He further said that it is virtually impossible for consumers to make a fair, comparative evaluation of the policies they are buying because the policies are not available until after the consumer purchases insurance. He also asserted that neither brokers nor agents have access to the policies they are selling in order to review the extent of differences in coverage.

Mr. Schwarcz, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School, based his conclusions on research he did into homeowners policies. His examination covered policies from the top 10 carriers in four states (California, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Illinois) that he obtained through regulators.

Mr. Schwarcz's findings were first presented during the NAIC's summer meeting in August.

Earlier this month Insurance Information Institute President Robert P. Hartwig countered Mr. Schwarcz's findings, saying that insures offer different policies to consumers to distinguish themselves in a very competitive marketplace. He also said agents and brokers have to be knowledgeable about the policies they are selling in order to add value to the products they sell.

Mr. Schwarcz wrote a rebuttal that will appear in National Underwriter.

While being questioned by regulators during yesterday's committee hearing, Mr. Schwarcz said his study did not go into how the difference in coverage affects the price of the policy homeowners purchase. However, he emphasized that the point of his research is that consumers have a difficult time obtaining the kind of information they need to make informed choices based on differences in coverage.

He agreed with one line of argument pursued by Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Thomas R. Sullivan that many consumers do not read their policies in full. He also agreed that the proper place for the evaluation of policy quality may ultimately lie with groups that evaluate consumer products, such as Consumer Reports, once that information is made more widely available.