative measure for group risks. The Working Group then heard a presentation from the ACLI, based on a submission made jointly with the American Insurance Association titled An Aggregation and Calibration Approach to Insurer Group Capital. In the discussion that followed, Mr. Altmaier made it clear that the charge is to create a group capital calculation, not a capital standard, as expeditiously as possible, and that the calculation will not be implemented by model rule or statute. 

Other industry groups expressed support for the aggregation approach but raised questions about its scope, how the calculation will be used, and whether it will be field-tested before implementation. The Working Group invited other interested parties to present suggestions regarding the construction of the group capital calculation and plans to organize calls immediately after the Spring National Meeting to discuss such comments. The Working Group hopes to finalize the group capital calculation by the end of 2017. 

  1. IAIS Relationship

The IAIS Secretariat, represented by Andrew Stolfi, Senior Policy Advisor and Communication Officer for IAIS, held a question and answer session for interested parties at the Spring National Meeting as part of 
IAIS’ outreach to stakeholders. 

As part of the session, Stolfi solicited feedback from meeting participants on areas where IAIS can improve its interaction with stakeholders. Meeting participants offered a number of suggestions for improvement, including: (1) adjusting the timing of stakeholder dialogues so that comments can be factored into the decision-making process; (2) providing materials to stakeholders in advance of stakeholder meetings; (3) providing greater transparency into positions taken in connection with IAIS decisions (including minority viewpoints); and (4) generally being more open and communicative. 

  1. Updating RBC Factors for Bonds and Common Stock

Shortly before the start of the Spring National Meeting, the Investment Risk-Based Capital (E) Working Group exposed an “A Way Forward” document that discusses guiding principles for the Working Group and includes a proposed approach for possible revisions to the treatment of bonds and common stocks within the RBC formulas for all statement types (not just life insurance statements, as was previously discussed by the Working Group). The document was exposed for a 45-day public comment period ending May 19. 

The document proposes: (1) updating the number of bond factors from the current six to 20 (which factors will be based upon analysis performed by the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) relating to corporate bonds; (2) using an RBC factor for common stock that is the same for life, property and casualty (P&C), and health; and (3) increasing the P&C and health factors for common stock from the current 15 percent to 19.5 percent (the life factor of 30 percent would remain unchanged because it is believed that this factor puts life insurers on an equal footing with P&C and health insurers after adjusting for differences in tax treatment). The goal is to have the updated bond and common stock factors in place by year-end 2017.

At the Task Force’s meeting, some industry representatives and the AAA suggested that it doesn’t make sense to have the same factors for life, P&C and health, as there are differences in duration of assets, accounting treatment and reserve offsets in statutory policy reserves for these types of insurance. After reiterating that the Working Group is aiming for consistency, Kevin Fry of Illinois, the new Chair of the Working Group, said that the Working Group will listen to arguments as to why some of what has been proposed might need to be changed. 

  1. ORSA Summary Report/Form F Survey

A majority of states have now formally enacted the NAIC Risk Management and Own Risk and Solvency Assessment Model Act (#505), and most of the adopting states required an Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) Summary Report to be filed by the end of 2015. The ORSA Summary Report is a regulatory reporting tool intended to foster effective enterprise risk management (ERM) and provide a group-level perspective on risk. All states are expected to adopt Model #505 by the end of 2017, when the Model becomes an accreditation requirement for state insurance departments. 

In 2010, the NAIC adopted revisions to the Insurance Holding Company System Model Act (#440) and the Insurance Holding Company System Model Regulation (#450) requiring holding company groups to submit an annual filing (Form F) to provide information on exposures that could produce enterprise risk. Form F reporting requirements became required for NAIC accreditation purposes as of January 1, 2016. As a result, most states have received at least one Enterprise Risk Report (Form F) from their domestic insurers as required under the revisions to Model #440. 

The states are now in a position to begin evaluating the effectiveness and value of the Form F reporting process. Therefore, the NAIC Group Solvency Issues (E) Working Group developed a draft survey to gather information from states on their experiences in collecting and utilizing information reported through the Form F process. At the NAIC Spring National Meeting, the survey was revised based on comments received from industry. The biggest change in the survey was the addition of a question relating to potential redundancies between the Form F and the ORSA reporting process. Although the target filer for each report is different (all insurers that are part of a holding company group must file a Form F, while only those above a specified premium threshold must file an ORSA Summary Report), the Working Group agreed to incorporate a question about redundancies between the two reports into the survey. The revised survey will be distributed to the states with responses due by May 20.

  1. Briefly Noted
  1. DOL Fiduciary Rule

At the April 5 meeting of the NAIC/Industry Liaison Committee, the committee heard presentations from the Insured Retirement Institute (IRI), the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) and the ACLI regarding the U.S. Department of Labor’s new “fiduciary rule” that was released on April 6. A discussion of the proposed new rules can be found at: Sutherland Legal Alert: The Final Rule: DOL’s Expanded Definition of Investment Advice Fiduciary Under ERISA and Revised Complex of Exemptions. The industry groups expressed concern that the rule would limit access by IRA consumers to educational materials and products and would limit the range of options available to consumers due to its bias toward fee-based arrangements. 

  1. Issues Related to Seniors

The Market Regulation and Consumer Affairs (D) Committee held a discussion regarding issues related to the financial exploitation of seniors. The Committee discussed whether it should recommend that the NAIC develop informational materials for state regulators or insurance industry professionals to raise awareness about identifying and reporting suspected financial exploitation of seniors or other adults with diminished capacity and whether the NAIC should explore the development of a guideline or model act to provide a safe harbor for insurance professionals who report suspected financial exploitation or forego processing a policy change request because of suspected financial exploitation. The Committee did not adopt any recommendations and will revisit these issues again during an interim conference call. 

  1. Removal of MetLife’s SIFI Designation

At the opening session of the Spring National Meeting, Missouri Insurance Commissioner John Huff acknowledged a federal district court judge’s recent order rescinding MetLife Inc.’s designation as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) in 2014. Commissioner Huff noted that it was an important development that validated the NAIC’s original objection to the designation. 

  1. Commissioner Departures 

The Spring National Meeting in New Orleans was the last National Meeting for Commissioners Kevin McCarty of Florida and Susan Donegan of Vermont. Commissioner McCarty has been involved in NAIC matters for over 25 years, was President of the NAIC from 2012 to 2013, and most recently served as Chair of the International Insurance Relations (G) Committee. Commissioner Donegan was Chair Designee of the International Insurance Regulation (G) Committee, and also served on the Financial Condition (E) Committee, the Cybersecurity (EX) Task Force and the Big Data (D) Working Group.

  1. 2020 NAIC National Meeting Sites

The Executive (EX) Committee selected the meeting locations for the 2020 national meetings. The Spring Meeting will be held in Phoenix, Arizona; the Summer Meeting will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the Fall Meeting will be held in Kansas City, Missouri.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
Contact
more
less

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.