Annual Report on the Insurance Industry

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Completed pursuant to Title V of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

and Consumer Protection Act

SEPTEMBER 2020
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1

A. The Structure of this Report............................................................................................. 1

B. Federal Insurance Office .................................................................................................. 2

1. Insurance Regulation and the Federal Insurance Office ............................................... 2

2. FIO Activities................................................................................................................ 3

II. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY .......................... 9

A. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the U.S. L&H Sector .................................................... 10

1. L&H Insurers’ Potential Asset Exposures from the COVID-19 Pandemic ................ 11

2. The Potential Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on L&H Insurance 

Underwriting Results ................................................................................................. 15

3. Effects of the Low Interest Rate Environment ............................................................ 17

4. Sales and Distribution ................................................................................................. 18

5. Variable Annuities ....................................................................................................... 20

B. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the U.S. P&C Sector ..................................................... 21

1. Specific P&C Line Impact .......................................................................................... 22

2. P&C Sector’s Asset Exposures from the COVID-19 Pandemic ................................. 30

C. Insurer Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic ............................................................. 31

1. Policyholder Relief ...................................................................................................... 31

2. Insurer Continuity Planning and Practices .................................................................. 32

D. State Insurance Regulatory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic ............................. 34

1. Guidance and Relief for Policyholders ....................................................................... 35

2. Guidance and Relief for Insurers ................................................................................. 36

3. State Regulator Information Requests and Data Calls ................................................ 37

E. International Insurance Supervisory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic ............... 38

1. IAIS Response ............................................................................................................. 39

2. FSB Response .............................................................................................................. 40

3. EIOPA Response ......................................................................................................... 41

Box 1: The World Bank Cat Bond and Alternative Risk Solutions for Pandemics ..... 42

III. SYSTEMIC RISK AND SOLVENCY ............................................................................ 43

A. Domestic Developments ................................................................................................ 43

1. NAIC Group Capital Calculation ................................................................................ 43

2. Federal Reserve Building Block Approach ................................................................. 44

3. Distinctions between GCC and BBA .......................................................................... 46

4. NAIC Macro Prudential Initiative ............................................................................... 46

5. Financial Stability Oversight Council Final Interpretive Guidance ............................ 48

B. International Developments ........................................................................................... 49

1. Development of an International Insurance Capital Standard for Insurance 

Groups ....................................................................................................................... 49
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

ii

2. IAIS’s Activities-Based Approach and the Holistic Framework ................................ 53

IV. EFFICIENT REGULATION AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES.......................... 56

A. Role of State and Federal Regulation............................................................................. 56

1. FIO Engagement with Federal Agencies and the States ............................................. 56

2. Federal Agency Developments ................................................................................... 57

Box 2: The Availability of Insurance for Natural Catastrophes .................................. 59

3. Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance................................................................. 62

4. Other State Developments: Accreditation Program ................................................... 64

B. Terrorism Risk Insurance Program ................................................................................ 65

1. 2019 TRIP Reauthorization......................................................................................... 66

2. TRIP Data Collection .................................................................................................. 66

3. Program Effectiveness Report..................................................................................... 67

4. Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms................................................... 68

C. Cyber Insurance and Insurance Industry Cybersecurity ................................................ 68

1. The Cyber Insurance Market....................................................................................... 68

2. Insurance Industry Cybersecurity................................................................................ 71

V. INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT............................................................................ 74

A. IAIS................................................................................................................................ 74

1. FIO’s Role Within the IAIS ........................................................................................ 74

2. Insurance Core Principles and ComFrame.................................................................. 77

B. Covered Agreements with the European Union and with the United Kingdom............ 78

1. NAIC Progress on Credit for Reinsurance Models..................................................... 80

2. U.S. State Progress on Credit for Reinsurance Laws.................................................. 81

3. NAIC Progress on Group Capital Assessment............................................................ 82

4. The Covered Agreement Joint Committees ................................................................ 83

C. Insurance Dialogue Projects........................................................................................... 83

1. EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Project........................................................................... 83

2. U.S.-UK Insurance Dialogue Project .......................................................................... 84

D. Financial Stability Board................................................................................................ 84

Box 3: LIBOR Transition ............................................................................................ 86

E. OECD............................................................................................................................. 87

VI. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INFORMED CHOICES.............................................. 88

A. Long-Term Care Insurance ............................................................................................ 88

B. Retirement Income ......................................................................................................... 91

1. SECURE Act and Annuities........................................................................................ 91

2. Annuities and the 403(b) Market................................................................................. 92

C. Standards of Conduct ..................................................................................................... 93

D. InsurTech........................................................................................................................ 96

1. InsurTech Market Overview ....................................................................................... 96
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

iii

2. Innovation and Its Impact, Including Responses to and Effects of the COVID-19 

Pandemic ................................................................................................................... 97

Box 4: Insurers and Quantum Computing ................................................................... 98

3. Regulatory Frameworks and Reforms ......................................................................... 99

VII. INSURANCE INDUSTRY FINANCIAL OVERVIEW .............................................. 102

A. Domestic Insurance Marketplace Overview ................................................................ 102

1. Financial Performance and Condition ....................................................................... 103

2. Life and Health Sector ............................................................................................... 107

Box 5: CLO Update ................................................................................................... 121

3. Property and Casualty Sector .................................................................................... 126

4. Market Performance .................................................................................................. 141

B. Capital Markets Activity .............................................................................................. 143

1. Mergers & Acquisitions of U.S. Insurers .................................................................. 143

2. Alternative Risk Transfer Insurance Products ........................................................... 144

C. International Insurance Marketplace Overview ........................................................... 145

D. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 147
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

iv

GLOSSARY

2020 Program 

Effectiveness Report

.......... FIO, Report on the Effectiveness of the Terrorism Risk 

Insurance Program (2020) 

ABA .......... Activities-Based Approach

ACRSM .......... Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms

A&H .......... Accident and Health

Aggregation Method .......... A group capital methodology under development by the 

United States and other interested jurisdictions as an 

alternative to the ICS

2019 Annual Report .......... FIO, Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (2019)

ART .......... Alternative Risk Transfer

BBA .......... Building Block Approach

CDC .......... Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CISA .......... Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

CLO .......... Collateralized Loan Obligation

CMBS .......... Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

CML .......... Commercial Mortgage Loan

ComFrame .......... IAIS Common Framework for the Supervision of IAIGs

D&O .......... Directors and Officers

Dodd-Frank Act .......... Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act of 2010 

DOL .......... U.S. Department of Labor

EBA .......... Entity-Based Approach

EIOPA .......... European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

E&O .......... Errors and Omissions

ERISA .......... Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

ExCo .......... IAIS Executive Committee

FACI .......... Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

FCTF .......... IAIS Financial Crime Task Force

Federal Reserve .......... Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

FEMA .......... Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIO .......... Federal Insurance Office

FIO Act .......... Federal Insurance Office Act of 2010

FSAP .......... IMF Financial Sector Assessment Program

FSB .......... Financial Stability Board

FSOC .......... Financial Stability Oversight Council

FSTF .......... NAIC Financial Stability Task Force
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

v

GAAP .......... Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

GAAP Plus .......... Generally Accepted Accounting Principles with adjustments

GCC .......... Group Capital Calculation

GCCWG .......... NAIC Group Capital Calculation Working Group

GDP .......... Gross Domestic Product

GME .......... IAIS Global Monitoring Exercise for the Holistic Framework

G-SII .......... Global Systemically Important Insurer

Holistic Framework .......... IAIS Holistic Framework for the Assessment and Mitigation 

of Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector

IAIG .......... Internationally Active Insurance Group

IAIS .......... International Association of Insurance Supervisors

iCBCM .......... FSB Cross-Border Crisis Management Group for Insurers

ICP .......... IAIS Insurance Core Principle

ICS .......... IAIS Insurance Capital Standard

ILS .......... Insurance-Linked Securities

ILW .......... Industry Loss Warranty

IMARA .......... Insurance Marketplace Aggregate Retention Amount

IMF .......... International Monetary Fund

Insurance EO Report .......... Treasury, A Financial System That Creates Economic 

Opportunities: Asset Management and Insurance (2017)

InsurTech .......... The innovative use of technology in connection with 

insurance

IPO .......... Initial Public Offering

IPPC .......... OECD Insurance and Private Pensions Committee

L&H .......... Life and Health 

LIBOR .......... London Interbank Offered Rate

LTCI .......... Long-Term Care Insurance

LTCI Task Force .......... Federal Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care 

Insurance

LTCI Task Force 

Report

.......... Treasury, Long-Term Care Insurance: Recommendations for 

Improvement of Regulation—Report of the Federal 

Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care Insurance

(2020)

M&A .......... Mergers and Acquisitions

MBS .......... Mortgage-Backed Securities

MitFLG .......... Mitigation Framework Leadership Group

NAIC .......... National Association of Insurance Commissioners

NBCR .......... Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Radiological
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

vi 

NFIP .......... National Flood Insurance Program

NYDFS .......... New York Department of Financial Services

OECD .......... Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

P&C .......... Property and Casualty

RBC .......... Risk-Based Capital

Regulation BI .......... SEC Regulation Best Interest

Report .......... FIO, Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (2020)

ReSG .......... FSB Resolution Steering Group

ReWG .......... IAIS Resolution Working Group

RILA .......... Registered Index-Linked Annuities

RMBS .......... Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

S&P 500 .......... Standard and Poor’s 500 Index

S&P Global .......... S&P Global Market Intelligence

SAP .......... Statutory Accounting Principles

SEC .......... U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Secretary .......... Secretary of the Treasury

SECURE Act .......... Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement 

Act of 2019 

SMI .......... Solvency Modernization Initiative

SOFR .......... Secured Overnight Financing Rate

Team USA .......... FIO, Federal Reserve, NAIC, and state insurance regulators

Treasury .......... U.S. Department of the Treasury

TRIA .......... Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, as amended

TRIP .......... Terrorism Risk Insurance Program

UBI .......... Usage-Based Insurance

U.S.-EU Covered 

Agreement 

.......... Bilateral Agreement between the United States of America 

and the European Union on Prudential Measures Regarding 

Insurance and Reinsurance

U.S.-UK Covered 

Agreement

.......... Bilateral Agreement between the United States of America 

and the United Kingdom on Prudential Measures Regarding 

Insurance and Reinsurance
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

vii 

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Life Insurance Companies’ Real Estate Exposure as of December 31, 2019 ............. 14

Figure 2: NFIP Reinsurance Program ........................................................................................ 61

Figure 3: P&C Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. Cyber Direct Premiums Written .................... 69

Figure 4: IAIS Organizational Structure as of January 2020 .................................................... 75

Figure 5: Total Direct Premiums Written for L&H and P&C Sectors ................................... 103

Figure 6: L&H Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. Life Insurance Lines Direct Premiums 

Written .................................................................................................................... 104

Figure 7: L&H Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. A&H Lines Direct Premiums Written ........ 105

Figure 8: P&C Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. Combined Lines Direct Premiums Written . 106

Figure 9: Health Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. Health Lines Direct Premiums Written .... 106

Figure 10: L&H Sector Net Premiums, Considerations, and Deposits ................................... 108

Figure 11: 2019 Composition of Net Premiums and Annuity Considerations for the L&H 

Sector ...................................................................................................................... 108

Figure 12: L&H Sector Expenses ............................................................................................ 109

Figure 13: L&H Sector Annual Net Investment Income and Net Yield on Invested Assets .. 109

Figure 14: L&H Sector Annual Net Investment Income and Net Yield on Invested Assets .. 110

Figure 15: Percentage Yield on 10-Year Treasury Bonds ...................................................... 110

Figure 16: L&H Sector Net Income ........................................................................................ 111

Figure 17: L&H Sector Operating Ratios ................................................................................ 112

Figure 18: L&H Capital and Surplus Position ........................................................................ 112

Figure 19: Primary Drivers of Capital and Surplus for the L&H Sector ................................ 113

Figure 20: Average Risk-Based Capital Ratio for the L&H Sector ........................................ 114

Figure 21: L&H Sector Leverage Ratios ................................................................................. 115

Figure 22: Composition of L&H Sector General Account Assets and Investment Portfolio . 117

Figure 23: Cash Flows from Operations for the L&H Sector ................................................. 118

Figure 24: A View of L&H Sector Liquidity .......................................................................... 120

Figure 25: U.S. Insurance Industry Borrowing Capacity from Federal Home Loan 

Banks ...................................................................................................................... 124

Figure 26: The Top 10 Largest Holders of CLOs in the U.S. L&H Sector (Year-End 

2019) ....................................................................................................................... 126

Figure 27: P&C Sector Composite of Direct Premiums Written ............................................ 127

Figure 28: P&C Sector Direct Premiums Written ................................................................... 128

Figure 29: P&C Sector Direct Premiums Written ................................................................... 128

Figure 30: P&C Sector Combined Operating Ratios .............................................................. 129
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

viii

Figure 31: Estimated Insured Property Losses, U.S. Catastrophes, 2010-2019......................130

Figure 32: Total One Year Reserve Development for the P&C Sector, 2010-2019 ...............130

Figure 33: P&C Sector Annual Net Investment Income and Net Yield on Invested 

Assets......................................................................................................................131

Figure 34: P&C Sector Annual Net Investment Income and Net Yield on Invested 

Assets......................................................................................................................131

Figure 35: P&C Sector Net Income ........................................................................................132

Figure 36: P&C Sector Summary Income Statement..............................................................133

Figure 37: P&C Sector Operating Ratios................................................................................133

Figure 38: P&C Sector Leverage Ratios.................................................................................134

Figure 39: 2019 Composition of Asset Portfolio for P&C Sector ..........................................136

Figure 40: Composition of P&C Sector’s Investment Portfolio ..............................................136

Figure 41: A View of P&C Sector Liquidity ..........................................................................138

Figure 42: Shift in P&C Sector Structured Securities Holdings.............................................140

Figure 43: P&C Sector’s Affiliated Exposures.......................................................................140

Figure 44: Insurance Industry Stock Price vs. S&P 500 .........................................................142

Figure 45: Insurer Price/Book Value Ratios ...........................................................................142

Figure 46: Gross Premiums Written and Market Share for Top 20 Countries and World 

Total, 2014 vs. 2019...............................................................................................146

Figure 47: Performance of Global Insurance and Reinsurance Indices as compared to 

Broader Market Average (S&P 500)......................................................................147
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

1

I. INTRODUCTION

This Report is submitted by the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) of the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury) pursuant to Section 502(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), which requires the annual submission by 

FIO of a report to the President, the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 

Representatives, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate “on 

the insurance industry and any other information as deemed relevant by the [FIO] Director or 

requested by such Committees.”1

A. The Structure of this Report

This Report begins with an overview of FIO’s statutory responsibilities, then summarizes FIO’s 

key activities since those described in its 2019 Annual Report on the Insurance Industry.

2

 

Section II discusses the financial, operational, and regulatory implications of the COVID-19 

pandemic. Sections III through VI of this Report are organized around four key themes:

1) the proper evaluation of systemic risk;

2) ensuring effective regulation and government processes;

3) rationalizing international engagement; and

4) promoting economic growth and informed choices.3

Each section presents developments in domestic and international insurance policy, regulation,

and markets corresponding to that section’s theme. This Report concludes in Section VII with a 

discussion and analysis of the insurance industry’s financial performance in calendar year 2019 

and its financial condition as of December 31, 2019. The other sections of this Report, which are 

less dependent on year-end financial data, generally contain analysis through the first half of the 

current calendar year.

1 Federal Insurance Office Act of 2010 (FIO Act), 31 U.S.C. § 313(n)(2).

2 FIO, Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (2019), 

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports-and-notices/Documents/2019_FIO_Annual_Report.pdf (2019 

Annual Report).

3 These themes are from: Treasury, A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities: Asset Management 

and Insurance (2017), 

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/A-Financial-System-That-Creates-Economic-Oppo

rtunities-Asset_Management-Insurance.pdf (Insurance EO Report). Treasury issued the Insurance EO Report in 

response to Executive Order No. 13772. See FIO, Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (2018), 7-13, 

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports-and-notices/Documents/2018_FIO_Annual_Report.pdf (2018

Annual Report) (summarizing the Executive Order, its Core Principles for Financial Regulation, and the Insurance 

EO Report recommendations).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

2

B. Federal Insurance Office

1. Insurance Regulation and the Federal Insurance Office

In the United States, the primary regulators of the business of insurance are the fifty states, the 

District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories.4

The federal government also plays an important role in the insurance industry.

5

 Title V of the 

Dodd-Frank Act established FIO within Treasury.6 In addition to advising the Secretary of the 

Treasury (Secretary) on major domestic and prudential international insurance policy issues and 

having its Director serve as a non-voting member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council 

(FSOC), FIO is authorized to:

• monitor all aspects of the insurance industry, including identifying issues or gaps in 

the regulation of insurers that could contribute to a systemic crisis in the insurance 

industry or the U.S. financial system;

• monitor the extent to which traditionally underserved communities and consumers, 

minorities, and low- and moderate-income persons have access to affordable 

insurance products regarding all lines of insurance, except health insurance;

• recommend to FSOC that it designate an insurer, including the affiliates of such 

insurer, as an entity subject to regulation as a nonbank financial company supervised 

by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve);

• assist the Secretary in the administration of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 

(TRIP), as established in Treasury under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, 

as amended (TRIA);

• coordinate federal efforts and develop federal policy on prudential aspects of 

international insurance matters, including representing the United States, as 

appropriate, in the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) and 

assisting the Secretary in negotiating covered agreements;

• determine whether state insurance measures are preempted by covered agreements;

4 State regulation of the insurance industry is coordinated through the National Association of Insurance 

Commissioners (NAIC), a voluntary organization whose membership consists of the chief insurance regulatory 

officials of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories.

5 See Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 82-90.

6 FIO Act, 31 U.S.C. § 313(a). Title V also designates the Secretary as advisor to the President on “major domestic 

and international prudential policy issues in connection with all lines of insurance except health insurance.” Id. at 

§ 321(a)(9).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

3 

• consult with the states (including state insurance regulators) regarding insurance 

matters of national importance and prudential insurance matters of international 

importance; and

• perform such other related duties and authorities as may be assigned to FIO by the 

Secretary.7

In addition, before the Secretary may make a determination as to whether to seek the 

appointment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver of an insurer under Title II 

of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Secretary must first receive a written recommendation from the FIO 

Director and the Federal Reserve.8 Also, FIO and the Federal Reserve coordinate on the 

performance of annual analyses of nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal 

Reserve, particularly with respect to stress testing, to evaluate whether such companies have the 

capital, on a consolidated basis, necessary to absorb losses as a result of adverse economic 

conditions.9

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act directs the Secretary

and the Federal Reserve Chairman (or their designees) to submit an annual report to Congress on 

their efforts with respect to global insurance regulatory or supervisory forums.10 The Act also 

requires the Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman (or their designees) to report to Congress 

on their efforts to increase transparency at IAIS meetings.11 In addition, the Act requires that, 

before supporting or consenting to the adoption of any final international insurance capital 

standard, the Secretary, the Federal Reserve Chairman, and the FIO Director must complete a 

study and submit a report to Congress on the impact of any such standard on consumers and U.S. 

markets.12

2. FIO Activities

FIO’s key activities since those reported in its 2019 Annual Report (some of which are further 

detailed later in this Report) are summarized below. 

On September 5, 2019, Treasury and the NAIC hosted a regional cybersecurity tabletop exercise 

in Kansas City, Missouri, in which FIO participated. Insurance industry cybersecurity, and 

related FIO activities, are discussed in Section IV.C.2. 

7 FIO Act, 31 U.S.C. § 313(c)(1).

8 Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5383(a)(1)(C).

9 12 U.S.C. § 5365(i)(1)(A).

10 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 115-174, § 211(c)(1)(A), 132 

Stat. 1296 (2018) (Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act). 

11 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, § 211(c)(4).

12 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, § 211(c)(3)(A).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

4 

On September 6, 2019, Treasury published for public comment proposed technical changes to 

TRIP regulations that address the calculation and notification to the public of TRIP’s insurance 

marketplace aggregate retention amount (IMARA) under TRIA.13 On November 15, 2019, 

Treasury issued a final rule to implement the technical IMARA changes proposed for public 

comment in September.14 On December 18, 2019, Treasury issued a Federal Register notice 

advising that the IMARA for 2020 would be $40,878,630,900.15 TRIP is discussed in Section 

IV.B. 

On September 6, 2019, Treasury and the Federal Reserve submitted to Congress their first annual 

joint report on their efforts with respect to global insurance regulatory and supervisory forums.16 

The report—which is required under the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 

Protection Act and covers activities within the IAIS, the Financial Stability Board (FSB), and the 

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)—generally addresses the 

period between May 24, 2018 (when the Act became law) and December 31, 2018. 

On September 12, 2019, the U.S. Senate’s Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee held 

a hearing, “Developments in Global Insurance Regulatory and Supervisory Forums.”17 FIO 

Director Steven Seitz appeared on the witness panel, together with Federal Reserve Associate 

Director Thomas Sullivan and Maine Superintendent of Insurance Eric Cioppa on behalf of the 

NAIC.

The Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (FACI), a panel of outside experts which is 

tasked with making recommendations to FIO in performing its duties and authorities, convened 

on September 23, 2019; December 5, 2019; February 21, 2020; and June 4, 2020. These 

meetings addressed a variety of topics, including recommendations and status updates on FACI’s 

work on various international issues, natural catastrophe mitigation, data privacy, and disparate 

13 IMARA Calculation Under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, 84 Fed Reg. 46907 (September 6, 2019), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/06/2019-18728/imara-calculation-under-the-terrorism-riskinsurance-program. 

14 IMARA Calculation Under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, 84 Fed. Reg. 62450 (November 15, 2019), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/15/2019-24801/imara-calculation-under-the-terrorism-risk-insu

rance-program. 

15 IMARA Calculation for Calendar Year 2020 Under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, 84 Fed. Reg. 69462 

(December 18, 2019), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/18/2019-27279/imara-calculation-for-calendar-year-2020-under

-the-terrorism-risk-insurance-program. 

16 Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin and Chair Jerome H. Powell, Efforts of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with Respect to Global Insurance Regulatory or Supervisory 

Forums in 2018 (September 2019), https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/Treasury_FRB_Report_2019.pdf. 

17 Developments in Global Insurance Regulatory and Supervisory Forums, Before the Senate Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 116th Cong. (September 12, 2019), 

https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/developments-in-global-insurance-regulatory-and-supervisory-forums. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

5 

impact (i.e., unintentional discrimination).18 In addition, FACI formed a COVID-19 

subcommittee in response to the pandemic. FACI is discussed in more detail in Section IV.A.3. 

