Over the years, other groups emerged, including the Society of Chartered Property-Casualty Underwriters (CPCU) in 1944 and Risk and Insurance Management Society (RIMS) in 1950. Here is a history of some of the most influential agent associations:

Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA)
by Robert A. Rusbuldt, president and CEO, IIABA

The 1929 inaugural edition of American Agent & Broker included commentary from R. P. DeVan, president of the National Assn. of Insurance Agents, now called the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America.

Eighty years later, I'm honored to follow in a long line of Big I leaders and submit the sequel to DeVan's piece.

The Big “I” was founded in 1896 as the National Local Assn. of Fire Insurance Agents. The name was changed to the National Assn. of Insurance Agents in 1913 to reflect the expansion of property-casualty business and coverages. To emphasize its members' ability to work with a variety of insurance companies, we became the Independent Insurance Agents of America in 1975, and took our current name in 2002 to reflect the diversity of membership.

IIABA is now a voluntary federation of state associations and local boards, with affiliates in every state and the District of Columbia. We represent a network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers and their employees nationally and our international membership is also on the rise.

Much has changed over the last 80 years, but our mission remains the same: to advocate for and represent the independent agency system.

In 1929, DeVan warned of the threat of “excess legislative and departmental control.” It is ironic that today we face an economic crisis with many of the same threats and concerns.

As our country recovers, some have clumped insurance with the problems of other financial services markets. As some politicians call for more regulation, we are threatened with having to pay for the deficiencies of other industries.

Our industry is well protected by a strong state regulatory system, which is not to blame for the financial crisis, including the troubles of AIG. As the stability of the insurance market demonstrates, state regulation does a good job of monitoring insurance entities for potential financial trouble by using a variety of tools to help insurers navigate through choppy market waters.

Some are using the crisis and AIG's problems to argue for federal insurance regulation through an “optional” federal charter (OFC), in which insurers could pick and choose whether to be regulated at the state or federal level. This could cost consumers and taxpayers dearly.

DeVan's warning rings true today. The evidence is stacked against more federal regulation. Whether it's commercial banks, investment firms or international holding companies like AIG, problems have followed when the federal government oversees the financial services markets. Those sectors at the center of the financial crisis were regulated by the federal government. Even the 1980s S&L scandal, which cost billions to clean up, was “being watched” by the federal government.

Despite efforts to turn this into a “guilt by association” situation, the health of AIG's state-regulated insurance businesses–particularly its property-casualty operations–proves the effectiveness of our current system in regulating insurance, especially solvency.

Although we oppose federal insurance regulation, our current regulatory system needs modernization, more uniformity and efficiency, and we support federal legislation to achieve these objectives. We support federal laws to achieve reform in agency licensing, excess and surplus lines, and in the future, speed-to-market. But advocating for modernization of the state regulatory system is very different than a day-to-day federal regulator or a dual regulatory system. The threat of excessive government control also looms in the debate about a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private health insurers. The Big “I” supports efforts to provide universal health care coverage to all Americans and to lower health insurance costs across the board. Far too many Americans, 47 million by most estimates, were uninsured this past year. The cost of health insurance is on an unsustainable upward path, with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projecting spending to total $2.5 trillion this year and increase to $4.4 trillion by 2018. Our country must take drastic steps to reform these problems, but we can accomplish this without a government-run health insurance plan, which would have a devastating effect on the private market, health care consumers and independent agents. A public plan would not improve the private market; it would do just the opposite. According to a 2009 Lewin Group Study, if the public plan's reimbursement rates are similar to Medicare, an estimated 119 million people could shift from private insurance to the public plan. The current federal program sets artificially low reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals, which would take a major hit in treating Medicare and Medicaid patients, and those costs are ultimately shifted to private insurers and their consumers. If the proposed public plan is approved, the private market would likely collapse within years and eventually leave the U.S. with a single-payer system. There is a great distinction between health insurance and quality health care, a distinction that is much greater when government serves as the health insurance carrier. This should not be lost on policymakers debating this issue over the next few months. As our country continues to recover from the financial crisis, our elected officials must understand the important role independent agents and the insurance industry play in protecting our financial future. Just as we have done for more than 100 years, the Big “I” will continue to protect policyholders and reaffirm their faith in what independent agents do best: provide choice, customization and advocacy.

National Assn. of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA)
by Ted Pesesparis, senior vice president of communications, PIA

It was Washington, D.C. The year was 1931. There was great economic turmoil in the country. People were concerned about their future, as the nation sunk into the depths of the Great Depression. Twenty-two men met to create the National Assn. of Mutual Insurance Agents–now known as the National Assn. of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA).

While the difference between mutual and stock insurance companies has long since blurred, it was a major point of contention in the early years of the organization. Stock agents of the 1920s and 1930s accused mutual companies of being “communistic” or “socialistic.” This division was so deep that a field representative for a mutual insurance company recalled it was not uncommon to walk into an agency and have the owner say to him, “We don't represent mutual insurance companies, and I would prefer it if you would leave.”

The first meeting of the NAMIA was held Sept. 24, 1931 at the Ambassador Hotel in Washington, D.C. The 22 agents who were there voted the organization into existence, and unanimously adopted these principles:

o Educate agency owners and staff about insurance concepts

o Keep agents informed about changing company offerings

o Increase cooperation between carriers and agents

o Encourage uniform policy writing and assist in proper form completion

o Advocate for agents in legislative matters

o Foster acquaintanceship among agents so they could support one another

o Protect the American Agency System.

The board's first action was to appoint two committees: Company Relations and Communications.

Although legislative problems were not in the forefront at the time, the board agreed to watch activities concerning insurance legislation to ensure that agents were not discriminated against.

