"During this week's special session, we recognize that lawmakers are facing tough decisions regarding the future of the state's homeowners insurance market," said Jeff Brewer, a spokesman for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).

"There are strong pressures for them to deliver tangible solutions to voters, but given the complexity of the issues and the scope of the problem, there are no quick fixes," said Mr. Brewer.

Among the proposals being made in the House is one by Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, to bar the formation of Florida-only subsidiaries as of Jan. 1, 2008.

The provision allowing such subsidiaries was enacted in the wake of Hurricane Andrew, noted Ms. Pulliam, who called the bill a "solution in search of a nonexistent problem" that would serve as a disincentive for insurers to operate in Florida.

Also known as "pup companies," only four major insurers--Nationwide, Travelers, State Farm and Allstate--have established Florida-only subsidiaries.

Another area of major concern for the industry involves language in the House legislative package that would force insurers that offer any kind of coverage in Florida to also offer property coverage if they do so in another jurisdiction. Such a proposal, if enacted, "will discourage new capital from entering Florida," Ms. Pulliam said.

The House proposals would also call for insurers to return excess profits to policyholders and require the state Office of Insurance Regulation to consider the national parent company of a Florida affiliate when determining what constitutes an "excess" profit.

Ms. Pulliam said that proposal is "totally out of line" with Florida's rating laws, which dictate that loss experience be based on Florida only.

The House proposals would also bar insurers from nonrenewals or cancelling coverage during the hurricane season, and mandate that claims be either paid or denied within 90 days.

Both the House and Senate proposals seek to reform the state's Catastrophe Fund, with the main provisions allowing for insurers to buy additional coverage at lower retention levels and additional coverage beyond the current Cat Fund's limits.

However, since the coverage would be at a lower price than through private reinsurers, the legislation also mandates that any savings be passed directly to consumers.

The state Senate has included a provision that would shift much of the loss from a major event from the insurance market onto the taxpayers.

Under the Senate legislative package, insurers' liability to pay claims would be capped at $19 billion, with the state picking up the tab for 90 percent of losses beyond that amount. While this provision "would take private insurers off the hook" in the event of a major storm, Ms. Pulliam noted that it will likely be a tough sell in conference due to the potential costs to taxpayers.

Other proposals in the legislative packages would repeal many of the regulatory reforms enacted in 2006, such as flex rating for insurers and rate increases for the state insurer of last resort, Citizen's Property Insurance Company.

Consumers would also be allowed to tailor their coverage, excluding coverage for contents or forsaking coverage altogether for properties without a mortgage. While these provisions would help consumers reduce their premiums, Ms. Pulliam noted that Fannie Mae has already signaled its opposition.

On a positive note for insurers, however, both the House and Senate call for the removal of an exemption to state building code laws for the state's Panhandle region.