Don Cleasby, assistant general counsel for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said under the current model, regulators are free to ignore results of any market analysis procedures and proceed directly to a market conduct examination.

Market analysis is the catch-all term for data sources regulators could use short of an individual examination to see if a company is treating its customers fairly.

In addition, the current model lacks a self-evaluative privilege that Mr. Cleasby said he believes would encourage more compliance by insurers.

Marsha Harrison, regulatory affairs counsel for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said the original NCOIL draft contained the concept of domestic deference in that primary authority would go to the regulator where an insurer is domiciled. That provision was eliminated to gain NAIC approval, she said.

“The current industry proposal, which does represent industry consensus, is key to the model if the parties at the table are serious about reducing redundancy and duplication in market regulation,” she wrote.

Industry representatives are also seeking an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for companies who consider themselves aggrieved by the market conduct process.

In addition, carrier representatives would like to see examination triggers detailed so companies would have a better idea of what conduct merits oversight and review by the state.