One of the purposes of the founding of NAMIA in 1931 was to create national E&O and group life & health insurance programs for mutual insurance agents. Although NAMIA secured the life & health program within a year, E&O was more problematic because at the time U.S. stock insurers would not write a liability program for mutual agents. In 1934, NAMIA established its E&O program–the first for any profession until then–through Lloyd's of London, and we have provided continuous, uninterrupted E&O coverage for agents since then.

Although growth was steady, it wasn't until 1937 that agents outnumbered company representatives at the annual convention. The association had its first full-time CEO in 1939–Phillip Baldwin, who served until his death in 1960.

By 1940, the mutual/stock rift began to disappear, as more stock agents began selling mutual insurance. The trend continued, and in the 1970s NAMIA changed its name to the National Assn. of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA).

PIA has been a supporter of state insurance regulation since its inception. The groundwork for the advocates of federal insurance regulation had been laid out in 1944, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. v South-Eastern Underwriters Assn. et al, held that insurance was a business involved in interstate commerce. After the decision, it was thought that federal antitrust laws would be applied to the insurance industry. The threat of federal regulation was never as great.

Then in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act gave the industry a limited antitrust exemption. Efforts to transfer insurance regulation to Washington, D.C. have been
relentless ever since. In the 1960s Ralph Nader targeted not just General
Motors and the Corvair, but also insurance rates.

In the early 1970s, Sen. Edward Brooke (R-Mass.) introduced the Federal Insurance Act, which would have given insurers a choice of federal or state company charters and granted the industry complete freedom from prior rate approval. An antitrust unit of the Justice Department came out with a report at the same time that paralleled the objectives of the Brook measure. It recommended scrapping McCarran and rate deregulation. Both proposals died.

In the late 1970s, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) authored a bill to institute federal insurance regulation. It died. In the 1980s, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) led a renewed push for federal regulation, excoriating the NAIC and holding hearings on the adequacy of state regulation.

The 1990s brought broad deregulation of financial services. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 reorganized financial services into three distinct sectors: banking, securities and insurance. Regulatory barriers were removed, allowing each to do business in each other's sector. Fortunately, GLBA affirmed that insurance would be state regulated, sparing our industry from last year's meltdown in banking and securities.

At each step of its history, PIA demonstrated resilience by identifying agents' new and changing needs, and then transforming itself to better meet those needs.

“PIA has always adhered to the principles set down by its founders at their first meeting in 1931,” said PIA National executive vice president and CEO Leonard C. Brevik. “When you look at each of our founding principles, it is something PIA does to this day, because the imperatives are unchanged. Our long-range plan states succinctly that PIA's mission is: 'To promote, protect and defend the integrity of our members, the value of their profession and the success of their businesses.' That's what PIA has been doing for 78 years and what we will continue to do for many years to come.”

CIAB
The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB or The Council), headquartered in Washington, D.C., was founded in 1913 to serve the independent brokerage community. The National Association of Insurance Brokers (NAIB), established in 1934, was considered a competitor until the two groups merged in 1998, blending into an association servicing 280 brokers, representing more than 80 percent of the commercial property-casualty market. Today, CIAB serves members in more than 3,000 locations, placing 80 percent (more than $90 billion) of all U.S. insurance products and services. In contrast to PIA and IIABA, the Council's members are primarily large global agencies and brokerages.

The Council provides members with industry intelligence and a variety of educational opportunities through its series of annual Leadership Forums and its partnership with WebCE to provide continuing education opportunities.

AAMGA
The American Assn.of Managing General Agents (AAMGA) was established in 1926 to serve the interests of companies and agents. In 1983, the AAMGA opened its membership ranks to domestic and foreign insurance companies, underwriters and other organizations that provided services to the MGA system.

In order to enhance the AAMGA's leadership role this vital segment of the insurance industry, the Association' Board of Directors has developed a group of significant member services. In addition:

AAMGA members are committed to providing the most economically efficient means of insurance distribution.

• AAMGA members are committed to maintaining a sound professionals image, continuing education and long-range personal development. They work with industry professionals to hold timely and informative educational training sessions aimed at enhancing members' professional competence and capabilities.

AAMGA members are committed to a thriving insurance industry. Members convene at the Annual and other regular meeting throughout the year to communicate and cooperate with other segments of the insurance industry to support improvements in the business of insurance. Further, the annual “Trade Mart” and International Seminar provide mechanism through which Active and Associate Members establish contacts and foster relationships for their mutual benefits. Working with insurance companies, insurance related business and agents, AAMGA has continued service to the insurance industry with renewed commitment to growth and prosperity for its member companies and the industry they serve.

NAPSLO
The National Assn. of Professional Surplus Lines Offices, Ltd. (NAPSLO) is a national trade association representing the surplus lines industry and the wholesale insurance marketing system.

Since it was founded in 1975, NAPSLO has become the authoritative voice of surplus lines. Acting as a source of information, NAPSLO spends a great deal of time identifying and explaining to regulatory, other segments of the insurance industry, the media and the public the vital role surplus lines plays in the insurance industry. The NAPSLO logo is inscribed with the Latin phrase “Uberrima Fides,” which means “in the utmost good faith.” This serves as a symbol of the professionalism, and purpose of the members and the association. Applicants must meet financial and conduct standards in order to join the association and NAPSLO members must follow a code of ethics in dealing with customers and companies. Dealing with a NAPSLO member ensures that you are dealing with a knowledgeable surplus lines broker or company. Members are kept up to date by NAPSLO concerning changes in the industry. The association works with regulators regarding relevant legislation, provides educational opportunities and seminars, and offers other important services to its members and the industry. In doing so, NAPSLO and its members can provide additional value by knowing when new insurance products are needed and offering them to answer the needs of the ever changing social and insurance environment.