[brief] THE DEPARTMENT’S BULLETIN REQUIRING THE IMPOSITION OF THE HOLDING ACT IS CONTRARY TO THE REA’S PLAIN LANGUAGE AND THE DEPARTMENT’S PRECEDENT.  (A1-2).  The Appellate Division defined the term “reciprocal,” or “reciprocal insurance,” as a system of insurance whereby several individuals, partnerships, or corporations underwrite each other’s risks against loss . . . through an attorney in fact, common to all, under an agreement that each underwriter acts separately and severally and not jointly with each other.  The authority to enter reciprocal insurance contracts is set forth at N.J.S.A. 17:50-1 to -19.  [DeVito v. Sheeran, 165 N.J. 167, 171 n. 2 (2000) (alteration in original). ]  Relatedly, N.J.S.A. 17:50-1 provides:  Individuals, partnerships, trustees and all corporations of this State, herein designated “subscribers,” are hereby authorized to exchange reciprocal or interinsurance contracts with each other and with individuals, partnerships, trustees and corporations of other States, districts, provinces and countries, for any or all of the kinds of business for which a company may be formed or authorized to transact under the provisions of chapter seventeen of Title 17 of the Revised Statutes, except life insurance.  [N.J.S.A. 17:50-1.]  The REA, which was passed in 1945, expressly “incorporated a provision that exchanges created under the statute ‘shall be regulated by this act, and by no other statute of this State relating to insurance, except as herein otherwise provided. ’”  In re Reorganization of Med. Inter-Ins. Exch. of N.J., 328 N.J. Super. 344, 355–56 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting N.J.S.A. 17:50–1).  Importantly, this Court has held “[a] reciprocal association differs from a mutual company in that it has no corporate existence. ”  Id. at 355.  Conversely, the Holding Act—the statute the Department seeks to apply here—was passed twenty-five years later in 1970, and yet it defines an “insurer” as any person or persons, corporation, partnership or company authorized by the laws of this State to transact the business of insurance or to operate a health maintenance organization in this State, except that it shall not include agencies, authorities or instrumentalities of the United States, its possessions and territories, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, or a state or political subdivision of a state.  [N.J.S.A. 17:27A-1(e).]  The statute defines “person” as “an individual, a corporation, a limited liability company, partnership, an association, a joint stock company, a trust, an unincorporated organization, any similar entity or any combination of the foregoing acting in concert. ”  Id. at -1(f).  Thus, the Department’s assertion that “[a] reciprocal exchange falls squarely within the definition of insurer in the [Holding Act] as defined in N.J.S.A. 17:27(A)-1(e)” is incorrect.  2022 WL 18427017, at *1 (Ja2).  The Department recently has claimed that the Holding Act’s provisions control, stating that “[a]ll laws and parts of laws of this State inconsistent with this chapter are hereby superseded with respect to matters covered by this chapter. ”  N.J.S.A. 17:27A-13.  The Department is again incorrect.  The terms of the Holding Act and the REA are not inconsistent; rather, the Holding Act just does not apply to reciprocals.  As stated above, the words “reciprocal exchange” do not appear anywhere, nor does the Holding Act express an intention to overrule the exclusive jurisdiction of the REA.  This is obvious by the forty years of history since the Holding Act was enacted, during which time the Department never sought to apply it to reciprocals and repeatedly admitted that it did not and could not apply absent new legislation.