Moreover, the survey found, only 11 percent of consumers said they would try to resolve a complaint against a life insurer with a state insurance commissioner.

Rather, 57 percent of consumers said they would turn to a lawyer.

Phil Anderson, senior vice president of government affairs for ACLI, said the survey represents another reason why Congress should create a federal regulatory option.

He noted that opponents of optional federal chartering often cite consumer protection as a reason for their opposition. Consumer protection, Anderson says, is a legitimate issue.

But it is illegitimate and inaccurate to say that consumers would be worse off under federal regulation than they are today.

Opponents of optional federal chartering say consumers would be more confused and have less opportunity to redress concerns under a federal system, according to Mr. Anderson.

However, he said, the survey reveals that consumers could not be more confused about regulation than they are now.

Moreover, Mr. Anderson said, a study in August of 2000 by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America found that more than half the states were more than 40 percent below the minimum funding level needed to fully protect consumers.

In addition, he noted, the CFA survey found that the state system overall was almost 25 percent below the minimum funding necessary.

Mr. Anderson observed that in recent testimony on optional federal chartering, ACLI said that under a federal system, consumers will have more uniform and consistent protections nationwide.