Mr. Sorich noted that insurers got swept into a privacy measure that in fact was aimed at other types of financial institutions. “The allegations made [by consumer groups backing the bill] didnt really apply to insurers,” in Mr. Sorichs opinion.

“In California, insurance company privacy practices have been regulated for 20 years. But the practical impact is that [the legislation] will negatively affect our member companies,” Mr. Sorich added.

The bill would require financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies to get permission from consumers before sharing personal data with other companies, whether those other companies are affiliated with the financial institution or not.

Explaining the difference between GLB and the California bill, Mr. Sorich pointed out that, for non-affiliated companies, consumers have to opt-out under GLB if they dont want their information shared. As respects affiliated companies, GLB allows the financial institution to share customers personal information.

Under the California bill, there is no sharing among non-affiliated companies unless the consumer opts-in. And consumers would have the option of opting out if they dont want information shared with an affiliate of the financial institution.

“It doesnt make sense to have a California-only set of privacy rules for insurers operating nationwide,” Mr. Sorich said. “The law also would hamper insurers ability to notify customers of other products and services they may need.”

(Check NUs Online News Service at www.nationalunderwriter.com for updates on the bills signing.)

Reproduced from National Underwriter Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, September 1, 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.