Like PIA, IIABA opposes the settlement because it mandates that agents and brokers provide insureds with the company's compensation disclosure form.

The attorneys general argued that the associations were filing the briefs too early in the process.

The attorneys general from California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia filed the opposing brief.

“Imposition of this form on agents and brokers will inhibit agents' and brokers' communication with their customers and increase customer confusion regarding incentive compensation,” said IIABA President Alex Soto, who is also president of Miami, Fla.-based InSource Inc., in a statement.

Robert A. Rusbuldt, chief executive officer of IIABA, said: “The intervening attorneys general represented to the court in August 2006 that they intend to seek court approval of the Zurich Settlement, which includes the requirement that brokers and agents provide their customers with the mandatory disclosure statement.

“If it was timely for them to intervene in August for that purpose, our request to appear as amicus curiae [friends of court] is timely now.”

IIABA said that contrary to suggestions in the opposition's brief, the association does not oppose “pre-binding disclosure” of incentive compensation; rather, it opposes the proposed requirement that brokers and agents provide their customers with Zurich's mandatory disclosure form, explained Mr. Soto.

“The [IIABA] was not a party to the negotiations and had no opportunity to raise its concerns about the mandatory disclosure form before the Zurich settlement requiring it was executed,” Mr. Rusbuldt added.

Debra L. Perkins, executive vice president and general counsel for IIABA, said by filing now the association was giving the settling parties the opportunity to revise the mandatory disclosure form provision voluntarily.

A copy of the complete reply brief is available at www.independentagent.com.