Patrick Watts, assistant vice president of the Downers Grove, Ill.-based Alliance of American Insurers, noted that the rule would hamper insurers from communicating new-coverage and other useful announcements to policyholders.

“If a client has a homeowners policy and the insurer wants to fax a suggestion that the client also have a personal umbrella policy, that could be deemed an advertisement barred by the rule,” Mr. Watts said.

Mr. Watts also pointed out that every insurer fax with a logo or blurb touting the company's products or services could conceivably be considered an advertisement and therefore subject to the rule.

Agent groups were also enthusiastic about the stay, but cautioned that it is only a temporary fix.

“The FCC has apparently come to its senses on this issue,” said Patricia Borowski, senior vice president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents in Washington, D.C. Ms. Borowski emphasized that the do-not-fax rule conflicts with agents' obligation under insurance law to advise their clients on risk assessment issues.

“If there is a significant court decision in a state that affects the need for employment practices liability coverage, and the agent wants to send a fax about the decision and tell the client to call if they want a quote for this coverage, the agent could not do that without a signed permission from the client,” she explained.

Maria Berthoud, senior vice president of federal government affairs for the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America in Alexandria, Va., said that the do-not-fax rule is “an unwarranted and unwanted intrusion into business or customer relationships that have been forged over many years.”

“The rules are a government solution to a non-existent problem,” Ms. Berthoud added. “It is a shining example of a federal regulator overreaching its mandate.” She noted that the rule hinders commerce and economic activity, pointing out that the time and money needed to acquire the signed permissions from thousands of customers in order to send these types of faxes would be daunting.

IIABA executive vice president and general counsel Debra Perkins gave an example of how the rule would hurt her association, noting that “even faxes for an upcoming meeting or business-related course would require prior written consent from the recipient.” Ms. Perkins added that the penalty for noncompliance could be as much as $11,000 per recipient.

As the stay is only temporary, businesses and trade associations must continue to persuade lawmakers and regulators that the rule should not be implemented, the IIABA's Ms. Berthoud noted.

“The stay is only to allow businesses more time to get the written authorizations from clients and make additional comments about the rule,” said PIA's Ms. Borowski.”

A battle was won in getting the stay, but the war against the do-not-fax rule continues, Ms. Borowski stressed.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, August 25, 2003. Copyright 2003 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.