U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–166 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–25

THE MCCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT AND ANTITRUST

IMMUNITY: GOOD FOR CONSUMERS?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 7, 2007

Serial No. J–110–16

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Leahy, Patrick J., Leahy, a U.S.Senator from the State of Vermont .................. 1

Kennedy, Hon. Edward, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 85

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the the State of Pennsylvania .......... 3

Whitehouse, Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 140

WITNESSES 

Homan, Michael M., Homeowner, New Orleans, Lousisiana ............................... 9

Hunter, J. Robert, Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 11

Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ................ 6

Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi .......................... 4

Racicot, Marc, former Governor of Montana and President, American Insurance Association, Washington, D.C. ................................................................... 12

Voss, Susan E., Iowa Insurance Commissioner, and Vice Chair, Financial 

Conditions Committee, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 13

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of J. Robert Hunter to questions submitted by Senator Specter ....... 19

Responses of Marc Racicot to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Specter, and Landrieu ................................................................................................. 22

Responses of Susan Voss to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Specter, 

Grassley, and Landrieu ....................................................................................... 29

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), Gary E. Hughes, Executive Vice 

President and General Counsel, and David Leifer, Senior Counsel, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................................................................... 43

Homan, Michael M., Homeowner, New Orleans, Louisiana, statement ............. 46

Hunter, J. Robert, Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, 

Washington, D.C., statement and attachments ................................................. 52

Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, statement ................................................................................................... 80

Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana, statement ...................................................................................................................... 88

Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from te Statement of Mississippi, statement . 93

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC), Washington, 

D.C., statement .................................................................................................... 96

National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, Alexandria, Virginia, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 101

National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), Mary Jane Cleary, 

Washington Affairs Executive and Counsel, Washington, D.C., letter and 

attachments .......................................................................................................... 102

Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, Washington, D.C., statement ...................................................................................................................... 111

Racicot, Marc, former Governor of Montana and President, American Insurance Association, Washington, D.C., statement ................................................ 117

Page

IV

Voss, Susan E., Iowa Insurance Commissioner, and Vice Chair, Financial 

Conditions Committee, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 

Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 127

(1)

THE MCCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT AND ANTITRUST IMMUNITY: GOOD FOR CONSUMERS? 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Specter, Hatch, and Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. When Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast in 2005, it caused unimaginable devastation 

to the region’s residents. My friend from Mississippi and my friend 

from Louisiana, Senator Lott and Senator Landrieu, have expended 

every effort to provide help to those who have suffered. They remind us in caucus, on the floor, in the hallways, in the dining 

rooms of the Senate, and in our offices that the victims are not confined to any one demographic group. The devastation did not care 

whether you were old or young, man or woman, white or black, or 

whether you had a political affiliation with either the Republican 

or Democratic parties. 

So today we focus on a subject that has concerned me for some 

time, a topic that in the wake of the behavior of certain insurance 

companies in the Gulf Coast has been thrust into the forefront. Our 

topic is the Federal antitrust immunity of the insurance industry 

contained in Federal law and whether we should end that so that 

the insurance industry will operate by the same good competition 

laws that apply to most other industries. I have never quite understood in today’s day and age why they should have this special 

privilege that other companies do not have. 

Our Nation’s competition laws can be powerful tools to ensure 

that consumer welfare is the benchmark for fair and accountable 

industry practices. Consumers benefit through lower prices, more 

choices, and better services. Those benefits come from competition. 

The antitrust immunity for the insurance industry, contained in 

the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act—I was 5 years old. It is about 

time we relook at that—raises serious concerns with me. Insurance 

industry practices affect all of us. If the antitrust immunity is used 

in a way that distorts the market, that leads to higher prices and 

poorer service, consumers throughout the country can be harmed. 

2

The potential for insurance industry abuse became clear on the 

Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Residents, who lost 

so much as a result of the 2005 hurricanes and then were let down 

by a woefully unprepared Government, were then left to face insurance companies refusing to fulfill their commitments and help rebuild. No one should have to go through what these Americans 

have been through. 

Senator Lott and Senator Landrieu can relate as well as anyone 

to the difficulty their constituents have had with insurers, insurers 

that have no problem collecting premiums when times are good, 

but cannot be found when tragedy strikes. Their States were hit 

hardest by Hurricane Katrina, and I commend both these Senators 

for their tireless efforts. 

Now that the Gulf Coast is rebuilding, two of the area’s biggest 

home insurers—Allstate and State Farm—are moving out and 

abandoning the area. A recent editorial in the Times Picayune implored the Louisiana Insurance Commissioner to make sure 

Allstate’s refusal to write new home insurance policies in New Orleans ‘‘is not another systematic effort by the company to cancel 

thousands of policies for which homeowners have been paying premiums.’’ 

They are not moving out because the companies have hit on hard 

times. I believe State Farm last year announced a net income of 

over $5 billion. 

Both Allstate and State Farm want to keep their special status, 

exempt from the antitrust laws. They want to keep that status, but 

both—both—rejected my offer to come here today and explain to 

the Committee why they deserve it. I think they hope that their 

lobbyists can keep it for them and they will never have to tell the 

public why they deserve it. 

The bottom line is right now we do not know what anticompetitive acts insurers may be engaging in because the antitrust immunity insurers enjoy acts as a curtain that hides their activity from 

Federal antitrust authorities. 

The Insurance Industry Competition Act that I have introduced 

with Senators Specter and Lott and Reid and Landrieu would pull 

back that curtain to give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to apply our Federal competition laws to insurance companies. 

Our antitrust laws are about good competition policy. Competition is good for consumers; it is actually good for our economy. It 

is the cornerstone of our economic system. Insurers may object to 

being subject to the same antitrust laws as everybody else, but if 

they are operating in an honest and appropriate way, they should 

not have anything to fear. 

