Essentially, it proposes additional criteria for the granting of a commercial deregulation exemption for a risk that is a large commercial insured who employs or retains a special risk manager to assist in the negotiation and purchase of a policy exempted under this provision.

Read Other Regulatory/Compliance Posts by Kathy Donovan

The currently proposed timeframe for this exemption is until June 30, 2013, and as written excludes medical malpractice policies. This bill, of course, has multiple other qualifying criteria, definitions, and requirements, all of which are subject to possible further revisions before any possible future enactment.

Another New York proposal addresses a very unpleasant problem that's received a lot of media attention over the past year. SB 4926 seeks to require homeowner's, renter's, and condo/co-op unit insurers to include a provision in their policies that would provide for optional coverage to pay the costs associated with the treatment of bedbug infestations.

This proposed policy provision includes all costs for extermination services, as well as the costs of cleaning of the insured's property and personal property located at the insured premises, such as the dry cleaning of clothing and bedding.  It also includes the cost of replacing items that aren't able to be treated or cleaned, including mattresses or furniture.

While the industry awaits word on these pending legislative proposals, among many others, regulatory action continues. Maryland's recent Bulletin 11-16 reminds insurers that a personal injury protection (PIP) surcharge is prohibited under § 19-507(c) of the Insurance Article. An insurer that issues a policy that contains PIP coverage may not impose a surcharge or re-tier the policy for a claim or payment made under that coverage.

Furthermore, at the time the policy is issued the insurer must notify the policyholder in writing that a surcharge may not be imposed and the policy may not be re-tiered for a claim or payment made under PIP coverage.

Massachusetts Bulletin 11-14 was issued to provide guidance on upcoming changes to required language in claims valuation provisions in motor vehicle insurance policies. Insurers will not be permitted to offer, issue, or renew motor vehicle insurance policies in Massachusetts on and after Apr. 1, 2012 unless appropriate forms have been placed on file with the Division in compliance with this Bulletin. 

Nevada's Bulletin 11-005 provides clarification on the provisions of AB 74 (2011), which addresses exceptions for extraordinary life events in underwriting or rating when using consumer credit information.

Effective Oct. 1, 2011, insurers are required to provide reasonable exceptions in their rates, rating classifications, tier placement, and underwriting rules and guidelines for certain extraordinary life circumstances of an applicant or existing policyholder.

Similar to the latest revision to the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) credit scoring model, an applicant or policyholder whose credit information has been directly influenced by these extraordinary life circumstances may request in writing that his or her credit information not be considered in the underwriting and rating of the policy.

Insurers must provide a notice to their applicants and policyholders explaining that reasonable exceptions for extraordinary life events are available, as well as explain how they may request further information on how to apply for an exception. There is also a filing requirement for insurers, as personal line insurers using credit information in rating or underwriting must submit appropriate changes by Sept. 15, 2011 for approval. Insurers may request a 60-day extension of this filing deadline.

Oklahoma recently adopted response time changes to Regulation 365:15-3-5, specifically regarding the increase in permissible timeframes for acknowledging a notice of claim, responding to the Insurance Department, and providing forms and assistance on claims to first party claimants:

Response to notification of claim. The timeframe for acknowledgement of notice of a claim has been revised to be within 30 business days, up from 20 business days, unless payment is made within such period of time.

Response to inquiries from the Insurance Department: Property and casualty insurers now have 30 days, rather than the former 15 days, to provide an adequate response to inquiries from the Insurance Department regarding a claim.

Response to other pertinent communications: What formerly had been 20 business days within which an insurer was required to reply to pertinent communications from a claimant has now been expanded to within 30 days of receipt of such communications. 

Provision of forms and assistance on claims to first-party claimants: The compliance timeframe is now within 30 days of notification of a claim, an increase from "within 20 business days" of such notification.

Regardless of the time of the year, there certainly are continuing reminders about what property and casualty insurers need to do to maintain regulatory compliance, some with upcoming calendar deadlines. And the reality is that there are still multiple opportunities for the more lengthy state legislative sessions to potentially enact additional bills impacting the industry.