FIO released its 2019 Annual Report on September 30, 2019. That same day, FIO also released 

its 2019 Preemption Report, pursuant to the FIO Act, noting that during the year ending 

September 30, 2019, FIO did not take any action regarding the preemption of any state insurance 

measures that were inconsistent with a covered agreement.19 Covered agreements are discussed 

in Section V.B. 

On October 3, 2019, FIO hosted a stakeholder event to discuss certain current IAIS activities, 

including the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) and the Holistic Framework for the Assessment 

and Mitigation of Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector (Holistic Framework). The ICS and 

Holistic Framework are discussed in Section III.B.

On October 9-10, 2019, FIO attended the annual meeting of the International Forum of 

Terrorism Risk (Re)Insurance Pools, which discussed, among other issues, terrorism risk 

modeling, cyber terrorism insurance, and the application of insurance-linked securities (ILS) to 

terrorism risk.

On October 23, 2019, Treasury’s Surety Bonds Branch, a component of the Office of Fiscal 

Service, conducted a stakeholder event about the federal government’s surety bond program.20 

In December 2019, the Office of Fiscal Service, in consultation with FIO, published a Request 

for Information about potential updates to the surety regulations.21 FIO collaborated with the 

Surety Bonds Branch on the stakeholder event and Request for Information, and is continuing to 

support the Surety Bonds Branch as it considers potential updates to program regulations. 

On November 1, 2019, Secretary Mnuchin and Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman 

issued a Joint Statement on the India-U.S. Economic and Financial Partnership.22 The United 

States and India previously had signed a Memorandum of Understanding for “cooperation, 

coordination, consultation and exchange of information relating to the Regulation of the 

18 More information on FACI—including its meeting agendas, minutes, and presentations—is available on FIO’s 

website. See “Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (FACI),” Treasury, 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/federal-insuranceoffice/federal-advisory-committee-on-insurance-faci. 

19 Treasury, 2019 Preemption Report – Federal Insurance Office (September 30, 2019), 

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports-and-notices/Documents/2019_FIO_Preemption_Report.pdf. 

20 Background on the surety bond program, including links to the relevant statutory and regulatory references, are 

available at “Surety Bonds,” Treasury, last updated June 30, 2020, https://fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/. 

21 Treasury, Fiscal Service, Surety Companies Doing Business with the United States; Request for Information, 84 

Fed. Reg. 72138 (December 30, 2019), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/30/2019-28193/suretycompanies-doing-business-with-the-united-states-request-for-information. 

22 Secretary Mnuchin and Indian Finance Minister Sitharaman, Joint Statement on the India-U.S. Economic and 

Financial Partnership (November 1, 2019), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm819. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

6 

Insurance Sector.”23 FIO negotiated and signed the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of 

the United States. FIO continues to coordinate with its colleagues in India on insurance issues of 

mutual interest.

On December 20, 2019, the President signed into law the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk 

Insurance Program until December 31, 2027. Under the reauthorization, FIO will continue to 

assist the Secretary in administering the program. The TRIP reauthorization provisions require 

FIO to provide an analysis of the availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance for 

places of worship in addition to its pre-existing reporting requirements related to TRIP.24

FIO began monitoring developments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and the insurance 

sector in early 2020. FIO’s efforts to monitor and assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic 

intensified during 2020. FIO has been advising the Secretary on the pandemic’s effects on the 

insurance industry and has been working with Treasury leadership to engage with Congress 

concerning such effects. FIO also has been engaging with stakeholders on a variety of issues 

related to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted above, FIO’s advisory committee, 

FACI, formed a new COVID-19 subcommittee focused on the effects of the COVID-19 

pandemic on the insurance industry. FIO also has been participating in the efforts of 

international organizations to monitor and analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on 

both U.S. and global insurance markets. FIO’s monitoring and analysis of the COVID-19 

pandemic’s effects on the insurance industry are discussed in Section II. 

The Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms (ACRSM) held its first meeting of 2020 

on February 5, 2020. The ACRSM also met on May 11, 2020, and released its initial report on 

its findings concerning TRIP and recommendations to FIO for further study and work on TRIP.25 

The ACRSM is discussed in connection with TRIP in Section IV.B. 

In February 2020, FIO engaged with colleagues in the United Kingdom about the next steps for 

the U.S.-UK Insurance Dialogue Project. On March 3, 2020, the EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue 

Project—of which FIO is a founder and Steering Committee member—published three summary 

reports by each of its three working groups: the Insurer Cybersecurity Working Group, the 

Cyber Insurance Working Group, and the Big Data Working Group.26 Both projects are 

discussed in Section V.C. 

23 For more information on the Memorandum of Understanding, see FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 67.

24 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-94, 133 Stat. 2534 (2019).

25 “Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms (ACRSM),” Treasury, https://home.treasury.gov/policyissues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/federal-insurance-office/terrorism-risk-insuranceprogram/advisory-committee-on-risk-sharing-mechanisms-acrsm. 

26 EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Project, Insurer Cybersecurity Working Group February 2020 Summary Report

(March 2020), 

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/eu-us-project-cybersecurity-wg-feb-2020.pdf; EU-U.S. 

Insurance Dialogue Project, The Cyber Insurance Market Working Group February 2020 Summary Report (March 

2020), https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/eu-us-cyber-insurance-wg-feb-2020.pdf; 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

7 

Between March 16, 2020 and May 15, 2020, FIO conducted its annual data call in connection 

with TRIP, as required under TRIA.27 All insurers participating in TRIP were required to submit 

information, subject to certain reporting exemptions.

In June 2020, FIO coordinated with the NAIC and the states in connection with their data call on 

business interruption coverage for policyholders affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Business 

interruption coverage is further discussed in Section II.B.1.a, and state regulatory responses, 

including data calls, are discussed in Section II.D.3. 

On June 30, 2020, FIO published its Report on the Effectiveness of the Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Program.

28 The report is based principally upon mandatory data calls in 2018, 2019, and 2020 

and its conclusions are discussed in Section IV.B. 

On July 14-15, 2020, FIO participated in the EU-U.S. Financial Regulatory Forum where 

European Union and U.S. financial authorities exchanged views on topics of mutual interest as 

part of their ongoing regulatory dialogue and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.29

During 2019 and 2020, FIO continued to provide expertise to other Treasury offices and other 

federal agencies. For example, FIO provided technical assistance to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) in connection with FEMA’s transfer of $1.33 billion of risk from 

the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to the private reinsurance market on January 2, 

2020, and the related February 20, 2020 capital markets placement.30 The NFIP is discussed in 

Section IV.A.2.b. In addition, FIO, as a member of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group 

(MitFLG), continued to participate in MitFLG’s quarterly meetings and assist in the MitFLG’s 

implementation of its National Mitigation Investment Strategy, as discussed in Section IV.A.2.a. 

FIO also participated in the Federal Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care Insurance 

(LTCI), which is discussed in more detail in Section VI.A. 

Since FIO’s last Annual Report, FIO staff participated in various FSOC committee meetings, 

including the Systemic Risk Committee, and discussed issues affecting the insurance industry. 

EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Project, Big Data Working Groups February 2020 Summary Report (March 2020), 

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/eu-us-big-data-wg-feb-2020.pdf. 

27 TRIA § 104(h); 2020 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Data Call, 85 Fed. Reg. 15036 (March 16, 2020),

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/16/2020-05299/2020-terrorism-risk-insurance-program-data-cal

l. 

28 FIO, Report on the Effectiveness of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (June 2020), 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/2020-TRIP-Effectiveness-Report.pdf (2020 Program Effectiveness 

Report). 

29 Treasury, “Joint Statement on the EU-U.S. Financial Regulatory Forum,” news release, July 17, 2020, 

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1066. 

30 See “National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) Reinsurance Program,” FEMA, last updated September 15, 

2020, https://www.fema.gov/nfip-reinsurance-program; FEMA, “FEMA Continues Its Reinsurance Program to 

Manage Future Flood Risk,” news release, January 2, 2020, https://www.fema.gov/news-release/20200220/femacontinues-its-reinsurance-program-manage-future-flood-risk.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

8

The FIO Director attended all meetings of FSOC principals during this period. FSOC is discused 

in Section III.A.5.

Internationally, FIO has remained engaged in the Insurance and Private Pensions Committee 

(IPPC) at the OECD. The OECD serves as a source of public policy advice and analyses for 

global and regional forums, including the G20, as well as the general public, and collects and 

publishes statistical data and analyses on assorted topics.31 FIO’s work with the OECD is 

discussed in Section V.E.

From the fall of 2019 through July 2020, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conducted its 

Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) in the United States. The FSAP is a 

comprehensive review and assessment of a member country’s system of financial regulation, and 

is carried out in a member country once every five years. Treasury coordinated U.S. agency 

engagement with the FSAP process, which, for insurance, included FIO, other offices within 

Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the NAIC, and various state regulators. The FSAP process 

culminated with the August 2020 publication of the IMF’s findings in its Financial Sector 

Stability Assessment.32

In addition, throughout 2019 and 2020, FIO continued to fulfill its statutory role representing the 

United States in the IAIS and elsewhere on prudential international insurance measures. In 

November 2019, FIO participated in the IAIS committee meetings and annual meeting. FIO 

continued its involvement in IAIS work in developing the Common Framework of 

Internationally Active Insurance Groups (ComFrame), ICS, and the Holistic Framework. FIO 

also continued its involvement and leadership roles with working groups and task forces at the 

IAIS on a variety of other issues, including matters relating to resolution of insurers, financial 

crimes, cybersecurity, and advancing effective corporate governance in the insurance industry, as 

discussed in Section V.A.

31 See OECD, OECD Secretary-General’s Report to Ministers 2020 (2020), 22,

https://read.oecd.org/10.1787/27007c6c-en?format=pdf.

32 IMF, United States: Financial System Stability Assessment (August 10, 2020), 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2020/08/07/United-States-Financial-System-Stability-Assessment49651. For the various FSAP findings with respect to the insurance sector, see id. at 71-73. For technical analysis 

and detailed information underpinning the FSAP findings, see IMF, United States: Financial Sector Assessment 

Program: Technical Note—Insurance Supervision and Regulation (August 10, 2020), 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2020/08/07/United-States-Financial-Sector-Assessment-ProgramTechnical-Note-Insurance-Supervision-and-49653.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

9 

II. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY

This section analyzes the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the U.S. insurance industry. 

Broadly speaking, the U.S. insurance industry includes three sectors: (1) Life and Health (L&H) 

(including insurers who offer life insurance, annuities, and accident and health (A&H) products), 

(2) Property and Casualty (P&C), and (3) Health (which includes insurers who are licensed 

solely as health insurers or health maintenance organizations).33 For the L&H sector, this section 

focuses on insurers that issue life insurance and annuity products, although statistics and figures 

may incorporate insurers who also offer A&H products.34

This section provides FIO’s preliminary financial analysis and other observations, focusing on 

key coverage and financial issues that merit continued monitoring by FIO. This section also 

discusses insurers’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and concludes with an overview of the 

responses of U.S. states and international insurance regulators to the pandemic.35

In March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic intensified in the United States, the insurance 

industry acknowledged significant concerns regarding the effect of the pandemic on operating 

results and financial conditions for a broad range of insurers. Some of these immediate concerns 

eased later in the spring as U.S. financial markets began to stabilize. The pressure on insurers’ 

investment portfolios and equity-linked product exposures, in particular, eased following actions 

taken by the Federal Reserve to support the economy and stabilize the financial markets in late 

March.36

Based on information through June 30, 2020, COVID-19-related insurance losses appear 

manageable for most insurers.

37 The outlook for the U.S. insurance industry, however, appears 

33 Given the statutory restrictions on FIO with respect to health insurance, this section generally does not address 

COVID-19’s implications for, and impact on, health insurers. 

34 Unless otherwise indicated, data cited in this section are derived from S&P Global Market Intelligence (S&P 

Global). As noted above in Section I.A, this section—like all other sections except Section VII—generally includes 

analysis through the first half of the current calendar year.

35 In past years, the Annual Report has included a “Domestic Insurance Market Outlook,” which was a brief 

supplement to its discussion of the year-end insurance industry financials, previewing the current year financial 

results, based on the first two quarters of data and financial trends available at the time the report was being 

prepared. This year, such observations are incorporated in this section. 

36 Since March of 2020, the Federal Reserve has taken a number of steps to stabilize the financial markets. See Jane 

Ihrig, et al., COVID-19’s Effects on the Economy and the Fed’s Response (August 10, 2020), 

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2020/08/10/covid-19s-effects-on-the-economy-and-the-fedsresponse. See also “The CARES Act Provides Assistance to Worker and their Families,” Treasury, 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/assistance-for-american-workers-and-families. 

37 See, e.g., Swiss Re Institute, World Insurance: Riding Out the 2020 Pandemic Storm (July 2020), 

https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:d50acbcd-ce5c-4ee9-bc60-a3c1e55f8762/sigma-4-2020-en.pdf; Tracy Dolin, et 

al., Robust Capitalization Makes the COVID-19 Fallout Manageable for North American Property/Casualty 

Insurers and Reinsurers (March 25, 2020), https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/200325-robustcapitalization-makes-the-covid-19-fallout-manageable-for-north-american-property-casualty-insurers-and11404978. For most insurers the COVID-19 pandemic has had an offsetting claims impact in several areas tied to 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

10 

to be negative compared to trends observed in 2019. As discussed further below, first-half 2020 

results for P&C and L&H insurers were pressured on multiple fronts by the COVID-19 

pandemic. Through the second quarter, both sectors experienced year-over-year declines in net 

income that reduced top-line results and led to meaningful reserve charges. 

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic’s ultimate impact on insurers remains uncertain. P&C 

insurers will likely continue to see elevated claims frequency in certain lines and might also 

incur adverse reserve charges depending on the outcomes of judicial rulings and legislative 

actions on business interruption and workers’ compensation insurance coverages, and potentially 

other lines. L&H insurers with older blocks of LTCI policies could also continue to incur 

reserve charges as actuarial assumptions are revisited. Additionally, the ongoing low interest

rate environment coupled with elevated market volatility could pressure the capital and solvency 

levels of those L&H insurers with alternative investments and capital-intensive product 

offerings, such as products with interest rate and equity market guarantees.

In short, given the uncertainty in both the magnitude of potential losses and also the 

macroeconomic environment resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, insurers may face 

pressure on earnings, capital, and potentially liquidity through the remainder of 2020. Over the 

longer term, the COVID-19 pandemic may have a significant and broad-based impact on 

industry metrics, which FIO will continue to monitor and report on in next year’s Annual Report.

A. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the U.S. L&H Sector 

Some L&H insurers have stated that they expect the pandemic to be mostly an “earnings event,” 

affecting the sector’s profits for a limited number of quarters.38 However, the ultimate financial 

impact from the COVID-19 pandemic remains to be seen, and the pandemic could have an effect 

on some L&H insurers’ capital and liquidity positions, affecting both the asset and liability sides 

of insurers’ balance sheets.39 On the asset side, L&H insurers could be impacted mainly by the 

effects of the financial markets and commercial real estate on investment portfolios. On the 

liability side, L&H insurers may incur losses, see higher claims and claims severity, and face 

balance sheet pressure from equity market volatility as well as shifts in policyholder behavior. 

The COVID-19 policy response from Treasury and the Federal Reserve to support the U.S. 

economy and financial markets has lowered interest rates to near record levels and may have 

decreases in economic activity, social distancing measures, and natural hedges between some exposures (e.g., 

mortality and longevity risk).

38 See, e.g., Lincoln National Q12020 Earnings Transcript (May 7, 2020), 10, https://www.lfg.com/wcsstatic/pdf/1Q2020%20Earnings%20Transcript.pdf (“The impacts [of] . . . COVID-19 are primarily a near-term 

earnings headwind.”); Lananh Nguyen, “MetLife Post Quarterly Profit, Sees ‘Modest’ Virus Impact,” Bloomberg, 

May 7, 2020, https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/metlife-posts-quarterly-profit-sees-modest-impact-fromvirus. 

39 See, e.g., AM Best, Stress Testing Rated Companies for COVID-19 (May 18, 2020), 13, 

http://news.ambest.com/PressContent.aspx?altsrc=172&refnum=29377.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

11 

recalibrated expectations with respect to the future path of key interest rates.40 Lower interest 

rates may not only act as a substantial headwind to the L&H sector’s earnings growth, but may 

also result in increases in reserve requirements and reserve charges for in-force blocks (i.e., 

outstanding insurance obligations), which in turn could reduce risk based capital (RBC) ratios for 

certain insurers. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic may affect sales volumes and pricing for 

various L&H insurance products in the near future.

The discussion below covers the following key risks relating to the L&H sector’s exposure to the 

COVID-19 pandemic: (1) L&H insurers’ potential asset exposure from the COVID-19

pandemic; (2) the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on L&H insurance underwriting

results; (3) the effects of the low-interest rate environment; and (4) the general potential effect of 

the COVID-19 pandemic on sales and distribution. The discussion concludes with a more 

detailed evaluation of variable annuities.

1. L&H Insurers’ Potential Asset Exposures from the COVID-19 Pandemic

L&H insurers generally carry significant asset leverage—defined as the ratio of assets to

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) equity or statutory surplus—and are exposed 

to market and credit risk from their investment holdings.41 The L&H sector’s financial position 

therefore can be affected by the combined impacts of price volatility, widespread downgrades, 

and elevated investment defaults. In particular, the sector’s large holdings of corporate debt

(particularly BBB-rated bonds), commercial real estate, alternative investments (e.g., joint 

ventures, limited partnerships, and private equity investments), and collateralized loan 

obligations (CLOs)—all of which have expanded in recent years—are susceptible to weakening 

credit conditions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.42

40 The Federal Reserve has cut its benchmark rate by 150 basis points since March 3, 2020, and implemented or 

resumed several open market operations to support and facilitate the “smooth functioning of financial markets.” 

Forward guidance given by the Federal Reserve indicates accommodating interest rate policies to last “for many 

years.” Federal Reserve, Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee June 9-10, 2020, 3 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20200610.pdf; Lorie K. Logan, “The Federal 

Reserve’s Market Functioning Purchases: From Supporting to Sustaining” (speech, SIFMA Webinar, July 15, 

2020), https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2020/log200715. 

41 See “Best’s Special Report: Corporate Bond Holdings Pose Risk to Insurers’ Balance Sheets,” AM Best, August 

18, 2020, http://news.ambest.com/newscontent.aspx?AltSrc=97&refnum=227502.

42 See S&P Global Ratings, COVID-19 Credit Update: The Sudden Economic Stop Will Bring Intense Credit 

Pressure (March 17, 2020), https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/200317-covid-19-credit-updatethe-sudden-economic-stop-will-bring-intense-credit-pressure-11392437. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

12 

a) Corporate Debt

U.S. L&H insurers are significant holders of investment-grade public and private corporate 

bonds. In 2019, U.S. L&H insurers held over $3 trillion in long‐term bonds, including 

approximately $2 trillion in corporate fixed‐income securities (U.S. and foreign).43 If the 

COVID-19 pandemic results in widespread credit downgrades and higher default rates, L&H 

insurers’ corporate bond portfolios could see increased capital pressure. While L&H insurers 

generally hold broadly-diversified corporate bond portfolios, only a small amount of which are 

below-investment-grade (i.e., rated below BBB -) relative to total investments, overall portfolio 

credit quality had already declined somewhat even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Nearly $1 trillion of U.S. L&H insurers’ corporate bond holdings were BBB rated in 2019 

(approximately 23 percent of total cash and investments held on balance sheet), up from 

approximately $600 billion in 2009 (approximately 19 percent of total cash and investments held 

on balance sheets).44 As some insurers have “reached for yield,” the growth of the industry’s 

BBB rated corporate bond holdings outpaced growth of the BBB segment of the overall 

corporate bond market over the last decade. Even before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, 

observers highlighted the downgrade risk for BBB corporate bonds.45 Market reports have 

concluded that BBB rated bonds are especially prone to downgrades because the credit quality of 

issuers has declined further due to the economic effects of the pandemic.46 For example, as of 

June 2020, 2.5 percent ($88 billion) of bonds rated BBB by Standard & Poor’s had been 

downgraded to a high-yield category (i.e., below investment grade) since the beginning of 

2020.47

43 See “Facts + Statistics: Life insurance,” Insurance Information Institute, https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/factsstatistics-life-insurance. See also NAIC & The Center for Insurance Policy and Research (CIPR), U.S. Insurers’ 

Cash and Invested Assets Reach Almost $7 Trillion at Year-End 2019 (2020), 

https://www.naic.org/capital_markets_archive/special_report_200701.pdf. 

44 S&P Global (FIO analysis). Figures reflect BBB rated corporate bond holdings held at U.S. insurance operating 

entities.

45 See, e.g., Vito J. Racanelli, “Where the Bond Market’s Next Big Problem Could Start,” Barron’s, August 17, 

2018, https://www.barrons.com/articles/where-the-bond-markets-next-big-problem-could-start-1534536183. 

46 See, e.g., Blackrock, Lessons from COVID-19: U.S. BBB Bonds and Fallen Angels (July 2020), 

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/whitepaper/policy-spotlight-lessons-from-covid-19-us-bbb-bondsand-fallen-angels-july-2020.pdf. 

47 See Hong Xie, “BBB Bond Downgrades Added USD 88 Billion to the High-Yield Bond Market YTD,” S&P 

Global, June 25, 2020, https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/articles/bbb-bond-downgrades-added-usd-88-

billion-to-the-high-yield-bond-market-ytd. See also Peter Brennan, “Global ‘Fallen Angel’ Debt on Track to Reach 

Record High in 2020 – S&P,” S&P Global Market Intelligence, September 2, 2020, 

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/global-fallen-angel-debt-ontrack-to-reach-record-high-in-2020-8211-s-p-60173177. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

13 

The regulatory capital charge for insurers increases more than three-fold for a bond that falls 

from “investment grade” to “below investment grade.”48 If the pace of credit downgrades 

increases over the next 12 to 24 months, the L&H sector could see risk-based capital ratios 

decline, with the attendant necessity for insurers to allocate an increasing amount of capital 

towards downgraded corporate bonds held by L&H insurers. 

L&H insurers’ investment portfolios also may face losses from elevated defaults in certain 

industries stressed by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as leisure and lodging, food services, 

energy, retail, and transportation. Defaults might also be elevated in U.S. private placement debt 

because these securities are issued from many non-public middle-market-sized firms with limited 

alternative financing options that may have been significantly affected by the COVID-19 

pandemic.49

b) Real Estate Investments

The COVID-19 pandemic may affect the credit quality of L&H insurers’ commercial mortgage 

lending portfolios and other real estate investments. In particular, insurance companies may be 

exposed to elevated credit risk through their investments in non-agency or private-label 

residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS); commercial mortgage loans (CML); commercial 

mortgage-backed securities (CMBS); commercial properties owned; and alternative real estate 

investments.50 As of December 31, 2019, L&H insurance companies held over $1 trillion in real 

estate assets, as shown in Figure 1.