So I hope that this hearing will spark a serious, thoughtful debate about insurance industry practices—those that benefit consumers and those that do not. Insurers often say that their behavior is pro-competitive. Well, if that is true, they should have been 

willing to come in and testify, and application of the antitrust laws 

should not be controversial. Under our Federal antitrust laws, procompetitive behavior is encouraged. It is time to pull back the curtain of immunity and let the light shine in. 

Senator Specter? 

3

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to see 

the Committee moving ahead this year to act to repeal McCarranFerguson. Legislation was introduced last year. We had a hearing 

last year. We made some progress. And with the intervening events 

on Katrina and what has happened in the Gulf States, there is additional ammunition and facts to support repeal of McCarran-Ferguson. And I join you, Senator Leahy, in welcoming our distinguished colleagues, Senator Lott and Senator Landrieu. 

The McCarran-Ferguson law provides that there will be antitrust 

exemption where insurers are subject to State regulation. But it 

continues that exemption even though there is, in fact, no State 

regulation, and that has left an enormous void. The situation in 

New York with respect to the Marsh, McLennan case and what has 

happened in the Gulf States provide ample evidence of anticompetitive activities, collusion, and violations of the antitrust laws, which 

ought to be subject to Federal prosecution. 

The legislation this year eliminates two of the safe harbors, 

which was in the legislation introduced last year, and I would be 

interested in any comment by the insurance industry, if they have 

it, with respect to those two safe harbors. We know that the legislation introduced by Congressman Brooks in 1994 fell under the 

weight of almost 50 State harbors. But the legislation leaves latitude for the Department of Justice and the FTC to identify practices which are not anticompetitive. But, still, the weight of the 

Federal Government can be brought to bear. And I think the realities are that unless you have a State like New York with the resources of the Attorney General and the initiatives of an Attorney 

General like Attorney General Spitzer, this is not a matter that 

ought to be left to the States. Simply stated, too important. 

So I am glad to see the Committee moving forward. I hope we 

can get this legislation to the floor, enact it, and work with the 

House to pass some effective antitrust legislation to enable the 

antitrust laws to go forward without this exemption. 

I am going to have to excuse myself for a few minutes. We have 

the county commissioners from Pennsylvania in town today, and 

the corridor and the anteroom is blocked off with quite a number 

of my constituents. 

Chairman LEAHY. I wondered who all those people were. 

Senator SPECTER. I know that my colleagues, Senator Lott and 

Senator Landrieu, will understand that temporary priority. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Lott, of course, is the Deputy Republican Leader in the 

Senate, he has been the distinguished Majority Leader of the Senate, and he is one of the leaders of the Republican Party. Senator 

Landrieu is the senior Senator from Louisiana. She is considered 

in our caucus a leading voice on this whole question of how we respond to the thousands of constituents whose homes were damaged 

or destroyed by the hurricanes and now nearly 2 years later are 

struggling. 

What I am going to do is go by seniority. We will ask Senator 

Lott to speak first, then Senator Landrieu to speak, and then if eiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:59 May 14, 2007 Jkt 035166 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35166.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4

ther of you after you speak care to join us up here on the dais, 

please feel free. 

Senator Lott? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator LOTT. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

First, a bit of Whip work. I understand that the votes we had 

been told would occur at 10 o’clock have been moved to this afternoon. 

Chairman LEAHY. That is right. 

Senator LOTT. So we have a little more latitude there, thank 

goodness. 

I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling 

this hearing. While there was a hearing last year, I do not think 

it got quite as much attention or as much interest as it has developed over the past few months. But you have taken up this issue 

with courage and enthusiasm, and we do appreciate that very 

much. 

I have visited with Senator Specter several times over the last 

year about this subject. The two of you are experts in this area, 

and you have been talking about your concerns in this area before. 

And now is the time where we ask ultimate questions and actually 

act. So I thank you very much for providing us this forum. 

I do want to say what a pleasure it is to be here with my colleague from Louisiana. When you bleed together, you form a bond 

that, you know, nothing can interfere with. And we have stood together, we have fought together, we have worked together to try 

to help our constituents that were devastated by the most cataclysmic natural disaster in the history of our country, Hurricane 

Katrina. We have worked together, and the cosponsorship of this 

bill is symbolic of how we have approached this. This is not an 

issue that is partisan or philosophical, and you do not have to be 

a lawyer to ask questions about how this happened and what does 

it really mean and how does it affect people that need help. 

I want to note that there is a homeowner here—I am sure Senator Landrieu got him here—Michael Homan from New Orleans, 

and he is going to tell his personal story. We are fellow slab owners. It is a strong association that has been formed. And I think 

it will be interesting to hear his story. 

You know, I did not come at this issue from the standpoint of a 

plaintiff lawyer or somebody that had it in for the insurance industry. I did not, and I still do not. All I want is for them to do the 

right thing and to properly pay people for the insurance coverage 

that they had. 

I could go on a long litany of questions and concerns, disappointments, hurt, and horror that I have found since Hurricane Katrina. 

I had all of my insurance for over 50 years with State Farm, and 

when I practiced law, I practiced law with a predominantly insurance company defense firm. But somehow along the line there, I 

missed the point that McCarran-Ferguson actually gives an exemption from our antitrust laws to the insurance industry. And as I 

witnessed the behavior of the industry in their response to Katrina, 

which until this day continues, even though there have been some 

5

fits and starts, some indications maybe they are going to do more, 

and denials that there was any kind of collusion or that there is 

any kind of price fixing, I got more and more curious about the history, the rationale, and the wisdom of such a broad exemption from 

Federal oversight. 

