May 21, 2012

Big States, Bad Insurance Regulation

Financial sector regulation has been a hot topic ever since the passage of the Dodd-Frank reform act. Initially, many insurers worried they would be lumped in with the banks that exposed the nation to systemic risk. By and large, those fears have been unfounded, and carriers will face few onerous fundamental oversight changes. But this is far from the only major regulatory challenge they should be concerned with.

A new report from the Heartland Institute has handed out grades to each state's insurance regulation scheme and 10 received an F or a D, with the country's four most populous states (Florida, California, Texas and New York) ranking in the bottom six and Florida finishing dead last. States were ranked on how free consumers are to choose the products they want and how free insurers are to offer products of their choosing.

"Florida experienced a wave of insurer insolvencies resulting mostly from over-regulation of the market," states the report. The result of these insurer failures in Florida was that many consumers were "sent scampering" to other carriers and the state-run Florida Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.

The poor grades in these large states come in contrast to the national trend, however. Overall, the Heartland Institute did find a positive uptick in freedom for buyers.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Senior Editor

Jared Wade is the senior editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5919

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.