51

The L&H insurance sector’s holdings of commercial real estate assets could also be pressured by 

the COVID-19 pandemic.52 As shown in Figure 1, U.S. L&H insurers have exposure to 

commercial real estate through their CML holdings and CMBS investments.

53 CMLs that are 

extended to office, multifamily, and retail properties could be vulnerable to sharp declines in 

48 See NAIC, Investment RBC Charges (March 12, 2018), https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/committees_e_capad_investment_rbc_wg_related_irbc_factors.pdf. 

49 Traditional (non-144A securities) U.S. private placements are fixed-income securities exempt from Securities 

Exchange Commission (SEC) registration. See, e.g., Voya, Introduction to Investment Grade Private Credit (2020), 

https://institutional.voya.com/document/whitepapers/whitepaper-introduction-investment-grade-private-credit.pdf

(providing overview of the private placement market). 

50 The insurance industry also has commercial real estate exposure through affiliates who originate and invest in 

mortgages and from bond and equity investment holdings of real estate investment trusts.

51 Direct Real Estate is measured net of debt and other encumbrances so that the market price risk on real estate 

holdings is in fact greater than the net amount. Life insurance companies hold nearly 81 percent of the insurance 

industry’s total real estate holdings, with P&C insurance companies holding just over 19 percent. S&P Global (FIO 

analysis).

52 See Conor Dougherty and Peter Eavis, “Tenants’ Troubles Put Stress on Commerical Real Estate,” The New York 

Times, June 5, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/business/economy/coronavirus-commercial-realestate.html. 

53 For more information on L&H insurers’ CML holdings, see Section VII.A.2. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

14 

operating income and values if trends observed during the pandemic so far continue.54 L&H

insurers are also large holders of lodging-related CMBS, which may experience elevated loan 

defaults due to cash flow disruptions stemming from the reduction in spending on travel. 

Figure 1: Life Insurance Companies’ Real Estate Exposure

as of December 31, 2019

 Exposure

($ millions)

Share of

Total (%) 

Share of Cash/ 

Investments (%) 

Commercial Mortgage Loans55 $ 534,380 49.9 12.3

Agency CMBS 50,712 4.7 1.2

Agency RMBS 165,290 15.4 3.8

Non-Agency CMBS 145,099 13.5 3.3

Non-Agency RMBS 73,619 6.9 1.7

Alternative RE Investments 47,924 4.5 1.1

Residential Mortgage Loans 31,434 2.9 0.7

Direct Real Estate (net of debt) 23,013 2.1 0.5

Total $ 1,071,471 - -

Source: S&P Global.

The Federal Reserve has supported the agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) market 

through its asset purchase program.56 However, as noted, insurers also hold non-agency RMBS 

and CMBS, which are excluded from the Federal Reserve’s asset purchase program and for 

which other temporary programs provide little or no support.57

c) Collateralized Loan Obligations 

A small number of major U.S. L&H insurers have exposure to leveraged loans through holdings 

of CLOs.58 Significant attention has been paid to stress in the CLO markets due to the COVID19 pandemic. As of July 2020, S&P had downgraded and/or placed on negative watch roughly 

54 “Best’s Special Report: U.S. Life/Annuity Insurers’ Commercial Mortgage Loans Increasing, Credit Quality 

Decreasing,” AM Best, June, 25, 2020, http://news.ambest.com/newscontent.aspx?AltSrc=97&refnum=226245. 

55 Commercial mortgage loans include loans made to farm properties.

56 See Federal Reserve, “Federal Reserve Announces Extensive New Measure to Support the Economy,” news 

release, March 23, 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20200323b.htm. 

57 Under the Federal Reserve’s Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, highly rated legacy agency commercial 

mortgage-backed securities are considered eligible collateral. “Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility,” 

Federal Reserve, last updated September 8, 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/talf.htm. 

58 Life insurance sector holdings of CLOs are concentrated and many of the top investors are private equity-backed 

insurers. See, e.g., NAIC & CIPR, U.S. Insurer CLO Exposure at Risk of Ratings Downgrade (May 13, 2020),

https://www.naic.org/capital_markets_archive/hotspot_200513.pdf. For more information on private equity-backed 

insurers, see Section VII.A.2.c. For more information on CLOs, see Box 5. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

15 

500 out of the 1,500 rated obligors held in U.S. broadly-syndicated CLOs.59 Defaults of the 

underlying institutional leveraged loans used as collateral in CLOs have risen sharply: during 

the second quarter of 2020, U.S. leveraged loan defaults totaled $23 billion—the highest 

quarterly volume since the 2008 financial crisis.60

To the extent L&H insurers hold senior and higher-rated CLO tranches, they are better protected

against defaults compared to those holding lower-rated tranches.61 Moreover, widespread CLO 

credit downgrades by the rating agencies have largely not occurred to date.62 However, an 

increase in CLO ratings downgrades in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, should it occur, 

could require insurers to hold additional capital against lower rated credits (similar to the 

potential effects on L&H insurers’ bond portfolios). In general, insurers’ CLOs holdings receive 

the same regulatory capital treatment as corporate bonds, incurring meaningfully higher risk 

weight from downgrades in addition to increased default risk.63

2. The Potential Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on L&H Insurance 

Underwriting Results

In the event that mortality and morbidity rates resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic 

dramatically increase from current trend lines, the earnings and capital of L&H insurers could be 

impacted.

64

Mortality Claims. Based on mortality sensitivity estimates from the first half of 2020, several

publicly-traded L&H insurers have indicated that virus-related mortality claims cost will be a 

59 Daniel Hu, et al., “CLO Spotlight: U.S. CLO Exposure to Negative Corporate Rating Actions (As of July 12, 

2020),” S&P Global Ratings, July 12, 2020, https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/200714-clospotlight-u-s-clo-exposure-to-negative-corporate-rating-actions-as-of-july-12-2020-11574780. 

60 Rachelle Kakouris, “US Leveraged Loan Defaults Total $23B in Q2, the Most Since 2009,” S&P Global Market 

Intelligence, July 6, 2020, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/usleveraged-loan-defaults-total-23b-in-q2-the-most-since-2009-59301227. The “2008 financial crisis” refers to the 

crisis which, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, began in December 2007 and lasted until 

June 2009. See “U.S. Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions,” National Bureau of Economic Research, 

http://nber.org/cycles/. 

61 See NAIC & CIPR, Collateralized Loan Obligations—Stress Testing U.S. Insurers’ Year-End 2019 Exposure

(2020), 7-8, https://naic.org/capital_markets_archive/special_report_200618.pdf.

62 See Daniel Hu, et al., “CLO Spotlight: U.S. CLO Ratings Actions And Exposure To Negative Corporate Rating 

Actions (As of Aug. 9, 2020),” S&P Global Ratings, August 9, 2020, 

https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/200811-clo-spotlight-u-s-clo-rating-actions-and-exposure-tonegative-corporate-rating-actions-as-of-aug-9-2020-11610720; Cezary Podkul, “Expected Surge of CLO 

Downgrades Slow to Arrive,” The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/expectedsurge-of-clo-downgrades-slow-to-arrive-11598653875. 

63 See NAIC, Investment RBC Charges. 

64 Mortality-related losses could be mitigated by the complementary nature of longevity-sensitive business lines 

(e.g., annuities, LTCI, and pension risk transfer obligations).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

16 

manageable underwriting loss event.65 Such expectations are largely based on the assumption 

that COVID‐19 will result in lower fatality rates for the insured population versus the general 

population because of the average younger age and better health of insured individuals.66 The 

ultimate effects of the L&H sector’s mortality experience from COVID-19 is still to be 

determined.

67

Morbidity Claims. Much of the morbidity (illness) exposure of the L&H sector relates to 

extended absences of individuals from work for medical reasons covered under disability 

insurance. L&H insurers may potentially see elevated short-term and long-term disability claims 

experience from employees who fall ill due to the virus, although to date the sector’s morbidity 

exposure has not resulted in significant claims related to the COVID-19 pandemic.68 In addition, 

there is historical evidence that an uptick in group disability claims has occurred during and 

following recessions.69

LTCI. Longer-term illnesses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic may also affect claims 

experience under LTCI. Individuals who live in a nursing home or long-term care facility face 

increased risk of infection and severe illness from the COVID-19 pandemic.70 According to the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC), as of August 2020, COVID-19 infections in long-term care facilities constituted eight 

percent of total reported cases in the United States, and COVID-19-related deaths in such 

65 Certain L&H insurers provided their mortality claim cost sensitivity to COVID-19 related deaths in the U.S. 

during first-quarter and second-quarter 2020 earnings releases. Many of those estimates were updated in the secondquarter of 2020 and projected even lower mortality claims cost relative to COVID-19 related U.S. population deaths. 

See, e.g., Prudential Financial, Second-Quarter 2020 Earnings Presentation, August 5, 2020, 13, 

http://s22.q4cdn.com/600663696/files/doc_financials/quarterly_reports/2020/Q2/2Q20-Earnings-CallPresentation_vFinal2.pdf; Reinsurance Group of America, Inc., Second-Quarter 2020 Earnings Presentation, August 

5, 2020, 13, https://reinsurancegroupofamericainc.gcs-web.com/static-files/d5f7fac8-4f72-493a-ac47-

de36383502cb.

66 See, e.g., Munich Re, First-Quarter 2020 Earnings Call Transcript, May 7, 2020, 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/edited-transcript-muv2-earnings-conference-201223531.html (“so the demographic 

makeup of our portfolio as well as age structure as well as social demographic facts in our portfolio, they are 

different to the general population”).

67 See Alwyn Scott, “U.S. Insurers’ Coronavirus Costs Are Less Than Feared So Far,” Reuters, August 11, 2020, 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-insurers/u-s-insurers-coronavirus-costs-are-less-than-fearedso-far-idUSKCN2572RV. 

68 See, e.g., Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., Second-Quarter 2020 Earnings Call Transcript, July 31, 2020, 

https://news.yahoo.com/edited-transcript-hig-n-earnings-211815032.html. 

69 See, e.g., Unum Group, Form 10-K (2015), 42,

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/5513/000000551316000045/unm12312015-10xk.htm (“We have 

historically experienced an increase in our group long-term disability morbidity claim incidence trends during and 

following a recessionary period, particularly in our Unum US operations.”); Hartford Financial Service Group Inc., 

Second-Quarter 2020 Earnings Call Transcript (“it’s clearly a watch area as historically, when unemployment rises, 

disability claims tend to go up”).

70 “Nursing Homes & Long-Term Care Facilities,” Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, last updated 

September 11, 2020, 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-in-nursing-homes.html. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

17 

facilities accounted for over 42 percent of the country’s pandemic fatalities.71 The full effects of 

the COVID-19 pandemic on LTCI will emerge over time. In particular, the COVID-19 

pandemic may affect LTCI through its impact on policy lapses, the incidence of claims, and 

utilization of benefits. Long-term care reserves reflect best estimates of future obligations to 

policyholders. Reserves are based on assumptions regarding future morbidity, premium rate 

increases, persistency (i.e., measuring the degree to which policyholders continue to pay 

premiums), policy benefit offsets, and interest rates, among other factors. The COVID-19 

pandemic may challenge some of the assumptions upon which LTCI insurers have set their 

reserves.72

3. Effects of the Low Interest Rate Environment

Low interest rates have emerged again as a significant concern for the life sector in the wake of 

the COVID-19 pandemic. The sustained low interest rate environment has been an ongoing 

challenge for insurers in general because it lowers investment returns, raises the value of future 

obligations, and complicates asset-liability matching. L&H insurers with products that are 

highly sensitive to market movements—such as variable and fixed annuities, LTCI, and 

universal life insurance—are likely to feel the effects even more deeply.73

Interest rates are a key consideration for life insurers when estimating insurance reserves that 

align with their long-term policyholder obligations. Through the discounting process, lower 

interest rates increase the present value of insurance liabilities, potentially leading to reserve 

shortfalls during statutory asset adequacy testing.74 Interest rate assumptions are also among the 

assumptions used to determine how much regulatory capital is required to be held for certain life 

insurance products. Changes in interest rates may cause a mismatch between an insurer’s assets 

and liabilities, which could affect their regulatory capital requirements.75

71 CMS/CDC, COVID-19 Nursing Home Dataset, last accessed August 27, 2020, https://data.cms.gov/SpecialPrograms-Initiatives-COVID-19-Nursing-Home/COVID-19-Nursing-Home-Dataset/s2uc-8wxp. 

72 For more information on LTCI, see Section VI.A. 

73 Certain insurers use derivatives to mitigate interest rate risk. See, e.g., NAIC & CIPR, U.S. Insurers’ Derivative 

Exposure Increased 9% in 2018 (2019), https://www.naic.org/capital_markets_archive/special_report_191217.pdf.

74 Although interest rates used in discounting reserves are prescribed under statutory accounting principles, life 

insurers must complete asset adequacy testing as part of their statement of actuarial review required in annual 

regulatory filings. Reserve adequacy is determined by calculating the difference between invested assets and the 

present value of future premiums, less the present value of future claims under various interest rate path scenarios. 

See, e.g., American Academy of Actuaries, Asset Adequacy Analysis (September 2017), 

https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Asset_Adequacy_PN_092517.pdf. 

75 American Academy of Actuaries, Report of the American Academy of Actuaries’ C3 Life and Annuity Capital 

Work Group On RBC C3 Requirements for Life Products (September 2009), 4-6, https://naiccms.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/committees_e_capad_lrbc_AAA_0909_report_rbc.pdf. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

18 

Relatedly, publicly-traded life and annuity writers may also need to recalibrate long-term interest 

rate assumptions used to set up GAAP reserves and other balance sheet items.76 Though reserve 

assumptions vary among insurers, most generally assume mean reversion under GAAP 

accounting. This means that interest rates are assumed to gradually rise over time to their longterm averages, implying that interest rates will remain at their current levels only near-term.77 

Over the last decade, life insurers have gradually lowered their long-term rate assumptions and 

adjusted their reserves significantly, which in turn has negatively affected earnings and GAAP 

equity (capital and surplus) positions. 

Short-term rates are now near zero percent and the 10-year Treasury yield reached historic lows 

in 2020.78 In the current environment, low interest rates will likely further pressure the insurance 

industry’s earnings as maturing investments and recurring premiums are reinvested at lower 

rates. Currently, L&H insurers have portfolio yields that are above rates that could be earned 

from new investments and may continue to face spread compression and slower growth in 

investment income. Also, recalibrated long-term interest rate assumptions may result in balance 

sheet and regulatory capital charges.

4. Sales and Distribution

During the first half of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges to life insurance and 

annuity distribution. For example, the shift to virtual sales platforms impeded insurance agents’ 

ability to market permanent life insurance policies and annuities.79 Moreover, many L&H 

insurers tightened underwriting standards and reduced or suspended sales of certain 

capital-intensive product offerings.80 In addition, the low interest rate environment has led some 

L&H insurers to reprice nearly their entire suite of products and to introduce redesigned 

products.81 Also, the decline in interest rates reduced the appeal of the savings feature associated 

with permanent life insurance and reduced fixed annuity crediting rates, and volatility in the 

76 GAAP reserves and intangible assets are based around a set of assumptions that includes interest rate projections. 

Insurers periodically review and update interest rate assumptions, which can lead to significant balance sheet 

charges. 

77 See S&P Global, Assessing the Top Risks COVID-19 Poses to North American Life Insurers (March 26, 2020),

https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/200326-assessing-the-top-risks-covid-19-poses-to-northamerican-life-insurers-11404668. 

78 The 10-Year Treasury yield is used as a benchmark for a wide range of debt securities.

79 Personal communication is widely viewed as the most effective way to sell complex and high-valued life 

insurance products.

80 See, e.g., John Hilton, “Prudential Tips ‘First Domino’ By Suspending GUL Product: Analyst,” 

InsuranceNewsNet, July 7, 2020, https://insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/prudential-tips-first-domino-bysuspending-gul-product-analyst. 

81 See Leslie Scism, “Some Americans Are Being Turned Away Trying to Buy Life Insurance,” The Wall Street 

Journal, May 10, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-americans-are-being-turned-away-trying-to-buy-lifeinsurance-11589103002; see also LIMRA, “Survey: Insurance Companies Making Changes to New Business in 

Light of Covid-19,” news release, May 12, 2020, https://www.limra.com/en/newsroom/industry-trends/2020/surveyinsurance-companies-making-changes-to-new-business-in-light-of-covid-19/. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

19 

equity markets reduced demand for variable annuities.82 These factors contributed to declines in 

new premiums and sales volumes for most retail life insurance and retirement products, 

including universal life and whole life products.83

In view of the macroeconomic environment, sales of some institutional products have declined; 

this was particularly reflected in significantly reduced pension risk transfers transactions 

volumes in the first half of 2020.84

L&H sales could decrease across a wide range of insurance products and result in a premium 

contraction for the industry in 2020 as compared to 2019.85 With interest rates near record lows, 

the L&H sales volumes could be challenged by broad-based institutional and retail product 

repricing actions across the industry.86

Over a longer horizon, market reports suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic could incentivize an 

increase in individual and group life insurance ownership, especially for younger generations.87 

Indeed, the L&H sector has already seen an increase in sales volumes and policy face values for 

term life following the onset of the pandemic.88

82 According to LIMRA, total variable annuity sales in the second quarter of 2020 hit their lowest quarterly level 

since 1996, falling 20 percent to $20.5 billion after four consecutive quarters of growth. Variable annuity sales were 

$46.5 billion in the first half of 2020, down four percent as compared to the first half of 2019.

83 See LIMRA, “LIMRA: U.S. Life Insurance Policy Sales Increase 2% in Second Quarter Driven by Direct-toConsumer,” news release, September 9, 2020, https://www.limra.com/en/newsroom/news-releases/2020/limra-u.s.-

life-insurance-policy-sales-increase-2-in-second-quarter-driven-by-direct-to-consumer/. 

84 See, e.g., LIMRA, “ Secure Retirement Institute: Falling Nearly 50 Percent, U.S. Single-Premium Pension BuyOut Sales Total $2.3 Billion in the Second Quarter 2020,” news release, September 2, 2020, 

https://www.limra.com/en/newsroom/news-releases/2020/secure-retirement-institute-falling-nearly-50-percent-u.s.-

single-premium-pension-buy-out-sales-total-$2.3-billion-in-the-second-quarter-2020/; Athene Holding, First Quarter 

2020 Earnings Call Transcript, May 8, 2020, 6, https://s1.q4cdn.com/886888837/files/doc_financials/2020/q1/q1-

2020-call-transcript.pdf; Swiss Re Institute, sigma extra: World Insurance: Regional Review 2019, and Outlook 

(April 2020), 1, https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:902131c5-31f6-42f0-bbe3-bace1f5d0f8e/sigma-4-2020-extra-usand-canada.pdf.

85 Total premium and annuity considerations for the U.S. Life insurance industry increased eight percent in the 

first-quarter of 2020 to $169B. See AM Best, First Look: 3-Month 2020 Life/Annuity Financial Results (June 8, 

2020), http://www3.ambest.com/ambv/sales/bwpurchase.aspx?record_code=297933. 

86 As of July 28, 2020, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield was at 59 basis points.

87 See, e.g., MIB Group, “U.S. Life Insurance Activity Soars in July Reports the MIB Life Index,” news release, 

August 7, 2020, https://www.mibgroup.com/riskanalytics/pdf/lipr_2020_07.pdf. 

88 See LIMRA, “LIMRA: U.S. Life Insurance Policy Sales Increase 2% in Second Quarter.”
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

20

5. Variable Annuities 

Variable annuities present different challenges to insurers than other insurance products, since 

variable annuities allow policyholders the ability to invest in a variety of investment options of 

their choice, subject to certain limitations.89 Because stock investments have become the largest 

component of variable annuities, the variable annuity business has increased insurers’ exposure

to equity markets.90 Revenues move in tandem with the broader market indices and in times of 

adverse price movements, the cost to insurers of embedded guarantees can spike significantly, 

pressuring reserve margins and available capital.

The combination of sustained low interest rates, rising credit stresses, and mortality rates 

potentially exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic may be material for some variable annuity 

writers.

91 These companies face the challenge of adjusting their reserve assumptions 

appropriately while identifying (and mitigating) potential hedging inefficiencies, in order to 

fulfill annuity contracts’ payment guarantees. The size of variable annuity guarantees can be 

considerable and may amplify pressures for variable annuity writers under stressed market 

conditions.92 A study by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economists found that for the 10

largest issuers of variable annuity guarantees as a group, reserves ranged from less than 10 

percent of capital before the financial crisis at year-end 2007 to as high as 52 percent during the 

financial crisis at year-end 2008.93 This correlation can be material for variable annuity writers 

because it indicates the need for funding in times of market uncertainty. Although the insurance 

industry has taken actions to de-risk these products since the 2008 financial crisis, insurers with 

exposure to variable annuities with guaranteed living and death benefits may be subject to 

increased financial pressure in the current environment.

Several variable annuity writers have substantially increased reserves, to cover potential gaps 

between policyholder account values and promised guarantees, in response to widening credit 

spreads and declining interest rates that resulted from the market disruption caused by the 

89 The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Variable Annuities: Underlying Risks and Sensitivities (April 9, 2019), 

https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/Workingpapers/PDF/2019/sra1901.pdf. Variable annuities are 

insurance contracts sold by insurance companies in which the insurer provides income payments (either as a single 

payment or in a series of payments at regular intervals) in exchange for premiums (also called contributions, in the 

context of annuities) paid by the policyholder (known, for annuities, as the “annuitant”). See, e.g., “Annuities,” 

NAIC & CIPR, last updated September 3, 2020, https://content.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_annuities.htm. In addition 

to receiving state oversight, variable annuities are regulated at the federal level by the U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Anyone selling variable annuities must carry a 

securities license. See Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 111.

90 Alejandro H. Drexler, et al., “How Much Risk Do Variable Annuity Guarantees Pose to Life Insurers?” Chicago 

Fed Letter Number 384 (2017), https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2017/384.

91 See Drexler, et al., Chicago Fed Letter Number 384.

92 According to data from S&P Global, the amount at risk for guaranteed death benefits and amounts guaranteed as 

annual income under living benefit contracts totaled $105.5 billion at year-end 2019 for the L&H sector or 25 

percent of aggregate capital and surplus.

93 Drexler, et al., Chicago Fed Letter Number 384.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

21

COVID-19 pandemic. Reserve increases related to variable annuity living benefit guarantees 

largely drove the increase in aggregate reserves across L&H insurers to significant levels and

resulted in a pre-tax operating loss in the first quarter 2020—only the third quarterly pre-tax 

operating loss since 2002 for the U.S. L&H sector.