So I took the time to go back and look at it, like any semi-good 

lawyer ought to. How did this happen? And I found that until 1944, 

regulation of business of insurance resided securely with the States 

based on the rationale that this business did not meet the legal 

definition of ‘‘interstate commerce.’’ That year, 1944, the insurance 

industry was turned on its head by a Supreme Court decision in 

the case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association. By signaling that the business of insurance is interstate commerce, the case brought about a knee-jerk reaction from Congress 

in a bill that would eventually be known as McCarran-Ferguson. 

Soon after that decision, Senators McCarran and Ferguson introduced a bill that within just 2 weeks and without any hearings and 

without any significant debate—basically no debate—passed the 

Senate. The House passed a similar measure with little debate. A 

review of the Congressional Record shows clearly that the intent of 

both Houses was to provide only a temporary moratorium rather 

than a permanent exemption. 

It was while the bill was being discussed by the conference Committee that a seemingly innocuous phrase was inserted. It was this 

modification—not in either the House or the Senate versions of the 

bill—that, when judicially interpreted, turned a temporary moratorium into a permanent exemption. 

The House approved the conference report without debate. The 

Senate, in contrast, finally woke up and debated the conference report for 2 days. Again, the record of the debate clearly shows that 

a permanent exemption was not the intent of those who voted for 

its passage. 

So clear was the intent that President Roosevelt, upon signing 

the bill, stated the following in the press release: ‘‘After a moratorium period, the antitrust laws...will be applicable in full force and 

effect to the business of insurance....’’ 

So what happened? The problem resides in the interpretation of 

that phrase, ‘‘regulated by State law.’’ Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurers are exempt from Federal antitrust scrutiny as 

long as they are regulated by State law. Courts have interpreted 

this phrase to require only that State regulators have jurisdiction 

over particular conduct, regardless of whether that authority is 

ever exercised. 

Now, here is what I found the problem is. You know, when I 

came to Washington, I guess I was pure in a lot of areas. As the 

years have gone by, I have found I am not pure in any area because I find that there is always another side to the story. There 

is a colorization. Yes, I think State insurance commissioners have 

a primary role. I do not want, you know, insurance regulation just 

to be taken over by the Federal Government. But I have also found 

this. Insurance commissioners are in a terrible quandary. If they 

do not allow the insurance companies to jack up their rates 200 

percent, 400 percent, or endlessly, they run the risk of the company, whether it is Allstate in some States or State Farm in my 

6

State, saying, ‘‘Hey, we are out of here. We are not going to provide 

property and casualty insurance. Oh, but we will continue to pick 

off that nice plum auto insurance and commercial insurance.’’ And 

the insurance commissioner is in a real difficult position. 

But it goes beyond that. You know, antitrust laws. Shouldn’t 

every corporation in America have to comply with that? How do we 

make sure that there is not price fixing or collusion or anticompetitive conduct of one kind of another? There should be some Federal 

role here. 

I cannot for the life of me understand why we have allowed this 

exemption to stay in place so long. If there is no problem, then 

what is their concern? I have been surprised by their reaction to 

this, saying ‘‘You cannot possibly do this.’’ And, of course, what 

they are going to do is often what happens. The big guys are going 

to call the little guys in my State and tell them, ‘‘Wait a minute. 

The ones that are going to be hurt by this are the little insurers. 

They need this rate information.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I know you wanted us to limit our time, and I do 

not want to get too carried away because I get so angry and so passionate about what I have experienced here, and I have been so 

disappointed by the response of an industry when we needed them 

the worst. And I found there are many problems in the law, and 

I am going to do my best to find a way to fix as many of them as 

we can—not for myself. They even, you know, had the temerity to 

say, ‘‘It is just because you are mad about your house.’’ Yeah, I am. 

But the Good Lord made sure I lost my house so I would feel the 

pain of everybody else that did. Thirty-seven thousand people in 

my State were devastated by this hurricane, and many more injured, not to mention those in my neighboring State of Louisiana 

that continues to have terrible problems because they had a flood. 

We had a hurricane. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lott appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, Senator Lott, I know your concerns. You 

and I had the privilege of representing the United States overseas 

in the last few weeks. We traveled together, and we had long discussions of it. I know how passionate you feel, and I appreciate you 

being here. 

Senator Landrieu, would you please? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY L. LANDRIEU, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join my 

colleague Senator Lott. He and I have fought many battles together, and won more than we have lost, thank goodness, over the 

last 18 months. And we intend to win some more for the people 

that we represent. Because as both of us have said time and time 

again, this Government was caught flat-footed with very limited response to the greatest natural disaster to hit the United States. 

And we need to fix many different aspects of that response. 

But we are here this morning to talk about one aspect that needs 

serious fixing. Mr. Chairman, there is an insurance crisis along the 

Gulf Coast and probably over the Atlantic Coast, if not in the 

whole Nation. In New Orleans today and in parts of South LouVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:59 May 14, 2007 Jkt 035166 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35166.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
7

isiana and Mississippi, even people that might have a plan and 

money to rebuild cannot do so because they cannot either get or afford insurance for the rebuilding. 

So the billions of dollars that the Federal Government has sent 

down to the States, all the efforts that the States and the local governments are making, are put at risk because of this real and serious insurance crisis. It needs to be addressed, Mr. Chairman, not 

just in the courts where justice may come, but come quite slowly, 

and, unfortunately, too late for many. Justice needs to be found 

here in Congress through the repeal of this Act, if it was unintended, as Senator Lott stated, or through other actions of the 

Banking Committee and others to give people real relief. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a crisis. I have recently heard of one company that has raised premiums by 145 percent. In Orleans and Jefferson Parish, it is not unheard of for carriers to be raising rates 

by 50 percent. It is not just homeowners who are at risk, all 

250,000 who have lost their homes. But, Mr. Chairman, it is our 

shopping centers, our commercial sector that is having difficulty 

finding insurance. And if they cannot find insurance, the rebuilding 

is slowed down and people’s lives and fortunes and futures are put 

at risk. This insurance crisis right now goes to the heart of rebuilding, and Congress does have a role. 

