These include a request by industry for clarification of what actually triggers a terrorist event, which is necessary for the program to be launched in the wake of an event. The industry consensus is that the Treasury Department should be provided authority to do so. This issue was touched on during House hearings on the issue last year. For example, Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, testified at a House hearing, "It is generally agreed that we need a tightening of that certification process." 

The House, however, is another story. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, has made clear that he "wants to put his own stamp" on the legislation, most likely through demands for more industry skin in the game. There are signs, however, that the power of the Tea Party-types Hensarling answers to, is receding in the House. For example, legislation that effectively kicks down the road the major impact of increases to actuarial rates for the National Flood Insurance Program, and legislation extending the so-called "Doc-Fix" for physicians under Medicare, have all been pushed through the House recently despite determined Tea Party opposition. 

At the same time, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America held an event last week that yielded a letter to Congress from a host of members of the Chamber of Commerce indicating strong support for quick and certain action on this issue. The press was not invited. The event was held on Capitol Hill.

"Since its initial enactment in 2002, TRIA has served as a vital public-private risk sharing mechanism, ensuring that private terrorism risk insurance coverage remains commercially available at virtually no cost to the taxpayer," the letter said. "TRIA fosters certainty in the marketplace and allows all of these interconnected elements of the economy to continue to move forward," it added.

PCI said its recent research confirms that business executives are worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack happening in the U.S. in the next few years and they are concerned the attack could have a negative impact on the economy and significantly impact their business operations, according to Nat Wienecke, PCI senior vice president, federal government relations, and Robert Gordon, PCI's senior vice president, policy development and research, moderated a panel discussion on, "Enduring Protection and Vigilance: Reauthorizing the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act," at the briefing. 

Model Holding Company Act Re-opened for Modification

The American Insurance Association secured a top priority: reopening the Model Holding Company Act for further modification, at the recent spring meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in Orlando.

The NAIC Executive Committee voted by voice vote at the conference's plenary session last Sunday to approve reopening the model law to change, after adding some guidance. The issue was referred to the Financial Condition (E) Committee where development of any changes would take place as part of the 2014 work of the Group Solvency Issues (E) Working Group.  The NAIC expects that any amendments to the Act would be completed by year's end.

"We don't expect this to be a long process," said Adam Kerns, AIA assistant general counsel. The Executive Committee "implied that they wanted this done as soon as practical." 

The AIA wants the E Group to develop uniform group-supervision language that reflects the fact that interest in insurance regulation has changed to a global issue since the last model law was approved in 2010. Over 20 states have adopted the latest version of the Holding Company Model Law, Kerns said. 

"As things seemed to start moving quickly on the international-regulatory front, states were taking it upon themselves to amend their Model Holding Company Acts to address the issue of group-wide supervision," Kerns said in explaining why AIA has established uniformity as a priority. 

"It became quite apparent that the NAIC needed to re-open the Model in order to develop uniform language for the states to adopt on this issue," Kerns said. "It is important that when these Models are enacted in the states that they are done so uniformly."

"The justification for prompt NAIC action is that states have been adopting Model Law Holding Company Acts that are somewhat different than the model, which presents problems to our members," added Lisa Brown, AIA senior counsel & director of  Compliance Resources. "Without uniformity, it presents the potential for conflicts between the states. We want a uniform process developed."

This is not product specific, nor line specific," Brown said. "It just deals with how you are regulated; it needs to be uniform."

She acknowledged that a primary AIA concern is for a uniform U.S. approach as  international regulatory discussions "move along rapidly." Brown said the talks are aimed "at speaking a common language in overseeing insurance companies, and it was felt that a uniform stance from U.S. regulators was important."

Another issue is modernization of rate and form regulation across state lines. She said this would also likely impact foreign insurers looking at U.S. markets "who might be discouraged because of the onerous regulatory regime."

On the other hand, she said, "inaction would at the same time lessen the willingness of foreign governments and insurers to let U.S. companies compete. It could be a trickle-down."