94

While hedging programs can mitigate some reserve uncertainty for variable annuity writers, 

removing all risks is difficult. Imperfect hedging leads to risk mismatch (basis risk) that stresses 

an insurer’s capital when the valuation of existing liabilities rises under deteriorating market 

conditions. In addition to sustained low interest rates and the stresses of volatile equity markets 

and uncertain mortality rates, the COVID-19 pandemic may also incentivize policyholders to 

exercise contractual living benefit guarantees at a time when benefit bases can exceed account 

values.

95 Accordingly, it is difficult to determine whether the extent of potential risk exposures 

is entirely captured in the level of reserves necessary to fund contracted guarantees.

B. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the U.S. P&C Sector 

This section discusses effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the P&C sector. The current 

environment may lead to accelerated rate increases across many P&C insurance product 

portfolios, such as commercial property and financial and professional liability. The effects of 

the pandemic, however, may also reduce volumes, resulting in lower premiums—or lower 

premium growth—for the sector as a whole in 2020. The commercial line segment has been in

the midst of a “hardening” market since 2019, and this trend appears to be intensifying in part 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the pandemic likely will increase P&C claims and 

losses in certain P&C lines, even with the presence of certain limiting language and exclusions in 

many policies. This impact may be offset to a limited extent by a decrease in claims frequency 

from a variety of factors related to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as social distancing 

measures.96

94 Tim Zawacki, “Massive Reserve Increase Led US Life Industry to Unprecedented Q1 Pretax Loss,” S&P Global 

Market Intelligence, June 15, 2020, 

https://platform.marketintelligence.spglobal.com/web/client?auth=inherit#news/article?id=58926994.

95 Indeed, guaranteed living benefits may pose greater risk for insurers than guaranteed death benefits, as they are 

linked to market conditions and can create potentially larger future obligations. Death benefits return the funds 

contributed by the policyholder and are paid at the time of the annuitant’s death. Living benefits, on the other hand, 

not only include the funds contributed but they also factor in a guaranteed accumulated growth rate. Moreover, 

living benefits can be triggered at the discretion of the policyholder.

96 For example, the reduced operation of automobiles on account of COVID-19 has led many auto insurers to issue 

premium rebates in anticipation of reduced claims activity. See, e.g., Lyle Adriano, “Insurers Offering $10.5 Billion 

in Rebates – But Who Is Offering What?,” Insurance Business America, April 13, 2020, 

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/insurers-offering-10-5-billion-in-rebates--but-who-i

s-offering-what-219397.aspx.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

22

1. Specific P&C Line Impact

This section considers specific lines of P&C insurance, with particular focus on business 

interruption coverage.

a) Business Interruption Coverage

Business interruption coverage addresses lost profits and continuing operating expenses (such as 

payroll and rent) during the period that a policyholder’s operations are suspended. It is typically 

issued in association with other property coverages, and business interruption is usually covered 

only when the suspension of operations results from physical damage to the policyholder’s 

property (or, for contingent business interruption coverage, the property of a supplier that results 

in the suspension of the policyholder’s operations), resulting from a covered cause of loss. 

Business interruption coverage may be subject to a deductible, in the form of a waiting period 

after operations are suspended before benefits are triggered, and also can be subject to time limits 

on the period of suspension for which benefits will be paid, as well as to policy sub-limits of 

liability. In addition, since 2006, many (but not all) policies providing coverage for business 

interruption have a virus or communicable disease exclusion.97 Business interruption coverage 

is comparatively expensive, and not all U.S. policyholders take up the coverage.98

The full scope of insured business interruption losses from the COVID-19 pandemic are 

unknown, as reflected in the wave of coverage litigation that has emerged over the existence and 

extent of insurers’ obligations for business interruption losses.99

For those policyholders that purchased business interruption coverage, most insurers have 

responded to coverage demands by stating that pandemic-related business interruption losses are 

not covered. Insurers assert that this is because under typical policy language: (1) the “property 

damage” to covered premises is not satisfied by the existence of COVID-19 generally in the 

environment, and (2) the virus or communicable disease exclusions in policies also preclude 

coverage. The NAIC reports that information it has collected shows that 83 percent of all 

97 See ISO, “New Endorsements Filed To Address Exclusion of Loss due to Virus or Bacteria,” Commercial 

Property LI-CF-2006-175 (Circular July 6, 2006), 

https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/files/2020/03/ISO-Circular-LI-CF-2006-175-Virus.pdf; see also

Endorsement, Commercial Property CP 01 40 07 06 (Exclusion of Loss Due to Virus or Bacteria), 

https://northstarmutual.com/UserFiles/File/forms/policyforms/Current/CP%2001%2040%2007%2006.pdf. 

Insurance Services Office, or ISO, is an advisory service for insurance companies that, among other things, prepares 

uniform policy forms that insurers may elect to use in their own operations.

98 Based upon surveys; premium data associated with business interruption coverage is not reported for state 

purposes in such a way as to permit a take-up rate calculation. See, e.g., “66% of Small Businesses Lack Business 

Interruption Coverage: Survey,” Insurance Journal, September 2, 2015, 

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/09/02/380367.htm.

99 See, e.g., Susanne Sclafane, “COVID Business Interruption Suits Top 700. Yep, That’s A Lot,” Insurance 

Journal, August 3, 2020, https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/08/03/577444.htm.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

23

business interruption policies (across all policyholder size categories combined) have a virus 

exclusion, and 98 percent of such policies include a property damage requirement.100

Some policyholders dispute the contention that the property damage requirement is not satisfied 

by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly where state and local governments’ stay-at-home 

orders have prevented policyholders from conducting business.101 Whether the presence of the 

virus itself constitutes physical damage to property is a question that plaintiffs have raised in 

lawsuits against insurers.102 There is likely no one-size-fits-all resolution, because all policies 

are not the same, and coverage interpretations may vary state-by-state or case-by-case.

103

In light of the coverage issues presented by business interruption claims arising from the 

COVID-19 pandemic, a number of state legislatures have introduced legislation that would 

retroactively change the terms of insurance contracts to expand coverage for COVID-19-related 

business interruption losses, notwithstanding existing (and state-approved) policy language.104 

Under most versions of these bills, insurers could potentially submit claims for recovery of 

100 The percentages vary by size of policyholder category. See NAIC, COVID-19 Property & Casualty Insurance 

Business Interruption Data Call (Part I: Premiums and Policy Information) (June 2020), 3, 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/COVID-19%20BI%20Nat%27l%20Aggregates.pdf (data as of 

December 31, 2019).

101 See, e.g., Mark Goldburd, COVID-19, Business Interruption Coverage, and the “Physical Loss or Damage” 

Requirement (April 10, 2020), 

https://www.milliman.com/en/insight/COVID-19-business-interruption-coverage-and-the-physical-loss-or-damage-r

equirement (identifying coverage arguments).

102 See David J. Marmins and Rebecca Lunceford Kolb, “Big Win for Business Interruption Policyholders as Courts

Start Issuing COVID-19 Decisions,” American Bar Association, August 14, 2020,

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/real-estate-condemnation-trust/articles/2020/covid-19-

studio-417-v-cincinnati-insurance-company/. Where there is clearly direct physical damage to the covered 

premises, resulting damages (such as rebuilding costs) are typically covered by property insurance. This could be 

the case, for example, when vandalism occurs in the context of civil disturbances. If business operations are 

disrupted by the physical damage, business interruption coverage (if included in the policy) may be implicated. 

Such claims could be further complicated, however, if the business were already impacted by the COVID-19 

pandemic stay-at-home orders.

103 Trade associations have stated that insurers’ business interruption exposure related to the pandemic should be 

limited due to virus exclusion and physical damage requirements embedded in most policies, and plan to contest 

claims for coverage and to challenge legislative actions to impose liability retroactively. See, e.g., American 

Property Casualty Insurance Association, “APCIA: Insurance Perspective on COVID-19,” news release, March 26, 

2020, http://www.pciaa.net/pciwebsite/cms/content/viewpage?sitePageId=59762. They also have argued that 

pandemic losses are, and should be, uninsurable. See, e.g., Robert Hartwig and APCIA, Uninsurability of Mass 

Market Business Continuity Risks from Viral Pandemics (May 2020), http://www.pciaa.net/docs/defaultsource/default-document-library/apcia-white-paper-hartwig-gordon.pdf.

104 Such legislation has been introduced in California (AB 1552), the District of Columbia (B23-0750), Louisiana 

(S.B. 477), Massachusetts (SD 2888), Michigan (HB 5739, HB 5928), New Jersey (A3844), New York (Assembly 

Bill A10266), Ohio (House Bill 589), Oklahoma (SB 553), Pennsylvania (House Bill 2372), Puerto Rico (HB 2469), 

Rhode Island (H 8064), and South Carolina (SB 1188). Legislatures in the District of Columbia, Louisiana and 

Oklahoma already have rejected the bills. Other states legislatures are considering the issue, although legislation has 

not yet been introduced. See, e.g., “If Passed, Bills to Nullify BI Exclusions Could Prove Disastrous: AM Best,” 

Carrier Management, May 6, 2020, https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2020/05/06/206363.htm.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

24

required claims payments through a specified mechanism, although usually the funding would 

ultimately be borne by insurers. As of September 1, 2020, no state has enacted any of the 

proposed business interruption coverage bills. The NAIC also issued a statement cautioning 

against the retroactive imposition of coverage liability for COVID-19-related “business 

interruption claims that insurance policies do not currently cover.”105

Relatedly, members of Congress have introduced legislation to address the availability of 

business interruption insurance for future pandemics. A mechanism modeled on TRIP under 

which insurers would retain some amount of risk exposure, dubbed the Pandemic Risk Insurance 

Program, was introduced and referred to the House Financial Services Committee.106 One large 

P&C insurer has proposed a hybrid program that also involves the retention of some amount of 

risk by private insurers for different types of business interruption insurance vehicles, depending 

upon the size of the policyholder.107 Also, three insurance trade associations have proposed an 

alternative approach, under which insurers would administer business interruption benefits that 

would be wholly funded by the federal government.108

Treasury looks forward to working collaboratively with Congress, the states, the NAIC, and 

other stakeholders in determining how best to move forward in addressing the role of insurers 

regarding pandemic risk and related policy proposals. In this context, Treasury has noted that 

while insurers should pay legitimate claims, measures to compel coverage of current 

COVID-19-related business interruption losses by imposing retroactive changes to insurance 

contracts fundamentally conflict with bargained-for contract rights and could have troubling 

implications for insurance markets.

109

b) Workers’ Compensation Insurance

Workers’ compensation insurance covers costs related to medical care and treatment, 

rehabilitation, loss of wages, and other financial consequences encountered by workers resulting 

from workplace injuries or occupational diseases. Every state, with the exception of Texas, 

requires employers to obtain some form of workers’ compensation coverage to benefit 

employees who become ill because of or are injured on the job.110 Most states also permit 

105 NAIC, “NAIC Statement on Congressional Action Relating to COVID-19,” news release, March 25, 2020, 

https://content.naic.org/article/statement_naic_statement_congressional_action_relating_covid_19.htm.

106 Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020, H.R 7011, 116th Congr. (2020), https://www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/7011.

107 See Chubb, Pandemic Business Interruption Program (July 8, 2020), https://www.chubb.com/usen/_assets/doc/pandemic-business-interruption-program.pdf.

108 See American Property Casualty Insurance Association, “Insurance Trades Unveil Federal Pandemic Solution,”

news release, May 21, 2020, http://www.pciaa.net/pciwebsite/Cms/Content/ViewPage?sitepageid=60933.

109 Treasury Assistant Secretary Bimal Patel, “Remarks” (speech, Exchequer Club, Washington, D.C., May 20, 

2020), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1018.

110 In most states, mandatory workers’ compensation coverage does not apply to the self-employed or to independent 

contractors. Additionally, in some states, mandatory coverage does not extend to some employees in certain sectors, 

such as farm and domestic workers. In Texas, an employer (subject to certain exceptions) can decline to obtain
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

25

self-insurance of workers’ compensation exposures. Many states have limiting language in their 

workers’ compensation statutes, however, confirming that “ordinary diseases of life” to which 

the general population is subject are not occupational diseases subject to compensation.

The “ordinary diseases of life” restrictions could call into question the availability of benefits for 

an employee that contracts COVID-19 during a period of time when he or she works during the 

COVID-19 pandemic in situations that could promote exposure to the virus.111 As a result, a 

number of states have undertaken regulatory and legislative actions that deem COVID-19 to be 

an occupational disease subject to compensation under workers’ compensation laws for at least 

certain categories of employees.112 These actions have varied in terms of the categories of 

employees subject to their provisions, as well as the effect of the statutory presumptions.113

Loss experience associated with COVID-19 workers’ compensation claims continues to develop. 

Modeling estimates reflect that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers’ 

compensation insurers, as amplified by recent state statutory and regulatory initiatives, could 

vary significantly depending upon the assumptions employed.114 As in other areas, however, 

reduced economic activity—resulting in fewer on-the-job injuries—may offset these losses to 

some extent.115

workers’ compensation insurance entirely or otherwise qualify as a self-insurer for the exposure. However, where a 

Texas employer elects to remain outside of the workers’ compensation system, it also remains subject to common 

law actions for employment-related injuries. See Texas Labor Code, Title 5 (Workers’ Compensation), Chapter 401 

et seq. In addition, although Wyoming only requires workers’ compensation coverage for workers in “extrahazardous” occupations, most occupations in Wyoming are so designated under the Wyoming workers’ 

compensation laws. See Elaine Weiss, et al., Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs (October 

2019), 6, https://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/nasiRptWkrsComp201710_31%20final(1).pdf.

111 See Jay Patel, Workers’ Compensation and COVID-19: Pandemic Highlights Disparities across States, Injuries 

vs. Illnesses (May 2020), 

https://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/Pandemic%20highlights%20disparities%20-%20Final.pdf (citing 

Virginia statutory language as typical).

112 “State Activity: COVID-19 WC Compensability Presumptions,” National Council on Compensation Insurance 

(NCCI), last updated September 22, 2020, 

https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Documents/II_Covid-19-Presumptions.pdf (summarizing state provisions presuming 

compensability of COVID-19).

113 See “State Activity: COVID-19 WC Compensability Presumptions.”

114 See NCCI, COVID-19 and Workers Compensation: Modeling Potential Impacts (April 2020), 

https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/Insights-COVID-19-WorkersComp-Modeling-Potential-Impacts.pdf; 

“COVID-19 Hypothetical Scenarios Tool,” NCCI, last updated May 2020, 

https://www.ncci.com/SecureDocuments/COVID-19-Scenarios.html.

115 See Matt Sheehan, “AM Best Warns Against COVID-19 Workers’ Compensation Laws,” Reinsurance News, 

June 23, 2020, https://www.reinsurancene.ws/am-best-warns-against-covid-19-workers-compensation-laws/

(observing that “general claims declined noticeably over the last few months in large part because of the pandemic 

and the forced shuttering of businesses,” and that “the current claims environment is generally manageable”).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

26

c) Auto Insurance

Auto insurance is available to individual consumers (through personal lines) and businesses 

(through commercial lines). Automobile usage is interconnected with auto insurance claims and 

premiums. Auto insurers have benefited from lower claims frequency during the pandemic 

because of fewer miles driven due to the stay-at-home orders and the adoption by many 

businesses of work-at-home policies. Some estimates put the reduction in miles driven at 

approximately 50 percent between mid-March and late-April.116 In the first half of 2020, 

personal auto insurance lines results were favorable due to lower claims experience, while 

commercial auto insurance lines results continued a decade-long trend of worsening 

underwriting results.117 Any benefit to personal lines insurers was partially offset by recent 

premium reductions for policyholders.118 Strong underwriting results in personal auto insurance 

lines could continue depending on the path of the virus and socioeconomic trends going forward. 

As a result of changes in the driving public’s behavior, a recent J.D. Power survey found that 55 

percent of consumers think that their miles driven will remain lower for a significant time 

following the COVID-19 pandemic.119

The J.D. Power survey also showed that 50 percent of consumers surveyed were interested in 

usage-based insurance (UBI).120 UBI (or pay-per-mile insurance) tracks more data than just 

miles driven: it relies on telematics to provide data on behaviors such as speeding, hard stops, 

and cellular phone use. UBI may reward safer driving behaviors as well as low mileage and is 

typically priced with a lower base rate (versus fixed-cost policies) plus a per-mile rate. Several 

national auto insurers offer UBI products, but they may not be available in all states.121 The J.D. 

Power survey also indicated that, by April 2020, 40 percent of consumers were more willing to 

use UBI, up from 10 percent at the beginning of the pandemic, and consumers that reported 

already using such a product doubled to 20 percent.122

116 Jason Metz, “We’ve Cut Our Driving in Half. Is It Time for Pay-Per-Mile Insurance?” Forbes, April 27, 2020, 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2020/04/27/we-cut-our-driving-in-half-is-it-time-for-pay-per-mile-insurance.

117 Despite strong growth in premiums, loss adjustment expenses have grown faster, driven by costlier litigation of 

claims. See, e.g., “U.S. Commercial Auto Insurers Report Worst Losses in Decade: AM Best,” Insurance Journal, 

June 30, 2020, https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/06/30/573912.htm.

118 For more information on premium relief, see Section II.C.1 and Section II.D.1.

119 Kyle Schmitt, J.D. Power, Auto Insurance During COVID-19: Premium Relief: Consumer Impact and Outlook

(April 16, 2020), 3, https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4239280/Files/COVID19/20200416_PULSE%20Insurance%20During%20COVID19_Distribution.pdf.

120 Schmitt, Premium Relief: Consumer Impact and Outlook, 3.

121 See, e.g., Metz, “We’ve Cut Our Driving in Half.”

122 Schmitt, Premium Relief: Consumer Impact and Outlook, 23. Individual insurers that offer UBI products have 

confirmed an increase in take-up rates of such policies. For example, Allstate Corp. reportedly experienced a 30 

percent increase in sales of its Milewise telematics-based product—which prices premiums primarily according to 

miles driven—in some of the states in which it is offered during the first quarter of 2020. Calvin Trice, “Allstate 

Sees Demand for Pay-Per-Mile Car Insurance Jump with Pandemic,” S&P Global Market Intelligence, May 6, 2020, 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

27

The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on auto use—and auto insurance—remains to 

be seen. Early data suggests that both miles driven and accident frequency have declined, and 

may remain lower than prior to the pandemic.

d) Event Cancellation Insurance

Event cancellation insurance, subject to its terms, conditions, and exclusions, generally provides 

“[c]overage for financial loss because of the cancellation or postponement of a specific event due 

to weather or other unexpected cause beyond the control of the insured.”123 The coverage can 

extend to lost revenues and costs associated with the cancellation, including rescheduling costs. 

Covered perils can include adverse weather, terrorism, active shooter, cancelled speaker, venue 

cancellation, and communicable diseases, although many policies expressly exclude coverage for 

communicable diseases.124 The terms of such insurance tend to be highly customized and can 

vary significantly from policy to policy.125

The amount of premiums collected for this insurance product is relatively small in light of the 

size of the commercial P&C market generally.126 The validity of some COVID-19-related 

claims may depend on policy wording. Nevertheless, the total amount of coverage available 

under such policies may result in significant losses, given the widespread effects of the 

COVID-19 pandemic and the existence of some coverage that extends to pandemic-caused 

cancellations.127 For example, some high-profile events may have insurance coverage for some 

of the financial losses associated with their cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.128 

https://platform.marketintelligence.spglobal.com/web/client?overridecdc=1&auth=inherit#news/article?id=5848321

9.

123 NAIC, Uniform Property & Casualty Product Coding Matrix, Effective Jan. 1, 2020, 

https://www.naic.org/documents/industry_pcm_p_c_2020.pdf (see Filing Code 9.0008, Event Cancellation).

124 See, e.g., “Coronavirus and Event Cancellation Insurance,” Office of the Insurance Commissioner Washington 

State, https://www.insurance.wa.gov/coronavirus-and-event-cancellation-insurance (“Coverage for communicable 

disease outbreaks, such as a coronavirus, is typically not included in a standard event cancellation insurance 

policy.”).

125 See AM Best, “Best’s Commentary: Event Cancellation Insurance Losses Amid COVID-19 Outbreak May 

Hinge on Contract Wordings,” news release, March 25, 2020, 

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200325005406/en/Best%E2%80%99s-Commentary-Event-Cancellati

on-Insurance-Losses-COVID-19.

126 Event cancellation insurance is a product reported under the Inland Marine line of insurance, which in total 

(including many other coverages) represents only about 3.7 percent of total P&C industry premiums. See S&P 

Global (2019 data as of August 6, 2020).

127 See, e.g., Robert Mazzouli, et al., Commercial Insurance Market is Hardening, 2 (May 7, 2020), 

https://www.fitchratings.com/research/insurance/commercial-insurance-market-is-hardening-07-05-2020 (Fitch 

Ratings report opining that event cancellation and travel insurance lines, among others, will experience high 

pandemic-related losses).

128 See Heather Turner, “Wimbledon’s Pandemic Insurance Coverage Results in $141M Payout,” NU 

PropertyCasualty360, April 10, 2020, 

https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2020/04/10/wimbledons-pandemic-insurance-coverage-results-in-141m-payo

ut, “Swiss Re Has $250M Cancellation Exposure for Tokyo Olympics,” Business Insurance, March 20, 2020, 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

28

Some observers believe reinsurers (mostly based in Europe) have the greatest exposure due to 

retention limits.129 Going forward, insurers will likely consider COVID-19 to be a pre-existing 

condition not subject to coverage under most new event cancellation policies.130

e) Travel Insurance

Travel insurance generally covers “financial loss due to trip cancellation/interruption; lost or 

damaged baggage; trip or baggage delays; missed connections and/or changes in itinerary; and 

casualty losses due to rental vehicle damage,” subject to the policy’s other terms, conditions, and 

exclusions.131 In 2018, total premiums associated with travel insurance were approximately $3.8 

billion.132 Products available prior to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic varied in 

scope, including policies providing “cancel for any reason” coverage. However, most travel 

insurance policies incorporated a variety of exclusions, including for losses associated with 

epidemics or viruses.133

Travel insurers have received numerous claims associated with travel disruptions because of the 

COVID-19 pandemic, as well as requests for the transfer of policies to cover future, rescheduled 

trips. As in the case with event cancellation insurance, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 

a tightening of terms and conditions of policies, including reduced loss payouts and other 

limitations on recovery under new policies. In particular, claims arising out of the COVID-19 

pandemic now will likely be deemed foreseeable and not within the coverage of most newlyissued policies.134

https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/00010101/NEWS06/912333630/Swiss-Re-has-$250M-cancellation-expo

sure-for-Tokyo-Olympics.