And so I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. Perhaps repeal of this statute is a way to move forward, and 

there are other options at other committees. But I want to make 

just three brief points. 

I know that some of my critics say, ‘‘Senator Landrieu, all you 

ever worry about is what the Federal Government can do or what 

governments can do to help people in crisis.’’ Now, I will say that 

I am guilty of believing that Government should be bold and 

strong—not big and wasteful, but bold and strong. But I also believe the private sector should work, and at the heart of the private 

sector working is private insurance. 

Mr. Chairman, the Flood Insurance Program that we have only 

covers up to $250,000 worth of damage. Can I say again that there 

were homeowners that had homes worth $1 million, $750,000, 

$500,000. This is not unheard of in our middle-class communities 

to have homes of $350,000, $400,000, and $500,000. Our flood insurance has not kept pace with this, so people that even if they had 

flood insurance, they did not have proper coverage. 

Without the right kind of private sector insurance and the right 

kind of, I guess, government-regulated flood insurance, our people 

have no chance of a full recovery after this catastrophic disaster or 

in the future. 

So I cannot tell you how important it is for us to unturn every 

stone where we might find a solution. There is urgency about this 

problem, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleague from 

Mississippi until we find a solution to the people along the Gulf 

Coast. 

This is, as we have said, America’s only energy coast, Mr. Chairman. This is not a coast the country can do without. And without 

real and meaningful and serious insurance reform, our recovery is 

at risk. There will not be anybody there to run the pipelines. There 

will not be anybody there to produce the oil and gas, because we 

8

will not be able to live anywhere near this coast, and that is not 

fair to the people who have lived here for over 300 years. 

So I thank you for your attention, and as you know, I am cosponsoring several other bills. But I really appreciate the attention of 

this Committee, and I will be pleased to stay for a few minutes 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, and I would invite both of 

you to come join us up here. And I realize you both have other 

things to do, so feel free to stay as long or as little time as you 

would like. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. We will just take a moment here while we put 

the other names out. I will just tell you who is going to be appearing. 

We are going to have Dr. Michael Homan, who is an associate 

professor of theology at Xavier University in Louisiana, and he and 

his wife had moved to New Orleans and purchased a home 6 years 

ago. The home was severely damaged from the winds of Hurricane 

Katrina and the flood waters that remained in their house for 2 

weeks after the levees failed. Dr. Homan is now engaged in a legal 

battle with Allstate Insurance Company. 

We have J. Robert Hunter, who is currently the Director of Insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. He comes before 

this Committee with a wealth of knowledge of the insurance industry. In the past, he has served as the Commissioner of Insurance 

for the State of Texas, as the head of the Federal Insurance Administration in both the Ford and Carter administrations, and is President and Founder of the National Insurance Consumer Organization. 

Governor Racicot, the former Governor of the State of Montana, 

is well known to all of us here. He began his tenure as President 

of the American Insurance Association August 1, 2005. He had before that experience in both the public and private sectors, joining 

AIA from the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani where he had 

been a partner in the government relations strategy section. In addition to serving as Governor of Montana, he served as a special 

prosecutor and Attorney General for the State of Montana, which, 

of course, with a number of former prosecutors on this Committee 

on both sides of the aisle, we are always delighted to see. 

Commissioner Voss is from the Iowa Insurance Division, and I 

wonder, Senator Grassley, if you might take over and introduce 

her. You know her best. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I sure would like to do that. 

I know, from working with Susan very closely on a Federal program she administers called the Senior Health Insurance Information Program, how hard she and her staff worked to help us get 

Part D put in place, Part D of Medicare. I thank you very much 

for that. 

Obviously, her major responsibilities are helping the insurance 

industry and governing the insurance industry in the State of 

Iowa. She has been with the division since 1993. In 1999 she was 

appointed First Deputy Commissioner for the Iowa Division, and 

the Iowa Insurance Division is our Department of Commerce in 

9

State government there. And she has now been the Iowa Insurance 

Commissioner since January 1, 2005. So I welcome you. 

And I am also a good friend of Bob Hunter’s. I do not know 

whether he wants to admit that or not. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Actually, I have known him longer than I 

have known Susan. 

Chairman LEAHY. And he is good friend of mine. That may kill 

you back in Iowa, but— 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, anyway, I welcome you, too, Bob. And 

I have been in the Governor’s office in Montana when you were 

still Governor, so I am glad to have you with us as well. 

At 10 minutes after the hour, I am going to leave because I have 

a news conference with Senator Thune that I have to go to, but I 

will hopefully be back after that. 

Chairman LEAHY. Would you all please stand and raise your 

right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give 

to this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. HOMAN. I do. 

Mr. HUNTER. I do. 

Mr. RACICOT. I do. 

Ms. VOSS. I do. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let the record show that all were sworn in, 

which is customary here, and I am going to limit your opening 

statements to 3 minutes each. That is to give us time for questions, 

only because we have a joint meeting of the Congress this morning 

which will pretty well wipe us all out. Your whole statement, however, will be made part of the record. 

Mr. Homan, please. Press the little button. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL M. HOMAN, HOMEOWNER, NEW 

ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

Mr. HOMAN. Chairman Leahy and members of this Committee, 

thank you for holding a hearing on this important issue. 

Like many in the Gulf Coast region, my family’s lives were forever changed by Hurricane Katrina. But what brings me here 

today is the second personal tragedy that my family and I have suffered since Katrina because of the bad faith of Allstate Insurance 

over the past 18 months. 

My wife, two children, and I currently live in a FEMA trailer in 

the front yard of our collapsing home in New Orleans as we continue to battle with Allstate over our insurance claim. We insured 

everything we had with Allstate. This included wind and flood. 

They cashed every check we gave them. We slept well every night 

thinking we were adequately insured with the self-designated 

‘‘good hands’’ people, but we were not in good hands. 

I was inside our house during Katrina, and it was like being on 

a large boat rocking back and forth from the wind gusts. The winds 

ultimately racked our two-story house so that now it leans severely. The house next door to ours is leaning in the same direction. 

After the levees failed, flood waters covered the first 3 feet of our 

house, and this water remained for more than 10 days, damaging 

10

the foundation and piers, causing our house to lean even more. 

Right now as I speak, our home is in danger of falling onto our 

neighbor’s house. 

We filed a claim for wind and flood with Allstate the day after 

Katrina. We expected things to move along quickly, but we were 

wrong. We called Allstate every day for several months, and we 

wrote them frequently. But we rarely received answers. They 

played a shell game with us, providing us with ten different agents 

through this ordeal, and it took 9 months to even get a wind adjustor to come to our house. 

The third flood adjustor we had arrived in October of 2005, and 

right away he could see our house was leaning, and he ordered an 

engineer from Allstate to assess whether it was racked from wind 

or flood. We did not care either way. Everybody told us they would 

say it was racked from flood and they would pay us. You know, either way, we did not—just so we had enough money to fix our 

house. But then we waited and waited, and the engineers never 

showed up. We were told that everything hinged on that report, 

and we were told to be patient. 

Several months passed, and we were running out of savings. We 

had to pay for our rent on top of our mortgage. We were insured 

so that Allstate would pay us additional living expenses should our 

house be destroyed or be in an unlivable state like ours was. But 

Allstate said they would not pay any of that until they received the 

engineer’s report. Because of our financial situation, my family and 

I were forced to move back into our structurally unsound home and 

spent 9 months living in the upstairs portion that did not flood. 

Finally, in February of 2006, after 6 months of phone calls and 

letters, two men from Haag Engineering arrived at our house. They 

spent 15 minutes there taking pictures, and then they left. We did 

not hear anything until May of 2006 when I received a letter from 

Allstate saying they were denying our claim for structural damage 

because of the Haag engineers’ report. So we were terrified. We 

had a $150,000 mortgage for a property that was worth now about 

$30,000. We thought about declaring bankruptcy, but we did not 

want to live with bad credit. 

Fortunately for us, the Haag engineers’ report is full of huge mistakes. They have pictures that do not belong to our house. They 

call our house ‘‘the Wilson house.’’ You know, it was ridiculous. 

They said it was not windy enough during Katrina to make a house 

lean, even though lots of houses in our neighborhood have collapsed. 

My story is not unique. I have heard from dozens of other people 

in the same situation as us that the insurance company gets an engineering firm to write the report they desire, and then they deny 

the claim. And the insurance company will not be liable because 

they relied on expert witnesses, so-called expert witnesses. 

I see I am out of time, so I will stop there. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Homan appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, and I apologize for limiting 

the time but, otherwise, we would not be able to have the hearing 

today. 

Mr. Hunter? 

11

STATEMENT OF J. ROBERT HUNTER, DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here on behalf of 

Consumer Federation and several other consumer groups, including Consumers Union, nine groups in all who are offering our enthusiastic support of S. 618 today. 

In the last 3 years, the property/casualty insurance industry realized record profits despite all these hurricanes. Over the 3 years, 

the profits were $157.4 billion, equal to a profit of approximately 

$525 for every American. At the same time, we have heard what 

is going on on the coast, access of insurance being denied and the 

claims not being settled. 

Coastal residents have suffered as a result of the antitrust exemption. Like all of America, the exemption allows anticompetitive 

practices, such as joint price setting that impacts the majority of 

the rates for many companies affiliated with cartel-like rate bureaus; joint policy language development by these bureaus; use of 

the same or similar low-ball claims settling computer programs by 

many companies, and other practices that would be illegal if it 

were not for the exemption of McCarran. 

In the Katrina situation, several of these practices did specific 

harm. First, claims were being settled under the outrageously unfair anti-concurrent-causation clause adopted simultaneously by 

many insurers through the actions of rate bureaus. 

Second, ISO, the rate bureau, signaled that the market was overexposed on the coastline. Days later, 150,000 homes were dropped, 

and the exodus continues today. 

Third, the unregulated rate guidance organization, Risk Management Solutions that does its modeling of hurricanes, changed its 

model, causing home insurance rates to jump 40 percent on the 

Gulf Coast and by 30 percent up to Maine. The new model breaks 

the promise of the use of a long-term model to achieve stable prices 

and instead uses a mere 5-year time, under the theory that it is 

a high hurricane activity and they have to raise prices. It is shocking, it is unethical, that scientists have, under pressure from the 

insurers, which is obvious, completely changed their minds, all at 

the same time after 10 years of assuring everybody that the models 

they were using were scientifically sound. I encourage you to look 

at the revelations in the Tampa Tribune where some of these experts they used now say that it was not a scientific effort. 

Finally, many insurers use identical or similar claims processing 

systems that are designed to systematically underpay claims. 

These systems have been recommended by common consultants 

and sold and maintained by common vendors—all the earmarks of 

possible collusion to underpay claims. The President and Congress 

ought to look into it. 

Consider this startling statement from the President of the Association of Property/Casualty Claims Professionals: ‘‘I was ashamed. 