129 See Laura J. Hay, Do Insurers Have COVID-19 Covered? (March 2020), 

https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/03/do-insurers-have-covid-19-covered.html.

130 See ASAE Business Solutions, Event Cancellation Insurance FAQ (March 2020), 2, 

https://www.asaebusinesssolutions.org/pdf/Event_Cancellation_Insurance_FAQ_March_2020.pdf (“To our 

knowledge at this time, providers of event cancellation insurance consider the Coronavirus COVID-19 a pre-existing 

condition, and it is therefore excluded from event cancellation policies from late January 2020 onward.”).

131 NAIC, Uniform Property & Casualty Product Coding Matrix, Effective Jan. 1, 2020, 

https://www.naic.org/documents/industry_pcm_p_c_2020.pdf (see Filing Code 9.0009, travel coverage).

132 Elaine Glusac, “Travel Insurance: Is It Worth It?” The New York Times, June 17, 2020, 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/travel/travel-insurance-pandemic.html.

133 Ben Finley, “Pandemic Exposes Gaps in Travel Insurance Coverage,” Claims Journal, April 29, 2020, 

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2020/04/29/296797.htm.

134 See “Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Travel Insurance FAQs,” New York Department of Financial Services

(NYDFS), https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumers/coronavirus/travel_insurance_faqs (noting that coverage under a 

travel insurance policy for COVID-19 is unlikely to be provided if COVID-19 was foreseeable at the time the policy 

was issued).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

29

f) Credit Insurance

Credit insurance—also known as trade credit insurance—is coverage “purchased by 

manufacturers, merchants, educational institutions, or other providers of goods and services 

extending credit, for indemnification of losses or damages resulting from the nonpayment of 

debts owed to them for goods or services provided in the normal course of their business.”135 

Typically, suppliers can purchase commercial trade credit insurance up to a pre-determined 

amount, based on the financial strength of a given buyer. In the United States, reportedly more 

than 60 percent of credit insurance policyholders are small- and medium-size businesses.136

Such insurance enhances the ability of suppliers to use their accounts receivable as collateral for 

commercial bank, working capital financing.

In times of economic stress, however, credit insurers face reductions in premium receipts 

coupled with increased claims activity, which typically leads them to scale back the credit limits 

they offer in order to avoid risk to their own balance sheets.137 COVID-19-related economic 

dislocations have reportedly resulted in a significant reduction of available capacity for credit 

insurance.138 In some countries, government backstops or public reinsurance facilities have been 

enacted to enable the credit insurance market to function without reduced limits despite the 

uncertainty from the COVID-19 pandemic. In the United States, manufacturing and retail sector 

stakeholders have proposed creating a temporary federal reinsurance backstop to restore capacity 

in the commercial credit insurance market, so that new orders can be placed and new business 

can be conducted during the pandemic.

139 A recent study concluded that with less U.S. trade 

credit insurance coverage, “insured companies will be less able to meet rising demands for their

goods and services as consumer demand generally picks up and also will have reduced credit 

lines from banks that rely on companies having [trade credit insurance] policies, thereby 

reducing the strength of the recovery from the recession.”140

135 NAIC, Uniform Property & Casualty Product Coding Matrix, Effective Jan. 1, 2020, 

https://www.naic.org/documents/industry_pcm_p_c_2020.pdf (see Filing Code 28.1, Credit—Credit Default).

136 James Daly, “The Case for a Partnership between Trade Credit Insurers and the U.S. Government,” CFO 

Magazine, May 21, 2020, 

https://www.cfo.com/risk-management/2020/05/the-case-for-a-partnership-between-trade-credit-insurers-and-the-us-government/.

137 See Mohamed Benkhalfa, COVID-19: Trade Credit Insurance Expectations (April 2020), 2, 

https://milliman-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/milliman/pdfs/articles/3125ldp_credit-risk_20200501.ashx.

138 See James Daly, “The Case for a Partnership between Trade Credit Insurers and the U.S. Government.”

139 Alexander Bitter, “Retail, Manufacturer Trade Groups Seek Federal Backstop for Credit Insurance,” S&P Global 

Market Intelligence, June 23, 2020, 

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/retail-manufacturer-trade-grou

ps-seek-federal-backstop-for-credit-insurance-59166198.

140 Robert Litan and Yong Xu, A Strong Recovery Requires a Healthy Trade Credit Insurance Industry (July 9, 

2020), 3, https://www.econone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/A-Strong-Recovery-Requires-a-Healthy-TradeCredit-Insurance-Industry.pdf. See also id. at 6 (“the cutbacks in [trade credit insurance] coverage threaten to inhibit 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

30

g) Liability Claims

Various lines of business addressing third-party liability could be implicated in response to 

claims for damages related to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Directors and Officers 

liability coverage (D&O) insures for liability arising out of the performance by directors and 

officers of their professional duties on behalf of a corporation. Errors & Omissions liability 

coverage (E&O) insures for liability arising out of the performance of professional or businessrelated duties, such as by physicians, brokers, or accountants. Many other forms of commercial 

liability coverage are available as well. Claims for alleged breaches of duty of care typically lag 

the underlying event.141 Whether such claims relating to the COVID-19 pandemic will 

materialize, and the degree to which they will be successful, is not clear.142 As a means to 

facilitate economic recovery, the business community has proposed liability exemptions.143

2. P&C Sector’s Asset Exposures from the COVID-19 Pandemic

P&C insurers typically operate with much lower asset leverage and invest in higher quality and 

shorter duration securities compared to L&H insurers.144 Although a prolonged low interest rate

environment generally has greater ramifications for the L&H sector, the drop in government and 

corporate bond yields could have a more immediate impact on the investment income results of 

P&C insurers, pressuring the sector’s earnings in 2020. Compared to L&H insurers, P&C 

insurers have higher asset turnover and investment income contributes to a larger percentage of 

earnings. As a result, P&C insurance investment portfolios are vulnerable to the downturn in the 

macroeconomic environment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and generally are exposed to 

some of the same credit risks (if to a lesser extent) as L&H insurers. One area of focus for 

certain P&C insurers is their increased asset allocation to equity investments, which typically 

carry more risk than fixed income securities. Also, P&C insurers are major investors in 

municipal bonds, an asset class for which the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic

has heightened cash flow concerns in certain municipalities and segments (e.g., airport, hospital, 

and tax-funded securities). Finally, the P&C sector over the last decade has increased its 

allocation to more complex and non-traditional assets (e.g., CLOs, private equity funds, and joint 

ventures), which may have exposed insurers to increased investment risk as a result of the 

COVID-19-related economic dislocation.

sales by affected policyholders by an estimated $46 billion in gross output, and thus prevent the creation of 

approximately 155,000 jobs at supplier firms.”).

141 Sean Bissey, Learning from NatCats: Is the Onslaught of Cases Yet to Come? (July 14, 2020), 

https://cclt.law.upenn.edu/2020/07/14/learning-from-natcats-is-the-onslaught-of-cases-yet-to-come/.

142 See, e.g., Axis Capital Holdings, Second-Quarter 2020 Earnings Call Transcript, July 29, 2020.

https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2020/07/30/axis-capital-holdings-axs-q2-2020-earnings-call-tr.aspx.

143 See, e.g., U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Why Temporary Coronavirus Liability Relief is Needed for American 

Businesses (2020) https://www.uschamber.com/report/why-temporary-coronavirus-liability-relief-needed-americanbusinesses (advocating for a limited liability “safe harbor”).

144 The effects on insurer investments are discussed in greater depth above, in connection with the L&H sector. For 

more information on P&C investments, see Section VII.A.3.a.iii.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

31

C. Insurer Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused insurers to make a variety of adjustments to their practices 

with respect to policyholders and to their own internal operations. This section first surveys 

some of the forms of relief offered to policyholders (and in some instances required by 

regulators), including premium credits, non-cancellation of policies, and premium payment 

deferrals. The section then discusses insurers’ approaches to operational resilience during the 

pandemic.

1. Policyholder Relief

Insurers have taken numerous actions to provide relief to policyholders—sometimes voluntarily, 

sometimes because of regulatory requirements—in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.145 For 

example:

Grace Periods and Fee Waivers. Many insurers have relaxed due dates for premium payments, 

extended grace periods for late payments, and waived late fees and penalties. State insurance 

regulators encouraged—and sometimes ordered—such relief measures.146 In response to

CARES Act provisions, several L&H insurers provided participants with easier access to 

emergency funds via retirement accounts by waiving withdrawal penalties and plan sponsor fees 

to amend plans, and also provided guidance to help customers and financial planners assess their

options.147

Auto Insurance Credits. As the number of miles driven decreased substantially due to 

stay-at-home orders across most states, accident frequency also fell. As a result, many 

insurers—including all of the top 15 auto insurers—provided some level of premium reduction 

to their personal auto insurance customers.148 While a number of these steps were taken 

145 For more information on state insurance regulator responses to COVID-19, see Section II.D.

146 See, e.g., State of Alabama Department of Insurance, Bulletin No. 2020-05 (March 30, 2020), 

https://www.aldoi.gov/pdf/legal/ALDOI%20Bulletin%20No.%202020-05.pdf (addressing “cancellation or 

non-renewal recommendations due to COVID-19 pandemic” for “all commercial and personal lines of insurance, 

including property, casualty, disability, accident and health, and life insurance policies”).

147 See, e.g., Susan Neeley, “A Lifeline for COVID-19 Financial Hardship,” IMPACT, April 9, 2020, 

https://impact.acli.com/a-lifeline-for-covid-19-financial-hardship/. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security (CARES) Act allows eligible participants in some tax-advantaged retirement plans to take an early 

distribution of up to $100,000 during 2020 without paying the 10 percent penalty tax imposed on most early 

withdrawals; it also suspends the mandatory 20 percent tax withholding for early distributions from 401(k) or other 

workplace retirement plans. Plans may also permit loans up to the higher of $100,000 or 100 percent of the 

retirement account value with repayments deferred for up to one year. CARES Act § 2202, Pub. L. No. 116-136 

(2020).

148 Tim Zawacki, “Auto Insurer’s Smaller May Credit Reflects Uptick in Driving,” S&P Global Market Intelligence, 

May 12, 2020, https://platform.marketintelligence.spglobal.com/web/client?auth=inherit#news/article?id=58568104.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

32

voluntarily, some were in response to regulatory actions.149 By one estimate, as of May 1, 2020, 

auto insurers collectively had committed to returning $10.5 billion to their policyholders through 

premium credits, premium percentage discounts, and added coverage.150 Consumer groups 

praised such efforts but viewed them as insufficient, noting that most credits were around 15 

percent of March and April premiums although some data showed automobile accidents down 50 

percent.151

Extended Coverage for Delivery Services. In the face of dine-in restrictions under state and 

local stay-at-home orders, many restaurants expanded their take-out and delivery options. Other 

businesses similarly expanded delivery services. In response, many insurers waived the 

commercial use exclusion in personal auto insurance policies for employees making deliveries 

for restaurants and other essential businesses. Other insurers expanded restaurants’ general 

liability insurance at no additional cost to include coverage for hired drivers and non-owned 

autos. These coverage extensions were encouraged by some state insurance regulators and 

required by others.

152

2. Insurer Continuity Planning and Practices

Continuity plans form a key component of risk management strategies but they are generally 

designed to respond to short-term disruptions of limited geographic scope, resulting from events 

such as natural hazards, infrastructure damage, terrorist attacks, and cyber attacks or other 

network outages. State insurance regulators review insurers’ business continuity plans as part of 

the annual financial condition examination process with attention to whether the continuity plan, 

when activated, will minimize financial loss, ensure continued service to policyholders 

(particularly with respect to prompt payments of claims), and mitigate the negative effect of 

disruption to the insurer’s operations.

153

149 See, e.g., California Department of Insurance, “Commissioner Lara Orders Insurance Companies to Refund 

Premiums to Drivers and Businesses Affected by the COVID-19 Emergency,” news release, April 13, 2020. 

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2020/release038-2020.cfm.

150 Laura Adams, “How COVID-19 May Affect Future Auto Insurance Premiums,” NU PropertyCasualty360, May 

1, 2020, https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2020/05/01/how-covid-19-may-affect-future-auto-insurancepremiums/. Some insurers also began moving to reduce rates going forward. See also “State Farm Adds $2.2B of 

Auto Rate Cuts to $2B of Coronavirus Credits,” Best’s Insurance News & Analysis, May 18, 2020, 

http://news.ambest.com/newscontent.aspx?AltSrc=104&RefNum=225326.

151 Center for Economic Justice & Consumer Federation of America, Personal Auto Insurance Premium Relief in the 

COVID-19 Era (May 2020), 

https://consumerfed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Auto-Insurance-Refunds-COVID-19-Update-Report-5-7-20.pd

f.

152 See, e.g., Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, “Governor Evers, Insurance Commissioner Order 

Insurers to Assist Restaurants Offering Delivery During COVID-19 Public Health Crisis,” news release, March 23, 

2020, https://oci.wi.gov/Pages/PressReleases/20200323RestaurantsCOVID-19.aspx.

153 See NAIC, NAIC Financial Condition Examiners’ Handbook, Section I.III.D (Business Continuity) (2018).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

33

At the outset of the pandemic, many states designated financial services, including insurance, as 

essential services exempted from stay-at-home orders, which aligned with federal guidance.154 

Many of these orders also required essential businesses to determine how to conduct essential 

operations while protecting the health and safety of both staff and customers. For insurers, the 

COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need to develop and be ready to implement contingency 

plans, generally involving remote working, for several months or longer.

The insurance industry needed not only to adapt operations to conform to state and local stay-athome orders, but also to consider guidance from state health departments and the CDC. Many 

insurance companies closed their offices and continued to provide essential insurance services 

remotely, while those that remained open sought to maximize remote work options, stagger work

hours, maintain social distancing measures in the office, and undergo additional hygiene and 

sanitation protocols. As part of this process, insurers had to identify critical suppliers, consider 

potential weaknesses in the supply chain, and develop alternative options to address these 

challenges.

Insurers engaged in remote operations also needed to address cybersecurity as another critical 

area of operational resilience. Reports show that cyber criminals have tried to take advantage of 

the large number of people working remotely and prey on people’s fears about the pandemic.155 

Ransomware attacks increased by nearly 150 percent between February and March 2020, while 

the number of U.S. networks experiencing malicious activity doubled between January and 

March 2020.156

The need for remote operations, the threat of malicious activity, and the overall increased 

demands on networks have served as a critical test case for investment in technology. Insurers 

that have demonstrated a commitment to modernization and made InsurTech investments over 

the past few years were better positioned to respond to the pandemic.157 Such insurers were able 

to modify existing operations by relying on recent technological developments, such as 

conducting claims investigations using photographs or video from mobile phones. However, 

154 See, e.g., Illinois Exec. Order in Response to COVID-19 (March 21, 2020), 

https://www2.illinois.gov/IISNews/21288-Gov._Pritzker_Stay_at_Home_Order.pdf (deeming “essential businesses 

and operations” to include “[p]rofessional services, such as legal services, accounting services, insurance services, 

[and] real estate services (including appraisal and title services)”). In including insurance as essential, such orders 

were consistent with federal guidance. See Treasury, “Statement by Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin on Essential 

Financial Services Workers,” news release, March 24, 2020, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm956; 

Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce

(March 19, 2020; last updated August 18, 2020),

https://www.cisa.gov/publication/guidance-essential-critical-infrastructure-workforce.

155 See, e.g., Venky Anant, et al., “A Dual Cybersecurity Mindset for the Next Normal,” McKinsey & Company, July 

7, 2020, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/a-dual-cybersecurity-mindset-for-the-nextnormal.

156 Joseph Menn, “Hacking Attacks Against Corporations Double as Employees Work from Home,” Insurance 

Journal, April 17, 2020, https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/04/17/565185.htm. For more

information on insurer cybersecurity generally, see Section IV.C.2.

157 For more information on InsurTech generally, see Section VI.D. See also FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 75-98.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

34

observers have noted that transitioning workforces to a virtual environment created challenges 

and additional expenses for insurers, particularly those with legacy systems.158 While 

modernization measures were previously seen as offering a competitive advantage, technological 

adaptation now appears to be a necessity for insurers to maintain operational resilience and to 

promptly pay claims. Some insurers have even suggested that adoption of alternate work 

arrangements and an additional emphasis on technology created cost efficiencies, expressing an 

intent to permanently modify their operations going forward.159

Although most state stay-at-home orders have expired, many within the insurance industry 

continue to allow, encourage, or require remote work and other forms of social distancing, and 

remain cautious about returning to a pre-pandemic state of operations. Whether the COVID-19 

pandemic will result in long-term changes to the way the insurance industry operates—such as a 

permanent shift to remote work—is unclear. Given future uncertainties, insurers should see 

digitalization efforts as essential, and continue to test and improve their information technology 

capabilities to prepare for a sustained virtual work environment and increased online activity by 

policyholders. Continuous review and testing of continuity plans are also important, and FIO 

anticipates that supervisors will encourage insurers to consider a variety of adverse scenarios so 

that they are prepared to respond to uncertainties during times of crisis.

D. State Insurance Regulatory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

This section describes the state insurance regulatory responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.160 

Since March 2020, state insurance regulators have issued materials providing guidance and relief 

related to policyholder coverage and premiums, as well as insurer operations, licensing, and 

accounting. In addition, state insurance regulators also have sought information from insurers to 

better understand the pandemic’s potential scope, policyholders’ benefits, and coverage issues.161 

State regulators themselves also moved to contingency operations plans.162

158 Stonybrook Capital, “The Implications of COVID-19 on the Insurance Industry,” news release, March 16, 2020.

159 See, e.g., Nationwide, “Nationwide Announces Permanent Shift in Workplace, Work-From-Home Strategy,” 

news release, April 29, 2020, https://news.nationwide.com/nationwide-announces-permanent-shift-in-workplacework-from-home-strategy/.

160 See NAIC, A Report of the NAIC on the State Insurance Regulatory Response to COVID-19: Update 1/January 

1-May 31, 2020, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/naic_covid_19_report_1.pdf.

161 NAIC, A Report of the NAIC on the State Insurance Regulatory Response to COVID-19, 11.

162 For more information on insurer continuity plans and practice, see Section II.C.2.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

35

1. Guidance and Relief for Policyholders

Many state insurance regulators provided guidance to their policyholders in their states on 

COVID-19-related insurance issues. They issued consumer alerts, press releases, and other 

forms of guidance discussing the COVID-19 pandemic and travel insurance, business 

interruption coverage, and life insurance, among other topics.163 Most U.S. state insurance 

regulators also required, or in some cases just encouraged, insurers in their jurisdictions to 

provide various forms of relief to policyholders.

These actions included:

• extending grace periods to defer payment of insurance premiums;

• issuing moratoriums on cancellations, non-renewals, or termination of policies due 

to nonpayment;

• waiving late payment fees, reinstatement fees, or other penalties; and

• extending deadlines for submitting claims or other documents.164

The measures listed above are similar to those taken by state insurance regulators after natural 

hazards and severe weather-related events like hurricanes or floods. State insurance regulators 

also requested (and sometimes required) that insurers provide partial rebates or discounts for 

certain coverage lines affected by reduced economic activity and stay-at-home orders, most 

notably for auto insurance premiums.165

163 See, e.g., Connecticut Insurance Department, “Connecticut Insurance Department Provides Tips on Travel 

Insurance Amid Coronavirus Outbreak,” news release, March 6, 2020, 

https://portal.ct.gov/CID/News-Releases/Press-Releases/Press-Releases-20200306; Idaho Department of Insurance, 

“DOI Publishes Bulletin and FAQ on Business Interruption Coverage,” news release, April 27, 2020, 

https://doi.idaho.gov/DisplayPDF?Id=7793; New Hampshire Insurance Department, “Information for NH Residents 

Who Have Employer-Sponsored Life Insurance Plans,” news release, April 10, 2020, 

https://www.nh.gov/insurance/media/pr/2020/documents/press-release-life-insurance-unemployment-04-10-20.pdf. 

See also NAIC, A Report of the NAIC on the State Insurance Regulatory Response to COVID-19, 9 (noting that 

“supporting the efforts of U.S. insurance regulators in managing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic [is] its 

‘Priority One,’” with a focus on: (1) protecting insurance consumers and (2) ensuring the ongoing stability and 

operation of our nation’s insurance industry, among other things).

164 The NAIC has maintained a comprehensive list of state bulletins and guidance, including actions related to 

insurer operations. See “NAIC Coronavirus Resource Center,” NAIC, 

https://content.naic.org/naic_coronavirus_info.htm.

165 For more information on policyholder relief measures by insurers—including estimates of the amount of relief 

provided and criticism of insurer measures—see Section II.C.1.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

36

2. Guidance and Relief for Insurers

Nearly all states also issued guidance to insurers related to the COVID-19 pandemic, most 

frequently related to operational relief, accounting relief, and continuity plans.166

Operational Relief. State insurance regulators generally have responded to the pandemic by 

providing regulatory flexibility to insurers while emphasizing the importance of continued timely 

processing and payment of policyholder claims. Many state regulators extended deadlines for 

insurers’ mandatory financial filings with the state.167 Many state regulators also postponed or 

canceled scheduled insurance licensing exams, or allowed online licensing examinations for 

agents and producers.

168 Nearly all states issued guidance to their regulated entities confirming 

that certain regulatory requirements would be temporarily waived during the pandemic. For 

example, some states began permitting e-signatures and electronic document delivery of policy 

documents and/or allowed virtual property inspections.169 Some states initially implemented 

these regulatory flexibilities as temporary modifications but are now reevaluating some of them 

as permanent changes. As states re-opened in May and June 2020, some states rescinded their 

COVID-19-related bulletins and notified insurers that normal regulatory operations had 

resumed.170

Accounting Relief. The NAIC considered several adjustments to statutory accounting principles 

(SAPs) for insurers that provided relief to borrowers and policyholders impacted by the 

pandemic.171 By July 2020, the NAIC adopted four interpretations granting temporary 

exceptions from certain SAP accounting rules and granting insurers relief from incurring adverse 

accounting charges:

166 See “NAIC Coronavirus Resource Center,” NAIC.

167 For example, in May, Maine issued notice to all insurers that allowed a 30 to 60 day extension on regulatory 

filings in limited circumstances. Also, in April, South Carolina and Arizona offered to all insurers a 30 to 60 day 

extension on certain regulatory filings. “NAIC Coronavirus Resource Center,” NAIC (State Bulletins and Alerts 

tab).