It was as if some small group of high-level financial magnates decided that the only way to save the industry’s financial fate from 

this mega disaster was to take a hands-off approach, hide behind 

the waves, and the flood exclusion. The carriers behaved as one.’’ 

12

This is from the President of the Property/Casualty Claims Professionals. 

I have run out of time, too. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Again, I apologize. And I have read the statements. They will be part of the record, and I do appreciate that. 

Governor Racicot? 

STATEMENT OF MARC RACICOT, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. RACICOT. Good morning. Thank you. 

Last June, I testified before this Committee on McCarran, and 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here again this morning to do 

the same thing, and I would like to focus on three critical issues—

briefly, obviously: first, McCarran’s role in balancing insurance regulation and antitrust enforcement; second, the scope of McCarran’s 

limited Federal antitrust protection; and third, the downside of 

McCarran repeal. 

Congress enacted McCarran in 1945, and it did two things: it delegated to the States the authority to regulate and tax the business 

of insurance, and it withheld application of Federal antitrust laws 

to the extent that States, in fact, regulated the business. So 

McCarran authorized the States to determine how the balance of 

State regulation and Federal antitrust enforcement would be 

drawn, but did so on the condition that the Federal antitrust laws 

would apply to the business of insurance to the extent that a State 

did not regulate the industry. 

Thereafter, States weighed the benefits of broad regulation 

against open-ended antitrust litigation and decided to strike the 

balance in favor of comprehensive regulation. They all adopted pervasive insurance regulatory schemes, including numerous antitrust 

type protections. Not surprisingly, that same balance has been 

adopted for federally regulated banking and securities industries. 

In achieving that balance, the Federal courts have held that antitrust scrutiny is inappropriate where an activity is carried out in 

conformity with a regulatory system established by Congress. If 

that were not the case, chaos would rule. Private antitrust litigation constantly would battle regulatory systems for primacy, creating enormous uncertainty for businesses and consumers to no 

one’s benefit. 

Thus, McCarran strikes the same balance of regulation versus 

antitrust enforcement for insurance that exists for federally regulated banks and securities firms, and without McCarran, that balance would be undercut. 

There is a persistent misunderstanding about the nature of 

McCarran’s protection, and I hope to make my testimony very clear 

on this point today. McCarran is less of an insurance antitrust exemption and more of a guide for the States in balancing the regulation and antitrust enforcement roles for the business of insurance. 

Equally important, McCarran antitrust protection only applies to 

the business of insurance to the extent that it is regulated by State 

law. It does not apply to activities that constitute boycott, intimidation, or coercion, whether or not those activities are regulated, and 

13

it does not provide any protection from the numerous antitrust provisions in State law. 

Which leads to the question of whether Senate bill 618 repealing 

McCarran’s narrow antitrust protection would be helpful or harmful. We strongly believe it would be harmful. The balance between 

regulation and antitrust enforcement would be destroyed, replaced 

by an uncertain system that adds another layer of Federal antitrust enforcement in addition to the one that is already there, on 

top of the State regulatory system. We do not think that is in the 

best interest of either consumers or the people of this country or 

the individual States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Racicot appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much, Governor. Commissioner Voss? 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN E. VOSS, IOWA INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, AND VICE CHAIR, FINANCIAL CONDITIONS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. VOSS. Thank you for inviting me to come here today. I am 

working with a small group of commissioners at the NAIC to, in 

fact, review Senate 618, and I want you to know just very briefly 

that we support the underlying intent of Senate 618 because our 

No. 1 goal is to protect consumers by enabling investigations to 

take place. We want to make sure that the consumers are protected 

from the bad actors, and we would suggest that with our State experience and limited use of the antitrust provisions, we could work 

collaboratively together as sort of a cooperative federalism to ensure that those bad actors no longer prey on our consumers. 

We understand that there are practices out there that need to be 

reviewed, but we also would caution you that there are examples 

when we at the State level know that providing information between carriers can be important to our consumers. And we want 

to make sure that we strike a balance between any regulation that 

you would see fit with the exemption of this antitrust—with the repeal of this antitrust exemption, that we can continue to seek positive rates for our consumers and protect them as it is important. 

We are totally in agreement that we want to protect against offensive conduct. We just want to make sure that whatever types of 

exemption that you see fit to pass does not impede our continued 

work with State regulation and to protect our consumers and our 

industry. We would very much like to continue working with you 

in a strong dialog to see that whatever is crafted is best for our 

consumers and our industry overall. 

The NAIC is continuing to review Senate 618. In fact, we are 

meeting in New York City beginning this weekend to further review your proposal, and with your permission, we would like to 

present you with additional information once we have met this 

next week. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Voss appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

14

Chairman LEAHY. Of course, and we will leave the record open 

for that, and I appreciate that. 

Mr. Homan, you know, I am listening to your story, and I am 

thinking of my own home in Vermont. If something like that had 

happened, with all the memories of the home, how much it would 

hurt to lose the home, but even more, how much it would hurt to 

think I am not going to get the money to rebuild it. 

The situation you have described, is this similar to what your 

neighbors have had? I mean, you must have talked to other people 

there. Are they facing the same problem in rebuilding? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. Since Katrina, of course, I have gotten to know 

my neighbors, at least those who are back, better than ever before. 

We are working all together. I would estimate that in my neighborhood of Mid-City New Orleans, approximately a third to half the 

people are back, and you can just go down the line. The people that 

are back, the insurance company settled with them, you know, in 

a fair and adequate means, and they were able to rebuild. My 

neighbor right across the street right now—Steve—is just days 

away from moving back into his house. And, you know, we are just 

still waiting. We know once we settle—we have just settled with 

the Road Home just a couple weeks ago, and we think we will have 

enough funds to rebuild with that. It will be a little bit short because they canceled our SBA loan because we are getting the Road 

Home funds. 