168 See, e.g., Georgia Office of Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner, Bulletin 20-EX-6: Waiving of In-Person 

Continuing Education Requirements (March 31, 2020), https://oci.georgia.gov/press-releases/bulletins; NYDFS, 

“Department of Financial Services Announces Remote Online Insurance Licensing Exam Option,” news release, 

June 11, 2020, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr202006111.

169 See, e.g., Idaho Department of Insurance, Bulletin No. 20-05: Waivers of Certain Requirements to Address

COVID-19 – Property or Casualty (April 15, 2020), https://doi.idaho.gov/DisplayPDF?ID=7766; Florida Office of 

Insurance Regulation, Informational Memorandum OIR-20-04M (March 25, 2020), 

https://www.floir.com/siteDocuments/OIR-20-04M.pdf; NAMIC, “COVID-19 Discussion” (written submission, 

NAIC Property and Casualty Insurance Committee, June 10, 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/call_materials/NAMIC%20Statement%20-

%20C%20Committee%20061020.pdf.

170 See, e.g., Arkansas Insurance Department, Bulletin No. 20-2020: Recision of COVID-19-Related Bulletins 

Issued Under Executive Order 20-03 (May 11, 2020), 

https://insurance.arkansas.gov/uploads/resource/documents/20-2020.pdf.

171 “Statutory Accounting Principles Working Group,” NAIC, https://content.naic.org/cmte_e_app_sapwg.htm.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

37

• Interpretation 20-02, which delayed the recognition of collecting insurance premiums in 

U.S. jurisdictions that are disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic; 

• Interpretation 20-03, which adopted CARES Act guidance on the approach to accounting 

for certain loan modifications in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; this interpretation 

permits insurers to extend grace periods for borrowers to make repayments on loans 

without reclassifying the loan as a troubled debt restructuring; 

• Interpretation 20-04, which allowed borrowers of mortgage loans extra time to make 

mortgage payments without recording an impairment; and 

• Interpretation 20-08, which allowed reporting premium refunds—outside of policy 

terms—as a reduction in premiums and not as expenses.

172

Ongoing Supervision/Continuity Plans. Several states have issued bulletins directing 

regulated insurance entities to review their business continuity plans in response to the 

COVID-19 pandemic, and in some cases requiring submission of revised continuity plans for 

regulatory review.173

3. State Regulator Information Requests and Data Calls 

In an attempt to coordinate potentially conflicting requests for information from the U.S. states, 

the NAIC developed a COVID-19 Information Request. The request had two sections focused 

on qualitative assessments. First, the section on “Operational Impact of COVID-19” asked about 

steps taken to implement an effective business continuity plan and/or COVID-19 response plan 

to support ongoing operations, including questions about the insurer’s ability to maintain 

policyholder services and essential functions, communication plans, cybersecurity efforts, and 

the availability and oversight of third-party service providers. Second, the section on “Financial 

Impact of COVID-19” asked about company solvency and steps taken by the company both to 

assess its exposures and address any identified concerns.174

Separately, on May 1, 2020, the NAIC launched a set of data calls to collect premiums and 

claims data related to business interruption insurance for all 50 U.S. states, the District of 

Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The goal of the NAIC’s data call was to identify the 

largest U.S. business interruption insurance writers, the size of the market, and the extent of the 

exclusions potentially applicable to COVID-19-related losses.

175 Two states—New York and 

172 “Statutory Accounting Principles Working Group,” NAIC (Related Documents tab).

173 See, e.g., Oklahoma Insurance Department, PC Bulletin No. 2020-01 (Amended) (March 20, 2020, updated April 

29, 2020), https://www.oid.ok.gov/pc-bulletin-no-2020-01-amended/.

174 See, e.g., Burnie Burner, “NAIC/Texas Department of Insurance COVID Information Request Template,”

JDSupra, April 8, 2020, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/naic-texas-department-of-insurance-38814/.

175 Letter from NAIC on Behalf of Participating States, the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories to Property and 

Casualty Insurers Writing Business Interruption Coverage (May 1, 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/COVID_BI_Letter_FINAL_4.pdf (discussing the NAIC 

business interruption data call).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

38

New Mexico—did not participate, as noted in the NAIC’s release of its initial findings.176 To 

assist FIO in carrying out its statutory functions, and particularly to assist the Secretary in 

considering any proposals concerning a potential federal role regarding “pandemic insurance,” 

FIO consulted with the NAIC and the U.S. states concerning coordination on sharing the 

information obtained from these data calls.177 Specifically, in June 2020, FIO requested the 

nationally aggregated data from the NAIC’s business interruption insurance data call, including 

the initial premium data set and claims data set, and each of the subsequent claims data sets. FIO 

also requested the aggregated state level data for each jurisdiction for both the premium data call 

and the first and subsequent claims data calls.178 As noted above, FIO’s initial analysis of 

aggregate data showed that a high percentage of business interruption policies contained a virus 

exclusion, and nearly all contained a property damage requirement.179

E. International Insurance Supervisory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic and its corresponding financial and economic impacts are affecting the 

insurance industry worldwide. Around the globe, financial supervisors have recognized that 

insurance is an essential service and must remain operational and viable during times of 

uncertainty to help policyholders manage risk and withstand stress. Supervisory responses 

reflect that COVID-19-related impacts have manifested in a variety of forms in different 

jurisdictions due to variations in demographics, economies, markets, and supervisory structures. 

Nevertheless, insurance supervisory responses have shared similar objectives: collect 

information; provide operational relief (e.g., by relaxing regulatory deadlines); enhance 

operational continuity and resilience of insurers; promote prudence; and encourage working with 

policyholders throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This section discusses the responses of two 

international standard setting bodies (IAIS and the FSB) and that of the European Union’s 

insurance regulatory body, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority 

(EIOPA).

176 NAIC, COVID-19 Property & Casualty Insurance Business Interruption Data Call – Part 1 – Premiums and 

Policy Information June 2020, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/COVID19%20BI%20Nat%27l%20Aggregates_0.pdf.

177 See FIO Act.

178 See FIO Act, 31 U.S.C. § 313(e).

179 For more information on business interruption coverage, see Section II.B.1.a.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

39

1. IAIS Response

The IAIS is a voluntary, member-driven, non-profit organization of insurance supervisors that is

the primary international insurance standard-setting body.

180 In response to the COVID-19 

pandemic, the IAIS has:

Assessed COVID-19 Risk and Responses. The IAIS has repurposed existing or initiated new 

projects to monitor COVID-19-related risk and track the implementation of COVID-19-related

policy measures and supervisory responses. In March 2020, the IAIS launched a survey of its 

members on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the insurance industries in their 

respective jurisdictions and the different supervisory measures that have been put in place or 

were under consideration.181 Later that month, the IAIS announced it would use its recently 

developed Global Monitoring Exercise framework to conduct a targeted assessment of the 

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global insurance industry.

182

Remained Committed to Information Sharing. The IAIS has remained committed to 

facilitating information sharing and cooperation among insurance supervisors. The IAIS 

Executive Committee (ExCo), for example, has held more frequent teleconference meetings in 

order to address COVID-19-related issues. IAIS subcommittees have also continued to meet and 

conduct their work, albeit virtually.

Extended Deadlines. In order to provide operational relief to supervisors, insurers, and other 

stakeholders, the IAIS decided that it would, in consultation with the FSB, review the 2020 

timelines for the implementation of its Holistic Framework. The IAIS extended the timelines for 

the ICS and Aggregation Method data collections.183 The IAIS also generally delayed public 

consultations on material such as Issues Papers and Application Papers by at least six months.184

Throughout, the IAIS has expressed confidence in the ability of the insurance “sector as a whole 

to withstand the shocks associated with COVID-19,” while further noting that “[i]nsurance has 

an essential role to play during a pandemic event such as COVID-19, providing protections to 

individuals, households and businesses,” and that insurance supervisors will “remain vigilant in 

180 For more information on FIO’s role in the IAIS, see Section V.A.1.

181 IAIS, “The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) is Closely Monitoring the Ongoing 

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic,” news release, March 13, 2020, https://www.iaisweb.org/news/statementfrom-jonathan-dixon-iais-secretary-general.

182 See IAIS, “IAIS Executive Committee Takes Steps to Address Impact of COVID-19 on the Insurance Sector,” 

news release, March 27, 2020, https://www.iaisweb.org/news/iais-executive-committee-takes-steps-to-addressimpact-of-covid-19-on-the-insurance-sector. For more information on the Global Monitoring Exercise, see Section 

III.B.2.

183 The Aggregation Method is a group capital methodology under development by the United States and other 

interested jurisdiction, as an alternative to the ICS. For more information on the ICS and the Aggregation Method, 

see Section III.B.1.

184 See IAIS, “IAIS Executive Committee Takes Steps to Address Impact of COVID-19 on the Insurance Sector.” 

For more information on the Holistic Framework, see Section III.B.2.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

40

terms of the financial soundness and operational resilience of insurers, in support of the 

protection of policyholders and the maintenance of financial stability.”185 In May, the IAIS 

further highlighted the roles of insurers and insurance supervisors during the pandemic, 

emphasizing the need for insurers to pay covered claims in a prompt and efficient manner but 

cautioning against jurisdictions retroactively requiring insurers to cover COVID-19-related 

losses specifically excluded from insurance policies.186

2. FSB Response

The G20 established the FSB in 2009 as its financial regulatory reform implementation

organization to promote the implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory, and other 

financial sector policies and to coordinate the work of international standard-setting bodies, 

including the IAIS.187 The FSB has not addressed insurance specifically in connection with the 

COVID-19 pandemic, but has addressed financial services more generally, which includes 

insurance. The FSB stated that it is “actively cooperating to maintain financial stability during 

market stress related to COVID-19” while “representing a broad and diverse membership of 

national authorities, international standard setters and international bodies.”188 The FSB has 

“encourage[d] authorities and financial institutions to make use of the flexibility within existing 

international standards to provide continued access to funding for market participants and for 

businesses and households facing temporary difficulties from COVID-19, and to ensure that 

capital and liquidity resources in the financial system are available where they are needed.”189 In 

addition, the FSB has supported its members as they have taken actions to increase the amount of 

assets available to insurers and taken additional actions to support market functioning and 

accommodate business continuity plans. The FSB noted the need for financial services firms to 

continue to operate critical functions, including insurance services.190

185 IAIS, “IAIS Executive Committee Takes Steps to Address Impact of COVID-19 on the Insurance Sector.,” news 

release, March 27, 2020, https://www.iaisweb.org/news/iais-executive-committee-takes-steps-to-address-impact-ofcovid-19-on-the-insurance-sector.

186 See IAIS, “IAIS Facilitates Global Coordination on Financial Stability and Policyholder Protection During 

COVID-19 Crisis,” news release, May 7, 2020, https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases/file/89860/iaismedia-release-financial-stability-and-policyholder-protection.

187 See “About the FSB,” FSB, https://www.fsb.org/about/. For more information on the FSB, see Section V.D.

188 “Addressing Financial Stability Risks of COVID-19,” FSB, https://www.fsb.org/work-of-the-fsb/addressingfinancial-stability-risks-of-covid-19/.

189 FSB, “FSB Coordinates Financial Sector Work to Buttress the Economy in Response to COVID-19,” news 

release, March 20, 2020, https://www.fsb.org/2020/03/fsb-coordinates-financial-sector-work-to-buttress-theeconomy-in-response-to-covid-19/.

190 FSB, “FSB Members Take Action to Ensure Continuity of Critical Financial Services Functions,” news release, 

April 2, 2020, https://www.fsb.org/2020/04/fsb-members-take-action-to-ensure-continuity-of-critical-financialservices-functions/.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

41

3. EIOPA Response

EIOPA is an EU financial regulatory institution and an independent advisory body to the 

European Commission. It has issued several statements and recommendations in response to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, EIOPA advised insurers to prepare for the necessary 

steps to ensure business continuity during the pandemic, while advising EU member state 

insurance supervisors to be flexible about the timing of otherwise required reporting and 

disclosure.191 On April 1, 2020, EIOPA strongly encouraged insurers to consider steps to 

mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumers. At the same time, EIOPA 

signaled an aversion to retroactively imposing coverage of claims not contractually included in a 

policy, stressing that such an action “could create material solvency risks and ultimately threaten 

policyholder protection and market stability, aggravating the financial and economic impacts of 

the current health crisis.” 192 On April 2, EIOPA urged insurers and reinsurers to temporarily 

suspend all discretionary dividend distributions and share buy backs.193 EIOPA also has been 

analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the EU insurance industry. Among other 

things, EIOPA updated its Risk Dashboard to include COVID-19-related exposures.194 It also 

supports enhanced monitoring of liquidity risks in the insurance industry in light of the 

pandemic.

195

As have other supervisors, EIOPA has modified its operations and extended deadlines for a 

broad array of consultations as well as a data request.196 For example, in coordination with the 

191 EIOPA, EIOPA Statement on Actions to Mitigate the Impact of Coronavirus/COVID-19 on the EU Insurance 

Sector (March 17, 2020), https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/eiopa-statement-actions-mitigate-impactcoronaviruscovid-19-eu-insurance-sector; EIOPA, EIOPA Issues Recommendations on Supervisory Flexibility 

Regarding Deadlines of Supervisory Reporting and Public Disclosure by Insurers (March 20, 2020),

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/eiopa-issues-recommendations-supervisory-flexibility-regarding-deadlinessupervisory.

192 EIOPA, Call to Action for Insurers and Intermediaries to Mitigate the Impact of Coronavirus/COVID-19 on 

Consumers (April 1, 2020), https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/call-action-insurers-and-intermediaries-mitigateimpact-coronaviruscovid-19-consumers_en.

193 EIOPA, EIOPA Statement on Dividends Distribution and Variable Remuneration Policies in the Context of 

COVID-19 (April 2, 2020), https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/eiopa-statement-dividends-distribution-andvariable-remuneration-policies-context-covid-19_en.

194 EIOPA, “European Insurers Face Increased Risk Exposures to COVID-19, But Market Perceptions and 

Imbalance Remained at Medium Level,” news release, May 18, 2020, 

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/european-insurers-face-increased-risk-exposures-due-covid-19-marketperceptions-and.

195 EIOPA, EIOPA Supports the ESRB’s Call on Enhanced Monitoring of Liquidity Risks in the Insurance Sector

(June 9, 2020), https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/eiopa-supports-esrb-call-enhanced-monitoring-liquidity-risksinsurance-sector.

196 See EIOPA, “Update on Other Measures Impacted by COVID-19 Pandemic,” news release, April 2, 2020, 

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/update-other-measures-impacted-covid-19-pandemic.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

42

European Commission, EIOPA has announced the delay of its advice to the Commission related 

to the Solvency II Review from the end to June to the end of December, 2020.197

Box 1: The World Bank Cat Bond and Alternative Risk Solutions for Pandemics

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred exploration by policymakers into the potential of 

catastrophe (cat) bonds to ameliorate the economic impact of pandemics.198 The largest cat bond 

for pandemics—the World Bank’s 2017 effort—was created in the wake of an Ebola pandemic, 

and was designed to provide emergency benefit payments to developing countries impacted by a 

pandemic.

199 The World Bank cat bond consists of $320 million in bonds and $105 million in 

swaps, each structured into two risk tranches covering different types of viral outbreaks for a 5-

year period, with payments based on a set of parametric triggers including minimum number of 

deaths in at least eight countries and an exponential rate of growth of contagion.

200 The 2018 

Ebola outbreak, however, did not trigger any benefit payments. For the COVID-19 pandemic, 

the World Bank cat bond allocated payments that equaled 100 percent ($150 million) from one 

tranche, but only 16.7 percent (about $46 million) from the second tranche, because only part of 

that tranche was designed to pay for a COVID-type virus.

201 Additionally, the COVID-19 

pandemic did not meet all of the trigger parameters until May 31, 2020. As a result, some have 

criticized the World Bank program for its delayed benefit payments as well as its high cost, 

insufficient size, design complexity, and stringent trigger mechanism.

202 For future pandemics, 

researchers have suggested a variation on the World Bank model that could be issued by EU 

member countries through parametric cat bonds of up to €50 billion.

203

197 EIOPA, “EIOPA Revises Its Timetable for Advice on Solvency II Review Until End December 2020,” news 

release, April 30, 2020, https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/content/eiopa-revises-its-timetable-advice-solvency-ii-reviewuntil-end-december-2020.

198 For more information on alternative risk transfer products, see Section VII.B.2.

199 World Bank, “World Bank Launches First-Ever Pandemic Bonds to Support $500 Million Pandemic Emergency 

Financing Facility,” news release, June 28, 2017,

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/06/28/world-bank-launches-first-ever-pandemic-bonds-to-s

upport-500-million-pandemic-emergency-financing-facility.

200 World Bank, Prospectus Supplement dated June 28, 2017, 

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/882831509568634367/PEF-Final-Prospectus-PEF.pdf; World Bank, Fact Sheet: 

Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (April 27, 2020), 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/pandemics/brief/fact-sheet-pandemic-emergency-financing-facility.

201 World Bank, Fact Sheet: Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility.

202 See, e.g., “World Bank Pandemic Bond Instrument Fails in COVID-19 Response,” Bretton Woods Project, April 

7, 2020, 

https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/2020/04/world-bank-pandemic-bond-instrument-fails-in-covid-19-response/; 

Euan Ritchie and Mark Plant, “A Good Idea Executed Badly: Why the World Bank Should Not Renew the 

Pandemic Emergency Facility Insurance Window,” Center for Global Development, April 9, 2020, 

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/good-idea-executed-badly-why-world-bank-should-not-renew-pandemic-emergency-fa

cility-insurance.

203 Helmut Gründl and Fabian Regele, Pandemic Insurance Through Pandemic Partnership Bonds: A Fully Funded 

Insurance Solution in a Public Private Partnership (May 2020), 

https://safe-frankfurt.de/policy-center/policy-publications/policy-publ-detailsview/publicationname/pandemic-insura

nce-through-pandemic-partnership-bonds-a-fully-funded-insurance-solution-in-a-public.html.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

43

III. SYSTEMIC RISK AND SOLVENCY

This section describes selected domestic developments in the insurance industry relating to 

systemic risk and solvency, including updates on the NAIC Group Capital Calculation, the 

Federal Reserve’s Building Block Approach, the NAIC Macro Prudential Initiative, and FSOC

designations and interpretive guidance. The section then discusses international developments 

relating to systemic risk and solvency, including the IAIS’s development of an ICS and a

Holistic Framework.

204 As detailed below, Treasury is committed to continued engagement in 

international forums to ensure the U.S. regulatory framework is appropriately reflected and that 

U.S. interests are appropriately advanced in these forums.

A. Domestic Developments

1. NAIC Group Capital Calculation

The NAIC initiated its Group Capital Calculation (GCC) efforts in April 2016, when it charged 

its Financial Condition Committee to (1) construct a GCC using a Risk Based Capital (RBC) 

aggregation methodology, and (2) liaise with the NAIC’s ComFrame Development and Analysis 

Working Group on international capital developments and consider insurance group capital 

developments by the Federal Reserve.205 The NAIC then formed the Group Capital Calculation 

Working Group (GCCWG), charging it with constructing a GCC as an assessment tool for state 

regulators in providing a baseline quantitative measure of capital across an insurance group.

206 

The NAIC intends for the GCC to be an analytical tool that provides supervisors with a baseline 

quantitative measure for group risks.207 The NAIC does not plan to have supervisory 

intervention points in the GCC.208

The NAIC’s field testing of the GCC started in May 2019, with voluntary participation from 33 

U.S.-based insurers across 15 states, including P&C, L&H, and health insurers. The NAIC 

completed almost all field testing by year-end 2019. 209 During 2020 the GCCWG moved 

forward on several areas of the GCC’s development. The GCCWG held a meeting in May 2020 

204 FIO’s other international engagement is discussed in Section V.

205 See, e.g., NAIC, 2016 Proceedings of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners: Spring Volume I

(April 2016), 2-21, 2-32, https://www.naic.org/prod_serv/PRC-ZS-2016_combined.pdf. The NAIC’s ComFrame 

Development and Analysis Working Group proposed this charge in October 2015. See NAIC, NAIC Group Capital 

Calculation Recommendation: Adopted by the ComFrame Development and Analysis (G) Working Group Oct. 30, 

2015, Adopted by the International Insurance Relations (G) Committee – Nov. 19, 2015 (2015), 

https://www.naic.org/documents/committees_e_grp_capital_wg_related_cap_calc_reccomendation.pdf.

206 See NAIC, 2016 Proceedings of the NAIC, 2-21, 2-32.

207 NAIC, “Field Testing for NAIC Group Capital Calculation Underway,” news release, June 18, 2019, 

https://www.naic.org/Releases/2019_docs/field_testing_for_naic_group_capital_calcuation_underway.htm.

208 See NAIC, NAIC Group Capital Calculation (E) Working Group Meeting Materials (July 29, 2020), 11-12, 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/GCCWG%20Agenda%20%26%20Materials.pdf.

209 NAIC, NAIC Group Capital Calculation Post Field Testing Staff Input (May 19, 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/01.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

44

at which the NAIC provided initial suggested revisions to the draft GCC instructions and to an 

accompanying GCC calculation template.210 The NAIC made suggestions for resolving issues 

around several facets of the GCC calculation which remain under consideration.211

The proposed GCC template includes a sensitivity analysis intended to be used by the lead state 

regulator for informational purposes, but which would not be included in the GCC ratio. Data 

collected in the sensitivity analysis might also be used to inform future development of the 

GCC.212 The GCCWG explained that it also intends to continue exploring other potential

methods for scalars for foreign insurance regimes in the GCC, in conjunction with the work on 

the Aggregation Method at the IAIS.

213

In June 2020, the GCCWG released for public comment draft amendments to the Model 

Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act and instructions, which would incorporate 

the GCC into the model law.214 The revised model, which is expected to become an NAIC 

accreditation requirement once finalized, would (among other requirements) call for applicability 

of the GCC to U.S. insurance groups with insurance operations in jurisdictions subject to the 

current covered agreements with the United States.215 The NAIC has drafted initial guidance, to 

be incorporated into its Financial Analysis Handbook, to address how state regulators would use 

the GCC as a tool to augment their financial analysis of insurance groups.216 As of September 1, 

2020, a final decision as to how guidance for the GCC will be implemented has not yet been 

announced, and comments from stakeholders were still under consideration.

217

2. Federal Reserve Building Block Approach

Following the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the Federal Reserve became the 

consolidated supervisor of certain insurance holding companies, including those determined by 

FSOC to be systematically important and depository institution holding companies that are 

210 NAIC, Group Capital Calculation (E) Working Group Meeting Materials (May 19, 2020), Attachment B-1, 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/call_materials/GCCWG%205.19.2020%20Materials.pdf.

211 Open issues with the GCC calculation include the scope of the group, qualifying capital resources (debt), capital

treatment on entities not subject to RBC or other capital requirements, and scalars for foreign insurance regimes. 