But, in any case, we think we will be fine. But we will start rebuilding in a month or two, and it is going to take another year. 

So it is a long time. You know, I have a 6-year-old kid and an 11-

year-old daughter who are going through this. So I question my 

parenting skills a lot of times because of this. But, in any case, you 

know, I would say a third to half the people are back. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Hunter, based on your experience, would Mr. Homan’s situation have been resolved the same way if he had been insured by 

one of the other major property insurers? 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, we know, for example, that Haag Engineering 

was used by more than one insurance company. I am sure Senator 

Lott can tell you about Haag Engineering in Mississippi, for example, with a different insurance company than Allstate. And so your 

chances of being in Mr. Homan’s situation with a different insurance company is certainly high. Obviously, I think there are some 

examples that are different, but just being with another insurance 

company would not assure a different result. 

Chairman LEAHY. You have talked about the Risk Management 

Solutions, RMS, using models, as I understand, to set premium 

rates that take into account long-range weather disaster predictions and so on, and used to assure there would be no need to 

raise rates after a catastrophic weather event. Can such a system 

work for consumers? 

Mr. HUNTER. Sure, a long-term modeling system would bring stability. In fact, that was the way it was sold to us when I was working with the State of Florida, working with the academic task force 

after Hurricane Andrew. We were told that one of the things they 

had to do was price hurricanes in a new, different way, and they 

were right. The insurance companies did underprice it before AnVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:59 May 14, 2007 Jkt 035166 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35166.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
15

drew, and they went to this long-term modeling, and it was sold 

on the basis that once we have a long-term, say 10,000-year, projection, we will bring stability into the coast. That means big rate increases today. 

Then I became Insurance Commissioner in Texas, and they came 

over and they said, ‘‘We have got these new models. You are going 

to have to double, triple, quadruple the rate.’’ I had to go to my 

Governor, Ann Richards, and say, ‘‘Gee, we have got to double, triple, quadruple the rate, but we are buying stability.’’ Now they 

have switched to a 5-year model, which is a total, in my view, renege of the promise, and I encourage you to read the Tampa Tribune series. It is obvious that it is unraveling, that it was pressed 

on them by insurance companies, and a lot of these big rate increases that we are facing along the coast have to do with collusion 

and pressure being brought to bear on these modelers to raise the 

rate and to throw away the science. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Governor Racicot, I was listening to your testimony, and you 

were talking about the things that are allowed under McCarranFerguson, that the Congress has allowed by passing that bill. But, 

of course, unsaid in that is that if we repeal the law, then you have 

a whole different field in which you have to act. 

You acknowledge in your testimony that certain collective activities by insurers would result in antitrust verdicts against the insurers. But the antitrust laws, of course, were developed to permit 

collective activities that benefit consumers and prohibit those 

things that harm consumers. 

Mr. Hunter has talked about certain collective practices by insurers that harm consumers, including actions setting rates that yield 

high prices, inclusive actions on claims practices that would reduce 

payouts. 

Are these the activities that you say would violate the antitrust 

laws? 

Mr. RACICOT. I would say anything that focuses upon price setting or collusion of any kind whatsoever would be clearly against 

the law and ought to be vigorously prosecuted. What I am suggesting— 

Chairman LEAHY. And would not be shielded by McCarran-Ferguson? 

Mr. RACICOT. There are State laws in virtually every single one 

of the States that we are talking about this morning, State antitrust laws, and clearly anything that is not regulated by the State 

is scrutinized in a searing fashion is subject to Federal application 

of the antitrust laws. And, Senator Leahy, if I could add, the testimony we have heard this morning fills, I think, every one of us 

with extraordinary sorrow and regret, and it is very moving, and 

these are very serious problems. But the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson really does not have much to do with these issues at all, because, quite frankly, it has to do with whether or not in the light 

of day you are going to allow for the activity of insurance companies to actually bring a better bargain to consumers. There is a 

good reason to take a look at data collection. There is a good reason 

to compare loss figures. There is a good reason to establish residual 

markets. And you cannot do that without information. 

16

But if you have the specter of antitrust Federal law enforcement 

staring you in the face because you simply will not proceed with 

the kind of disclosure that would allow for that kind of information 

to be distilled and used in driving a better bargain for consumers. 

That is what Congress recognized in 1945. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, my time is up, and as has been testified, 

in 1945, I think as Senator Lott pointed out, there were—you could 

go back in the history and have a different view of it. It is the law 

today. Neither of us debate that. Our debate is going to be whether 

we want the law to continue. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor Racicot, in your written testimony, you argue that the 

McCarran-Ferguson Act is based on the key principle that where 

there is an effective regulatory system in place, it should not be duplicated through application of the Federal antitrust laws. 

Now, I do not disagree with you that Congress has at times 

passed laws reflecting the view that active regulation was sufficient to deter harmful behavior, making antitrust enforcement duplicative and, of course, unnecessarily burdensome. But I do have 

some questions about the rationale for applying those arguments in 

the context of the insurance industry. 

First, it seems to me that this dichotomy between regulation and 

antitrust enforcement arises primarily with respect to regulated 

monopolies and industries subject to common carrier regulation. In 

general, this type of regulation included things such as the strong 

rate regulation to limit the extraction of monopoly profits from consumers, obligations to offer service to everyone within a specified 

service area, and prohibitions on discontinuing service without obtaining regulatory approval. 

Now, the question I am going to ask is this: To what extent do 

the States currently have this type of regulation for insurance providers? And, of course, after you respond, I would like to hear from 

Commissioner Voss and then Mr. Hunter as well, if we could. 