See, NAIC, Group Capital Calculation (E) Working Group Meeting Materials (July 29, 2020), Attachments 1a, 1b, 

and 1c, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/GCCWG%20Agenda%20%26%20Materials.pdf.

212 See NAIC, NAIC Group Capital Calculation Post Field Testing Staff Input.

213 See NAIC, NAIC Group Capital Calculation Post Field Testing Staff Input.

214 Model Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act (NAIC draft 2020), Model Insurance Holding 

Company System Model Regulation with Reporting Forms and Instructions (NAIC draft 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/cmte_e_grp_capital_wg.htm (under Exposure Drafts tab).

215 For more information on covered agreements, see Section V.B.

216 See NAIC, Group Capital Calculation (E) Working Group Agenda & Materials, (May 19, 2020), 77, 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/call_materials/GCCWG%205.19.2020%20Materials.pdf.

217 See NAIC, 2019 Fall National Meeting, Group Capital Calculation (E) Working Group Agenda & Materials, 1, 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/GCCWG%20NM%20Agenda%20%26%20Materials_1.

pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

45

significantly engaged in insurance activities. Insurance companies under the Federal Reserve’s 

supervision currently only consist of savings and loan holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act 

also requires that an enterprise-wide minimum group risk-based capital requirement standard be 

established for these firms.

In June 2016, the Federal Reserve published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Capital Requirements for Supervised Institutions Significantly Engaged in Insurance 

Activities.218 For these institutions, the Federal Reserve invited comment on an aggregated 

capital framework known as the “Building Block Approach” (BBA) that would leverage existing 

insurance and bank legal entity capital requirements to develop an enterprise level capital 

requirement.219

In October 2019, the Federal Reserve issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Regulatory 

Capital Rules: Risk-Based Capital Requirements for Depository Institutions Holding Companies 

Significantly Engaged in Insurance Activities.

220 The Federal Reserve’s proposed rulemaking 

would establish an enterprise-wide capital requirement for depository institution holding 

companies with significant insurance activities. The Federal Reserve also launched a 

Quantitative Impact Study of the BBA.

221

As explained in the October 2019 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the BBA is the Federal 

Reserve’s proposed insurance group risk-based capital requirement pursuant to its authority 

granted under the Home Owners’ Loan Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.222 The proposed BBA 

would group entities within the holding company by their applicable capital frameworks and 

assign certain regulated companies and material entities without an existing capital framework 

their own blocks, i.e., grouped entities that are covered under the same capital framework.

223 

Certain adjustments would be made to place available capital and the capital requirement of each 

block on a comparable basis, and to avoid double counting of available and required capital of 

218 Capital Requirements for Supervised Institutions Significantly Engaged in Insurance Activities; Proposed Rule, 

81 Fed. Reg. 38631 (June 14, 2016), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/14/2016-14004/capital-requirements-for-supervised-institutions

-significantly-engaged-in-insurance-activities.

219 81 Fed. Reg. 38631.

220 Regulatory Capital Rules: Risk-Based Capital Requirements for Depository Institutions Holding Companies 

Significantly Engaged in Insurance Activities; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 84 Fed. Reg. 57240 (October 24, 

2019), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/24/2019-21978/regulatory-capital-rules-risk-basedcapital-requirements-for-depository-institution-holding.

221 Federal Reserve, “Federal Reserve Board Invites Public Comment on Proposal to Establish Capital 

Requirements for Certain Insurance Companies Supervised by the Board,” news release, September 6, 2019, 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20190906a.htm. See also Regulatory Capital Rules, 

84 Fed. Reg. 57240.

222 The Home Owners’ Loan Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1461); Dodd-Frank Act § 113. The Home Owners’ Loan Act is a 

federal statute that provides for the chartering and regulation of thrifts and thrift holding companies.

223 The resulting BBA ratio of available to required capital would be based on equivalent values because the scalars 

would adjust for variations between state-based insurance capital requirements and bank capital requirements.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

46

each block during the aggregation process. Each block would be translated into a common 

standard—the U.S. RBC—with the use of scalars before stacking the blocks to arrive at an 

aggregate enterprise level of available capital and required capital.

Additionally, since the Federal Reserve’s current population of supervised insurance groups has 

no material international insurance operations, it has only developed scalars for domestic 

application.224 Notably, the Federal Reserve proposed an adjustment to reverse all statepermitted and prescribed practices. The Federal Reserve stated that this proposed adjustment 

provides for a consistent representation of financial information across all companies in a 

jurisdiction.225 As of September 1, 2020, the Federal Reserve had not issued a final rule 

regarding the BBA.226

3. Distinctions between GCC and BBA

The NAIC’s draft GCC and the Federal Reserve’s proposed BBA— if and when they are 

finalized—would likely play an important role in the U.S. advocacy at the IAIS for an

aggregation approach to a capital standard that can be deemed comparable to the ICS.

227 Both 

the BBA and the GCC build on existing state-based insurance capital standards, and are 

conceptually similar in this regard.228 Treasury noted in the Insurance EO Report that the group 

capital initiatives by the NAIC, the states, and the Federal Reserve should be harmonized to the 

extent possible.229 While the NAIC has not yet finalized the design of the GCC, it has provided 

information on several distinctions that could emerge between the proposed BBA and draft 

GCC.

230 FIO will continue to monitor the development of the BBA and the GCC.

4. NAIC Macro Prudential Initiative

In August 2017, the NAIC commenced its Macro Prudential Initiative through its Financial 

Stability Task Force (FSTF). This initiative focuses on monitoring financial stability by focusing 

224 Federal Reserve, Comparing Capital Requirements in Different Regulatory Frameworks (2019), 1,

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20190906a1.pdf.

225Regulatory Capital Rules, 84 Fed. Reg. at 57256.

226 The BBA assessment will be informed by the Quantitative Impact Study and input from commenters. Regulatory 

Capital Rules, 84 Fed. Reg. at 57270.

227 See, e.g., Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 100 (recommending that the group capital initiatives by the NAIC, the 

states, and the Federal Reserve should be harmonized, to the extent possible, to mitigate duplicative and unnecessary 

regulatory burdens for U.S. insurers); Randal K. Quarles, “Insurance Supervision and International Engagement” 

(speech, American Council of Life Insurers Executive Roundtable, Naples, FL, January 9, 2019), 3, 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/files/quarles20190109a.pdf. For more information on the ICS, 

see Section III.B.1.

228 For more information on the GCC, see Section III.A.1.

229 See, e.g., Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 100.

230 See NAIC, GCC vs BBA, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/GCC%20vs.%20BBA.docx; 

NAIC, NAIC Group Capital Calculation Post Field Testing Staff Input; Regulatory Capital Rule, 84 Fed. Reg.

57240.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

47

on four key areas: (1) liquidity assessment; (2) stress testing of capital requirements; (3)

resolution and recovery measures; and (4) counterparty exposure.231 As a first step, the FSTF 

established the Liquidity Assessment Subgroup, which proposed modifications to NAIC annual 

financial statement reporting forms (also known as blanks) to address data gaps and concerns. 

The proposals were adopted and became part of the NAIC’s accreditation program with their 

inclusion into the Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual.

232 Effective with 2019 

statutory life annual statements, L&H insurers are now subject to additional liquidity-related 

reporting requirements.233

Following the update to the 2019 financial statement reporting forms, the FSTF began codifying 

its Liquidity Stress Test Framework. The Framework’s objective is to complement other group 

supervisory modernization initiatives and would supplement, not replace, an insurer’s internal 

liquidity risk management requirements. The Framework would be the part of a “more 

comprehensive framework, still to be developed,” and may be used in coordination with the 

group capital calculation process.234

In December 2019, based on the recommendations of a subgroup comprised of NAIC staff, state 

regulators, and insurance groups, the FSTF released a draft Liquidity Stress Test Framework for 

a 60-day public comment period.235 The draft Framework applies a cash-flow based approach to 

assessing liquidity under two separate hypothetical stress scenarios.236 Details of the stress 

scenarios are determined by the NAIC and incorporate both prescribed and internal company 

assumptions for modeling purposes. In addition, the framework requests an insurer-specific mostadverse scenario. Entities that fall within the scope of the Framework include holding companies, 

life insurance entities, and material non-insurance entities.237 Both an insurance entity and 

insurance group would be subject to the Framework if they both exceeded the threshold of any 

231 NAIC, NAIC Financial Stability (EX) Task Force Macro Prudential Initiative (MPI): A Proposed Framework 

(August 1, 2017), 3-4, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/cmte_ex_financial_stability_tf_macro_prudential_initiatives.pdf.

232 NAIC, NAIC Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual, (March 2020).

233 For more information on changes to NAIC financial statement reporting based on the Subgroup’s work, see FIO, 

2019 Annual Report, 13.

234 For more information on the GCC, see Section III.A.1.

235 NAIC, 2019 NAIC Liquidity Stress Test Framework for Life Insurers Meeting the Scope Criteria (Draft 

December 2019), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/DRAFT%20LST%20FRAMEWORK%2011-27-2019%20clea

n.pdf.

236 The first scenario follows similar market conditions experienced during the financial crisis with modifications. 

The second stress scenario emphasizes disintermediation risk and includes: a sharp rise in interest rate, a broadbased equity market decline, and adverse credit rating actions against the life insurance industry, with modifications. 

See NAIC, 2019 NAIC Liquidity Stress Test Framework for Life Insurers Meeting the Scope Criteria.

237 The definition of materiality could be contingent on the guidance an insurer’s Own Risk and Solvency 

Assessment (ORSA). NAIC, Draft Minutes of NAIC Financial Stability (EX) Task Force (December 9, 2019), in 

Financial Stability Task Force Summer National Meeting Materials (August 5, 2020), 3, 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/Materials_23.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

48

six insurance activities associated with liquidity risk, subject to future modifications.238 Using 

these criteria, only 23 insurance groups would have been subject to the Framework in 2019.239 

For 2019, the NAIC used its lead state examination authority to conduct its assessment. Going 

forward, the FSTF is exploring the possibility of “open[ing] the holding company models’ 

provisions on regulatory authority and confidentiality protections.”240 The Framework is thus in 

the early stages of development, and the FSTF is still developing key aspects of its test design.

Other aspects of the FSTF and related work are dependent on the progress of other groups. The 

FSTF noted that the development of its capital stress testing is on hold until the GCC is 

implemented.241 In 2020, the Receivership and Insolvency Task Force adopted a 

recommendation “to consider methods to encourage states to adopt provisions in receivership 

and guaranty fund laws that promote effectiveness and consistency, particularly with respect to 

receiverships of insurers operating in multiple states.”242 The FSTF’s work on counterparty 

exposures has been postponed until the second quarter of 2021.243

5. Financial Stability Oversight Council Final Interpretive Guidance

FSOC’s functions under the Dodd-Frank Act include: (1) identifying risks to the financial 

stability of the United States; (2) promoting market discipline; and (3) responding to emerging 

threats to the stability of the U.S. financial system.244 The FIO Director is a non-voting member 

of FSOC.

On December 4, 2019, FSOC voted unanimously to issue final interpretive guidance regarding 

nonbank financial company designations.245 Under the final guidance (and consistent with the 

238 Framework scope criteria are based the following six activities and corresponding threshold: Fixed and Indexed 

Annuities ($25 billion); Funding Agreements and Guaranteed Investment Contracts ($10 billion); Derivatives 

(notional value $75 billion); Securities Lending ($2 billion); Repurchase Agreements ($1 billion); “Borrowed 

Money” ($1 Billion). See NAIC, 2019 NAIC Liquidity Stress Test Framework for Life Insurers Meeting the Scope 

Criteria, 23.

239 See NAIC, 2019 NAIC Liquidity Stress Test Framework for Life Insurers Meeting the Scope Criteria, 9.

240 See Model Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act (NAIC Liquidity Assessment Subgroup Draft 

August 28, 2020), 7, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/call_materials/Materials_18.pdf (deleting Section K 

which would expressly include regulatory authority and confidentiality protections in the Act).

241 NAIC, FSTF Macroprudential Updates, Summer National Meeting (August 5, 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/Materials_23.pdf.

242 NAIC, Draft Minutes of Receivership and Insolvency (E) Task Force (January 8, 2020), in Receivership and 

Insolvency (E) Task Force Summer National Meeting Materials (August 7, 2020), 2, 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/RITF%20Materials%20080720_updated.pdf.

243 NAIC, FSTF Macroprudential Updates, Summer National Meeting.

244 12 U.S.C. § 5322(a)(1).

245 Treasury, “Financial Stability Oversight Council Issues Final Guidance on Nonbank Designations,” news release, 

December 4, 2019, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm844. The final interpretive guidance includes,

in Section II, an overview of key changes from FSOC’s 2012 interpretive guidance and its March 2019 proposed 

guidance. See Authority to Require Supervision and Regulation of Certain Nonbank Financial Companies; Final 

Interpretive Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 71740 (December 30, 2019), 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

49

proposed guidance issued in March 2019), FSOC will prioritize an activities-based approach—

rather than an entity based-approach (EBA)—to identifying and addressing potential risks to 

U.S. financial stability, while also enhancing the analytical rigor and transparency in the 

processes FSOC intends to follow if it were to consider making a determination to subject a 

nonbank financial company to supervision by the Federal Reserve.246

The final guidance replaces in its entirety FSOC’s 2012 interpretive guidance regarding the 

manner in which FSOC makes determinations under Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

247 The 

final guidance is designed to “enhance the Council’s engagement with companies, regulators, 

and other stakeholders” and “to provide the public with sufficient information to understand the 

Council’s concerns regarding risks to financial stability, while appropriately protecting 

information submitted by companies and regulators to the Council.”248

B. International Developments

1. Development of an International Insurance Capital Standard for Insurance 

Groups

For the last six years, the IAIS has been developing a global ICS, which aims to provide a 

common language for assessing the financial health of insurance groups that have cross-border 

operations.

a) Background

In October 2013, the IAIS announced its plan to develop a risk-based ICS, in response to a 

request by the FSB for the IAIS to create a comprehensive, group-wide supervisory and 

regulatory framework for Internationally Active Insurance Groups (IAIGs).249 In 2014, the IAIS 

began to design this new regulatory framework, known as ComFrame, which would consist of 

both qualitative and quantitative supervisory requirements tailored to the complexity and 

international scope of IAIGs.250 As the quantitative component of ComFrame, the ICS is 

intended to become a minimum harmonizing capital standard that supervisors can use to measure 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/30/2019-27108/authority-to-require-supervision-andregulation-of-certain-nonbank-financial-companies.

246 For more information on the FSOC’s proposed guidance and activities-based approach, see FIO, 2019 Annual 

Report, 14-15 (describing the priorities reflected in the proposed guidance).

247 Compare Authority to Require Supervision and Regulation of Certain Nonbank Financial Companies; Final Rule 

and Interpretive Guidance, 77 Fed. Reg. 21637 (April 11, 2012)

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/Authority%20to%20Require%20Supervision%20and%20Regulation%20

of%20Certain%20Nonbank%20Financial%20Companies%20%28April%2011%2C%202012%29.pdf (this 2012 

interpretive guidance was replaced in its entirety by the December 2019 final interpretive guidance). For a highlevel description of the procedural changes, see FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 15-16.

248 84 Fed. Reg. at 71742.

249 See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 17 n. 59.

250 See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 17 n. 60.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

50

an insurance group’s financial safety and soundness.251 The ultimate goal of the IAIS with 

regard to this project is a single ICS that includes a common methodology through which one 

ICS achieves comparable, i.e., substantially the same, outcomes across jurisdictions.

In November 2017, the IAIS agreed that group-wide supervisors would request annual 

confidential reporting of the reference ICS based on a market-adjusted valuation methodology 

with a single discounting approach, a standard method for calculating the capital requirement, 

and converged criteria for qualifying capital resources from participating insurance groups 

during the monitoring period.252 The IAIS also agreed to implement the ICS in two phases—a

five-year monitoring period from 2020 to 2024 during which the ICS will continue to be refined, 

followed by a second phase when the ICS will be implemented as a prescribed capital 

requirement in 2025. Further, the IAIS stated that it aims to be in a position by the end of the 

monitoring period to assess whether the Aggregation Method provides comparable—i.e.,

substantially the same (in the sense of the IAIS’s ultimate goal)—outcomes to the ICS. If so, the 

Aggregation Method will be considered an outcome-equivalent approach for implementation of

the ICS as a prescribed capital requirement.

253 The Aggregation Method is an alternative group 

capital approach to the ICS, under development by the U.S. and other interested jurisdictions.

b) ICS Status

The ICS project reached another milestone in November 2019, when the IAIS advanced version 

2.0 of the ICS into a five-year monitoring period from 2020 through 2024.254 The IAIS 

agreement consisted of three parts: (1) the design of the reference ICS being developed by the 

IAIS; (2) the parameters around the operationalization of the ICS monitoring period; and (3) the 

IAIS’s approach to the comparability assessment of the Aggregation Method.255 The IAIS also 

251 IAIS, Risk-Based Global Insurance Capital Standard Version 2.0: Public Consultation Document (July 31, 

2018), https://www.iaisweb.org/page/consultations/closed-consultations/2018/ics-version-20.

252 See IAIS, Implementation of ICS Version 2.0, 1 (November 2, 2017), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/file/69796/implementation-of-ics-version-20. IAIS standards are not self-executing in the 

United States. In the November 2017 agreement, the IAIS agreed for group-wide supervisors to require annual 

confidential reporting of the reference ICS during the monitoring period. In the November 2019 agreement, 

however, the IAIS agreed to make participation by IAIGs in the monitoring period as large as possible across 

different jurisdictions and business models, encouraging rather than mandating the reporting of the reference ICS 

from participating insurance groups. In addition, the IAIS’s use of the term “mandatory” applies only within the 

context of IAIS member commitments, and not the U.S. insurance regulatory regime.

253 IAIS, Implementation of ICS Version 2.0.

254 For more on prior milestones, see FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 16-20 (discussing key ICS milestones, including the 

adoption of ICS Version 1.0 in July 2017, the November 2017 announcement on implementation of the ICS, and the 

IAIS agreeing to assist in collection and analysis of data for the Aggregation Method).

255 IAIS, “IAIS Adopts First Global Frameworks for Supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups and 

Mitigation of Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector,” news release, November 14, 2019, 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases-prior-to-2014/14_November_2019_-_Media_Release_-

_IAIS_adopts_first_global_frameworks_for_supervision_of_internationally_active_insurance_groups_and_mitigati

on_of_systemic_risk_in_the_insurance_sector.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

51

released a five-year work plan for the ICS project that highlighted key deliverables and deadlines 

during the monitoring period.256

At the IAIS meetings in November 2019, FIO registered its official objection to the IAIS’s 

advancement of version 2.0 into the five-year monitoring period.257 FIO and Treasury also noted 

that the current form of the ICS could risk limiting U.S. consumers’ access to important longterm savings products.

258 FIO has also noted that the IAIS agreement in November 2019 had 

some positive aspects for the United States. First, the ICS monitoring period would continue to 

be an iterative process that would allow for changes, including the completion of an economic 

impact assessment that would evaluate the market implications of potential implementation of 

the ICS. Second, the IAIS established clear timelines and next steps during the monitoring 

period for the important work on the comparability assessment of the Aggregation Method. FIO 

closely collaborated with the other members of Team USA during the ICS negotiations, and FIO 

will continue to work collaboratively with Team USA during the ICS monitoring period.259

The IAIS also agreed in November 2019 that group-wide supervisors would encourage annual 

confidential reporting of the reference ICS from participating insurance groups during the 

monitoring period.

260 Additional reporting of the ICS based on an alternative valuation 

methodology, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles with Adjustments (GAAP Plus), and 

other methods to calculate the capital requirement would be permitted at the option of 

group-wide supervisors. Optional reporting could also include the submission of results based 

on the Aggregation Method. Finally, in November 2019, the IAIS stated that it will be making 

decisions during the monitoring period on whether other approaches will be part of the final 

framework of the ICS, including the inclusion of GAAP Plus and other methods of calculating 

the ICS capital requirement such as with the use of internal models.261

256 IAIS, “Work Plan and Timeline 2020-24,” news release, November 14, 2019, 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases//file/87171/work-plan-and-timeline-2020-24.

257 Treasury, “Readout on the International Association of Insurance Supervisors Annual Meeting,” news release, 

November 14, 2019, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm830 (“U.S. insurers should not face pressure 

to participate in a reference ICS that is not expected to apply in the United States and does not fit our markets. The 

current form of the ICS could also risk limiting U.S. consumers’ access to important long-term savings products.”).

258 Treasury, “Readout on the International Association of Insurance Supervisors Annual Meeting.”

259 Treasury, “Readout on the International Association of Insurance Supervisors Annual Meeting.” The U.S. 

members of the IAIS—FIO, the Federal Reserve, the NAIC, and the state and territory insurance regulators who 

represent the individual sovereign jurisdictions within the United States—are informally known, collectively, as 

Team USA.

260 IAIS, “High Level Messages: ICS Version 2.0 for the Monitoring Period and Comparability Assessment,” news 

release, November 14, 2019. https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases//file/87175/high-level-messages-icsversion-20-for-the-monitoring-period-and-comparability-assessment.

261 IAIS, Instructions for the April 2020 Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) Data Collection Exercise of the 

Monitoring Period Project (June 30, 2020), https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/insurance-capitalstandard//file/90757/public-2020-ics-data-collection-technical-specifications.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

52

During the latter half of 2023, the IAIS also plans to issue a public consultation on the ICS and 

initiate an economic impact assessment intended to identify incentives and unintended 

consequences of ICS implementation.262 The aim of the public consultation and economic 

impact assessment is to address those comments and findings in the final form of the ICS before 

implementation as a prescribed capital requirement.

263

In 2020, the ICS project moved from a field testing phase into a monitoring period, marked by 

ICS confidential reporting to group-wide supervisors and discussion in supervisory colleges. 

During this period, supervisors will be able to discuss and evaluate the reference ICS, including 

comparing ICS results against existing group capital standards and calculations or those under 

development.264 While the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the cancellation of ICS discussions 

at supervisory colleges in 2020 as well as the Global Roundtable in January 2021, the IAIS is 

still asking group-wide supervisors to monitor the ICS.265

The IAIS’s five-year plan for the ICS monitoring period also outlines the next steps and process 

for the comparability assessment of the Aggregation Method to the ICS. This work began in late 

2018 when the IAIS issued a survey to its members, asking for their views on what constituted 

appropriate criteria for evaluating comparable outcomes to the ICS. At its 2019 annual meeting, 

the IAIS reached an agreement on the definition of comparable outcomes and the overarching 

guidelines to govern the comparability assessment during the monitoring period.266 The next 

step in the IAIS’s work on the comparability assessment for the Aggregation Method will be to 

issue a public consultation on the high-level principles guiding the comparability assessment. 