Mr. RACICOT. Well, Senator Hatch, I would argue that there is 

no industry in America, no financial services industry in America 

that is more heavily regulated than the insurance industry at the 

State level, and sometimes in our mind some overregulated. Insurance Commissioners most certainly have the capacity to do anything and the regulatory process is to ensure that a company does 

not to go into insolvency because it simply cannot meet its financial 

obligations. 

So the bottom line is there is a very pervasive, universal system 

of regulation and control across the United States of America. 

Every State in the Union has either antitrust provisions or deceptive practices provisions in place, and they are vigorously enforced. 

And as a consequence of that, I think what Congress recognized in 

1945 was this: that it was better in the light of day to advance discussions out into the marketplace that allowed for data to be used 

in a common fashion so as to bring a better price and a better product to the consumers of this country. They provided for the exemption to allow for those things without antitrust enforcement impinging upon the industry’s ability to do that. 

17

We believe the same thing Senator Leahy talked about in his 

opening comments, and that is, driving a bargain in the light of 

day is in the best interest of the consumers of this country, the 

more competition, the better. That is why you will see the testimony from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners 

reflects that there are in excess of 5,000 insurance companies in 

this country, property/casualty companies, that provide coverage. I 

do not think you will find one of them that believes that proceeding 

in this fashion is a good idea for consumers or for States. And the 

reason for that is they know that business is being conducted in 

the light of day and that this is in the best interest of consumers. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. 

Commissioner Voss? 

Ms. VOSS. Thank you, Senator. I would add that while I think 

that I like to believe that State regulators do an excellent job—and 

we do care about consumers. In Iowa, we have the lowest auto 

rates in the country, some of the lowest worker comp rates. So we 

know that there is good competition. But I would admit that there 

are some bad actors out there. There are some issues that we 

would enjoy the cooperation of the Federal Government. If you go 

back and look at the Marsh issue and at that time Attorney General Spitzer—I mean, we recognize there are times where we could 

work together effectively on certain issues, and we would welcome 

that relationship very much. 

Having said that, we do know that—I believe we do an excellent 

job at rate review and consumer protection when there are unfair 

claim practices. And so we are concerned that we would open the 

door too much. But as I have said before, I think we welcome the 

ability to work with you when we believe there are issues of bad 

faith and perhaps criminal activity in our own industry. And we do 

know that occurs. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Hunter? 

Mr. HUNTER. State regulation is very weak. Half of the regulatory money and people are in four States. Those four States come 

close to perhaps meeting your standard. I would say no State meets 

the State action doctrine standard that would apply if—and, therefore, if they really wanted to oust antitrust—if you repealed this, 

they would have to upgrade. 

The problem is the courts oust the antitrust enforcement of the 

Federal Government on just the law on the books, no matter how 

weak or not even enforced. And you can look at the record on that. 

And so you have a lot of States with virtually no capacity to regulate. 

Senator HATCH. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I know all of you have traveled a long way to 

be here. Because of the joint meeting, I am going to leave the 

record open so people can submit questions. Also, if there is no objection, I am going to leave the record open so that both Senator 

Lott and Senator Landrieu can submit questions. I know that Senator Landrieu has talked to me about Mr. Homan’s situation and 

has questions, and Senator Lott has, and without objection, we will 

leave the record open. 

18

I thank all of you for coming. Those who testify here on a regular 

basis know that sometimes these things get truncated, but it is appreciated and it is important. 

Mr. Homan, thank you for making the trip here. Commissioner 

Voss, make sure that the Senators from Iowa treat you well while 

you are here in town. Take care. 

[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

19


35166.001
20


35166.002
21


35166.003
22


35166.004
23


35166.005
24


35166.006
25


35166.007
26


35166.008
27


35166.009
28


35166.010
29


35166.011
30


35166.012
31


35166.013
32


35166.014
33


35166.015
34


35166.016
35


35166.017
36


35166.018
37


35166.019
38


35166.020
39


35166.021
40


35166.022
41


35166.023
42


35166.024
43


35166.025
44


35166.026
45


35166.027
46


35166.028
47


35166.029
48


35166.030
49


35166.031
50


35166.032
51


35166.033
52


35166.034
53


35166.035
54


35166.036
55


35166.037
56


35166.038
57


35166.039
58


35166.040
59


35166.041
60


35166.042
61


35166.043
62


35166.044
63


35166.045
64


35166.046
65


35166.047
66


35166.048
67


35166.049
68


35166.050
69


35166.051
70


35166.052
71


35166.053
72


35166.054
73


35166.055
74


35166.056
75


35166.057
76


35166.058
77


35166.059
78


35166.060
79


35166.061
80


35166.062
81


35166.063
82


35166.064
83


35166.065
84


35166.066
85


35166.067
86


35166.068
87


35166.069
88


35166.070
89


35166.071
90


35166.072
91


35166.073
92


35166.074
93


35166.075
94


35166.076
95


35166.077
96


35166.078
97


35166.079
98


35166.080
99


35166.081
100


35166.082
101


35166.083
102


35166.084
103


35166.085
104


35166.086
105


35166.087
106


35166.088
107


35166.089
108


35166.090
109


35166.091
110


35166.092
111


35166.093
112


35166.094
113


35166.095
114


35166.096
115


35166.097
116


35166.098
117


35166.099
118


35166.100
119


35166.101
120


35166.102
121


35166.103
122


35166.104
123


35166.105
124


35166.106
125


35166.107
126


35166.108
127


35166.109
128


35166.110
129


35166.111
130


35166.112
131


35166.113
132


35166.114
133


35166.115
134


35166.116
135


35166.117
136


35166.118
137


35166.119
138


35166.120
139


35166.121
140

Æ


35166.122