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the IAIS postponed this consultation from July 2020 until 

a later date.

267

Significant work remains for Team USA and the IAIS on the comparability assessment for the 

Aggregation Method. As outlined in the IAIS’s five-year plan, the IAIS work includes: (1)

establishing the high-level principles that will feed into the criteria for evaluating the 

Aggregation Method relative to the ICS; (2) issuing a public consultation on the definition of 

comparable outcomes and the high-level principles; (3) developing appropriate criteria; and (4) 

262 IAIS, “Work Plan and Timeline 2020-24.”

263 IAIS, “Explanatory Note on the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) and the Comparability Assessment,” news 

release, November 14, 2019, https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases//file/87173/explanatory-note-onthe-ics-and-comparability-assessment.

264 IAIS, “Operationalisation of the Monitoring Period,” news release, November 14, 2019, 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases//file/87172/operationalisation-of-the-monitoring-period.

265 The annual Global Roundtable is an opportunity for all interested supervisors to discuss the experience of 

assessing the reference ICS and additional reporting with fellow supervisors (home and host).

266 IAIS, “Explanatory Note on the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) and the Comparability Assessment.”

267 IAIS, IAIS Executive Committee Takes Steps to Address Impact of COVID-19 on the Insurance Sector, news 

release, March 27, 2020, https://www.iaisweb.org/news/iais-executive-committee-takes-steps-to-address-impact-ofcovid-19-on-the-insurance-sector.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

53

conducting the comparability assessment.268 By leveraging the NAIC’s and state regulators’ 

GCC work and the Federal Reserve’s proposed group capital requirement based on the BBA, the 

Aggregation Method is expected to be more reflective of the insurance regulatory framework and 

business practices in the United States.269

FIO and Team USA will continue working toward shaping the ICS in a manner that better 

accommodates the U.S. insurance market and promotes U.S. interests. During the ICS 

monitoring period, FIO will maintain its strong engagement at the IAIS on the ICS and the 

comparability assessment for the Aggregation Method.

2. IAIS’s Activities-Based Approach and the Holistic Framework

Since 2017, the IAIS has been creating and refining an activities-based approach, or ABA, to 

monitoring and responding to potential systemic risks relating to the insurance sector and 

insurance activities.270 The IAIS issued a consultation paper in December 2017, followed by a 

second consultation paper, Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector, 

released in November 2018. In November 2019, with approval by the FSB, the IAIS finalized 

and adopted the Holistic Framework for implementation. Treasury supported the adoption and 

implementation of the Holistic Framework.

The Holistic Framework is comprised of three key elements—supervisory material, a global 

monitoring exercise (GME), and implementation assessment of related supervisory material—

which are reflected in three related documents that the IAIS published in November 2019: the 

Holistic Framework, an Explanatory Note, and the Global Monitoring Exercise.271

268 IAIS, “Work Plan and Timeline 2020-24.”

269 See “Insurance Capital Standard (ICS),” NAIC, last updated March 6, 2019, 

https://content.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_insurance_capital_standard_ics.htm. For more information on the GCC, 

see Section III.A.1. For more information on the BBA, see Section III.A.2.

270 The IAIS issued a consultation paper in December 2017, followed by a second consultation paper, released in 

November 2018. IAIS, Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector: Public Consultation 

Document (November 14, 2018), https://www.iaisweb.org/page/consultations/closed-consultations/2019/holisticframework-for-systemic-risk-in-the-insurance-sector/file/77862/holistic-framework-for-systemic-risk-consultationdocument (2018 Holistic Framework Public Consultation). For more background on the Holistic Framework, see 

FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 20-22.

271 IAIS, Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector (November 2019), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases-prior-to-2014/file/87109/holistic-framework-for-systemic-risk

(Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk); IAIS, Explanatory Note on Holistic Framework for the Assessment and 

Mitigation of Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector (November 14, 2019), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases-prior-to-2014/file/87113/explanatory-note-on-holistic-framework

-for-systemic-risk; IAIS, Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector: Global Monitoring 

Exercise (November 2019), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases-prior-to-2014/file/87206/global-monitoring-exercise.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

54

Supervisory Materials. The supervisory materials are “[a]n enhanced set of supervisory policy 

measures for macroprudential purposes, designed to increase the overall resilience of the 

insurance sector and help prevent insurance sector vulnerabilities and exposures from developing 

into systemic risk” and, when “a potential systemic risk is detected, supervisory powers of 

intervention that enable a prompt and appropriate response.”272 These supervisory materials can 

be found within the Insurance Core Principles (ICPs) and ComFrame, and will be further 

clarified in a series of IAIS application papers. In June 2020, the IAIS published the first of 

these papers: Application Paper on Liquidity Risk Management.273

GME. As part of the Holistic Framework, the IAIS established a GME of the activities and 

exposures of insurers on an individual insurer level and sector-wide level, culminating with a 

collective discussion within the IAIS and reporting to the FSB and public. The GME integrates 

“the development of an ABA with revisions to the EBA methodology”274 through the sectorwide monitoring of activities enhanced by the monitoring of an individual insurers cohort. In 

addition, the EBA elements were further enhanced and contextualized through the new absolute 

assessment approach, cross-sectoral analysis, and liquidity metrics.275 The IAIS has adjusted 

goals and policies for the GME data collections in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 

IAIS repurposed existing or initiated new projects to monitor risk on a more frequent and current 

basis. The IAIS delayed the formal 2020 GME until 2021, and leveraged the GME data 

collection and analysis apparatus to monitoring the COVID-19-related risks through the launch 

of two quarterly data collections—one for firms and one for supervisors. 276

Implementation Assessment. The implementation assessment of related supervisory material

will promote globally consistent and effective implementation, while building on existing 

methodologies. The “[a]ssessments will proceed in phases, beginning with a baseline assessment 

in 2020 and moving towards more intensive jurisdictional assessments in 2021, which will 

include targeted in-depth verification of supervisory practices.”277 In 2020, the IAIS initiated the 

first phase: a baseline assessment.

The IAIS has established next steps for Holistic Framework-related activity. In 2021, the IAIS 

plans to conduct the 2020 and 2021 GME, publish a consultation document and finalize an 

application paper on macro-prudential supervision, and publish the second consultation 

document on liquidity metrics. Building on results for the 2020 baseline, the IAIS will begin the 

second phase of the implementation assessment by conducting a series of more intense 

jurisdictional assessments. In 2022, the IAIS is scheduled to complete the outstanding 

implementation assessment items, finalize the assessment’s findings, and conduct its third annual 

272 IAIS, Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk, 4.

273 IAIS, Application Paper on Liquidity Risk Management (June 29, 2020), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/application-papers/file/90720/application-paper-on-liquidityrisk-management.

274 IAIS, 2018 Holistic Framework Public Consultation, 9.

275 See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 20-22 (further discussing EBA and the development of the Holistic Framework).

276 For more information on the IAIS Response to COVID-19, see Section II.E.1.

277 IAIS, Explanatory Note on Holistic Framework, 3.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

55

GME (with collective discussion and related reporting). Finally, based on three years of 

implementation of the Holistic Framework, in November 2022, the FSB will, in consultation 

with the IAIS and national authorities, review whether to discontinue the determination of global 

systemically important insurers (G-SIIs). Significant work remains at the IAIS to further assess 

the implementation of the Holistic Framework.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

56

IV. EFFICIENT REGULATION AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

This section addresses FIO’s efforts to advance efficient regulation and government processes 

through coordination on insurance matters at the state and federal levels. The section first 

discusses natural hazards and insurance, including the activities of the MitFLG and reinsurance 

for the NFIP. The section then discusses FACI, which has provided recommendations over the 

past year on the protection gap for natural catastrophes and other topics. This section also 

discusses changes to the NAIC accreditation program used by the U.S. states. The section then 

turns to terrorism risk insurance, and concludes with a discussion of cyber insurance and insurer 

cybersecurity.

A. Role of State and Federal Regulation

1. FIO Engagement with Federal Agencies and the States

As the source of insurance expertise in the federal government, FIO continues to regularly 

consult with and advise federal agencies and entities on insurance-related matters. For example:

• FIO participated in the Treasury-led Federal Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care 

Insurance, which also included members from the Department of Health and Human 

Services, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Internal Revenue Service, 

the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Labor (DOL), and Treasury’s 

Office of Tax Policy.278

• FIO worked with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on issues arising under the 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Program and other life insurance programs for 

the benefit of servicemembers, veterans, and their families.

• FIO had discussions with the Federal Reserve about its stress testing of nonbank financial 

companies, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.279

• FIO continues to participate in the MitFLG, a national coordinating structure to organize 

mitigation efforts across the federal government, and its implementation of the National 

Mitigation Investment Strategy.280

• FIO assisted FEMA on reinsurance and alternative risk transfer instruments in connection 

with the NFIP.281

278 See “Federal Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care Insurance,” Treasury, 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/economic-policy/economic-policy-reports-and-notices/federal-interagency-t

ask-force-on-long-term-care-insurance. For more information on the Task Force and its recommendations, see 

Section VI.A.

279 12 U.S.C. § 5365(i)(1)(A).

280 For more information on MitFLG and the National Mitigation Investment Strategy, see Section IV.A.2.a.

281 For more information on the NFIP, see Section IV.A.2.b.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

57

FIO leads regulatory coordination between the states and the federal government on the 

development of insurance-related policy and regulation. FIO regularly interacts with the states 

and the NAIC. For example, FIO has coordinated closely with the NAIC since 2018 to avoid 

duplicative federal-state data calls on terrorism risk insurance.282

In 2019 and 2020, Treasury coordinated U.S. agency engagement with the IMF FSAP, which,

for insurance, included FIO, other Treasury offices, the Federal Reserve, and the NAIC and the 

U.S. states. The U.S. FSAP was completed in August 2020.283 More generally, FIO continues 

to invite stakeholder input on a variety of insurance issues through FACI meetings, the ACRSM, 

and other stakeholder discussions.

2. Federal Agency Developments

a) MitFLG and Mitigation of Severe Weather and Other Natural Hazards

Millions of Americans have been affected by wildfires, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and other 

natural hazards events in 2019 and 2020.284 Global insured losses from weather-related events in 

2019 were slightly lower than in 2018, but still totaled approximately $53 billion by one 

estimate.285 2019 was the sixth consecutive year in which 10 or more billion-dollar weatherrelated events impacted the United States, and the first six months of 2020 saw at least 80 deaths 

from 10 weather-related events which exceeded $1 billion in losses.286

Insurance is a critical financial resource for recovery from severe weather-related events and 

other natural hazards, providing direct benefits to policyholders.287 The insurance industry also 

plays a key role in mitigation, which helps “the whole community keep hazards from turning into 

disasters” and improves resilience for more efficient, effective, and rapid recovery.288 Risk 

reduction—including the purchase of insurance—has measurable benefits.289 FIO therefore has 

282 For more information on terrorism risk insurance data calls, see Section IV.B.

283 See “Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP),” International Monetary Fund, last updated August 12, 2020, 

https://www.imf.org/external/np/fsap/fssa.aspx. For more information on the FSAP, see Section I.B.2.

284 See, e.g., CoreLogic, 2019 Natural Hazard Report (2019), 

https://www.corelogic.com/insights/natural-hazard-risk-summary-and-analysis.aspx.

285 “Natural Catastrophe Losses in 2019 Down 18% from Annual Average: Willis Re Report,” Insurance Journal, 

January 23, 2020, https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/01/23/556177.htm (also noting 

estimates of $52 billion and $71 billion).

286 “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview,” NOAA National Centers for Environmental 

Information, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/.

287 See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 26.

288 MitFLG, National Mitigation Investment Strategy (August 2019), 1, 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1565706308412-19739d7deeca639415cc76c681cee531/NationalMitigatio

nInvestmentStrategy.pdf.

289 See, e.g., FEMA, “An Ounce of Prevention Could Save Billions: Reduce Your Flood Risks,” news release, April 

29, 2020, 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

58

and will continue to emphasize the importance of insurance and mitigation, both before and after 

disasters, including ongoing support of efforts to improve the availability of insurance and 

take-up of insurance.

Treasury, through FIO, participates in the MitFLG, a national structure to coordinate mitigation 

efforts across the federal government and with state, local, tribal, and territorial representatives. 

Among other initiatives, MitFLG released a National Mitigation Investment Strategy in August 

2019 which provides a national, whole-community approach to improve the coordination and 

effectiveness of “mitigation investments,” that is, risk management actions taken to avoid, 

reduce, or transfer risks from natural hazards such as floods, hurricanes, and wildfires.

290 To that 

end, the strategy outlines three goals: show how mitigation investments reduce risk; coordinate 

mitigation investments to reduce risk; and make mitigation investment standard practice. The 

strategy also has a series of high-level recommendations, including insurance-related 

recommendations, such as “Use and Expand Financial Products and Approaches to Reduce and 

Transfer Risk,” including incentives to encourage those in hazard-prone areas to purchase 

insurance.291

The insurance industry has welcomed the recommendations in the National Mitigation 

Investment Strategy.292 FACI recommended that FIO “adopt the full set of recommendations” 

from the National Mitigation Investment Strategy, as well as additional recommendations 

developed by its subcommittee. FACI also recommended that FIO use its convening authority to 

bring together stakeholders for further discussion on protection gap issues.293

Some states also have made progress with mitigation while addressing insurance and natural 

catastrophe issues more generally. For example, effective January 1, 2020, Alabama required 

insurers to offer policyholders an endorsement that, when their roof is damaged, they may 

https://content.naic.org/article/news_release_ounce_prevention_could_save_billions_reduce_your_flood_risks.htm

(noting natural hazard mitigation saves $6 on average for every $1 spent on federal mitigation grants).

290 See MitFLG, National Mitigation Investment Strategy, 1.

291 MitFLG, National Mitigation Investment Strategy, 20-21. See also FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 26-27.

292 See, e.g., National Conference of State Legislatures, “NCSL Public-Private Partnership on Disaster Mitigation 

and Recovery,” news release, July 27, 2019, 

https://www.ncsl.org/aboutus/ncsl-foundation-for-state-legislatures/ncsl-public-private-partnership-on-disaster-mitig

ation-and-recovery.aspx; U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disaster Resilience Framework: Principles for 

Analyzing Federal Efforts to Facilitate and Promote Resilience to Natural Disasters (2019), 2 n. 9, 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/702215.pdf (describing its framework as “compatible with and mutually reinforcing 

of” the recommendations in the MitFLG strategy).

293 FACI’s five mitigation recommendations were: (1) demonstrate how mitigation investments reduce risk through

effective education; (2) coordinate investment in mitigation to reduce risk; (3) incorporate mitigation policies and 

investments into all aspects of governance; (4) provide financial and other incentives to implement mitigation 

measures; and (5) explore the efficacy of innovative industry solutions and products with increased transparency. 

Memorandum from Protection Gap Subcommittee to Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (December 2019), 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/December2019FACI_ProtectionGapProposedRecs.pdf. For more 

information on FACI, see Section IV.A.3.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

59

upgrade it to a more resilient roof.294 In May 2020, the Alabama Department of Insurance 

created a Mitigation Resources Division dedicated to supporting risk reduction against natural 

disasters.295 The California Earthquake Authority partnered with the California Department of 

Insurance to combat earthquake insurance misinformation.296 Texas adopted stronger, updated 

building codes for coastal structures insured by the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.297

FIO plans to continue to work closely with MitFLG to implement the National Mitigation 

Investment Strategy, engage with stakeholders on these issues, and coordinate with state 

insurance regulators and legislators in their efforts to improve national resilience to natural 

hazards.

Box 2: The Availability of Insurance for Natural Catastrophes

Homeowners’ policies are available only when insurers offer them, and there have been recent 

signals of insurer reluctance to offer policies in certain areas at higher risk from natural hazards 

and weather-related events, such as in California after the 2019 wildfires. Actuarial 

considerations—ensuring that premiums are adequate to cover the cost of future losses—often 

are at the forefront of insurers’ decision to offer coverage. If the actuarially-determined 

premium is too high, insurers may be unable to provide coverage. If the risk from natural 

hazards in certain areas were to increase, insurers might request large premium increases that 

insurance regulators might be unwilling to grant.298 Even when rate increases are approved, 

homeowners may be unwilling or unable to pay the higher premiums. This can result in insurers 

declining to offer (or renew) policies in high-risk areas.299

294 Alabama Department of Insurance, “ALDOI Establishes Endorsement for Fortified Roofs,” news release, 

September 23, 2019, https://www.aldoi.gov/currentnewsitem.aspx?ID=1068.

295 Alabama Department of Insurance, “ALDOI Creates New Division to Enhance Resiliency Efforts in Alabama,” 

news release, May 14, 2020, https://www.aldoi.gov/currentnewsitem.aspx?ID=1115.

296 California Department of Insurance, “Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to Send Notice to Insurers regarding 

Earthquake Insurance Misinformation,” news release, July 11, 2019, 

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2019/release053-19.cfm.

297 Texas Department of Insurance, “TDI Extends Start of Updated Coastal Building Code,” news release, April 3, 

2020, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/news/2020/tdi04032020.html (noting that implementation postponed because of 

COVID-19 disruptions).

298 See, e.g., “In Wake of California Wildfires, Insurers Hike Rates, Exit Risk Zones,” Best’s Insurance News and 

Analysis, December 9, 2019, http://news.ambest.com/newscontent.aspx?altsrc=108&refnum=222027; Tim Zawacki, 

“Coastal North Carolina Property Rate Deal Provokes Adequacy Debate,” S&P Global Market Intelligence, January 

21, 2020, https://platform.marketintelligence.spglobal.com/web/client?auth=inherit#news/article?id=56576918.

299 California Department of Insurance, “New Data Shows Insurance Is Becoming Harder to Find as a Result of 

Wildfires,” news release, August 20, 2019, 

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2019/release063-2019.cfm. See also Laurie Goering, 

“Burned by Wildfire Losses, Insurance Industry Rethinks Risks,” Reuters, January 22, 2020, 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wildfire-insurance-climate-change-ana/burned-by-wildfire-losses-insurance-indu

stry-rethinks-risks-idUSKBN1ZL2RA.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

60

Different tools and options may be used to address this problem. Some insurers, for example, 

increasingly are relying on risk modeling solutions to better gauge where risk lies.300 Some 

regulators are paying increased attention to the insurers of last resort in the residual market.301 

For example, in the wake of numerous policy cancellations following several wildfires, the 

California Insurance Commissioner ordered the FAIR Plan, the California property insurer of 

last resort, to increase coverage options. The FAIR Plan then sued and obtained a preliminary 

injunction prohibiting the Commissioner from compelling the Plan to offer comprehensive 

homeowners’ insurance policies. California legislators are considering alternate solutions to 

ensure the availability of homeowners’ policies for consumers.302

b) Reinsurance for the National Flood Insurance Program

FEMA manages the NFIP, a federal flood insurance and risk management program.303 Since 

2016, FEMA has used reinsurance to reduce risks to the NFIP by transferring some of those risks 

to private reinsurers and the capital markets.304 FIO has provided FEMA with technical 

insurance expertise concerning reinsurance and alternative risk instruments, beginning with the 

pilot reinsurance program in 2016 and continuing through its present efforts in 2020.305 Figure 2

summarizes the NFIP’s reinsurance program.

306

The 2020 reinsurance program is substantially similar to past NFIP placements. As in prior 

years, the traditional reinsurance agreement for 2020 covers a proportional or “pro rata” share of 

losses in excess of $4 billion, with the proportionate share varying by tranche (layer). The 

coverage is provided on a per occurrence basis (that is, by event, rather than an annual 

aggregate), meaning that a single flood event must cause at least $4 billion in losses in order to 

trigger reinsurance coverage. Losses from multiple smaller floods cannot be added together to 

300 Jim Sams, “Not All Homes in Wildfire Zones are Uninsurable. Here’s How Insurers Can Tell.” Insurance 

Journal, May 22, 2020, https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/05/22/569684.htm.

301 Residual markets generally serve as coverage of last resort for those who have been rejected by “voluntary” 

market insurers. See FIO, Report Providing an Assessment of the Current State of the Market for Natural 

Catastrophe Insurance in the United States (September 2015), 20-26, 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/Natural%20Catastrophe%20Report.pdf.

302 See California Department of Insurance, “Growing Need for FAIR Plan Leads Insurance Commissioner to Order 

Increased Coverage Options,” news release, November 14, 2019, 

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2019/release089-19.cfm; Don Jergler, “Backers of 

Controversial California Homeowners Insurance Bill Like Its Momentum, Timing,” Insurance Journal, June 17, 

2020, https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2020/06/17/572626.htm.

303 “Flood Insurance,” FEMA, last updated August 25, 2020, https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance.

304 “National Flood Insurance Program’s Reinsurance Program,” FEMA, last updated September 15, 2020, 

https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/reinsurance.

305 See, e.g., FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 27-29.

306 “National Flood Insurance Program’s Reinsurance Program,” FEMA.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

61

reach the $4 billion threshold. Twenty-seven reinsurers provide the 2020 reinsurance 

coverage.307

Figure 2: NFIP Reinsurance Program

2018 2019 2020

Traditional 

Reinsurance

• $1.46 billion 

• 28 reinsurers

• Premium: $235 million

• Reinsurers cover 

proportionate share of losses 

above $4 billion:

o 18.6% of losses $4-$6B

o 54.3% of losses $6-$8B

o No coverage above $8B

• No reinsurance recoveries

• $1.32 billion

• 28 reinsurers

• Premium: $186 million

• Reinsurers cover 

proportionate share of losses 

above $4 billion: 

o 14.0% of losses $4-$6B

o 25.6% of losses $6-$8B

o 26.6% of losses $8-$10B

o No coverage above $10B

• No reinsurance recoveries 

for 2019: no qualifying 

events

• $1.34 billion

• 27 reinsurers

• Premium: $205 million

• Reinsurers cover 

proportionate share of losses 

above $4 billion:

o 10.35% of losses $4-$6B

o 34.7% of losses $6-$8B

o 21.8% of losses $8-

$10B.

o No coverage above $10B

• No reinsurance recoveries as 

of July 30, 2020

Catastrophe 

Bonds

(3 year 

programs)

• $500 million 

• Premium: $62 million for 

year 1

• Agreement structured to 

cover:

o 3.5% of losses $5B-

$10B

o 13% of losses $7.5B-

$10B

• $300 million

• Premium: $32 million for 

year 1

• Agreement structured to 

cover:

o 2.5% of losses $6B-

$8B

o 12.5% of losses $8B-

$10B

• $400 million

• Premium: $50 million for 

year 1

• Agreement structured to 

cover:

o 3.33% of losses $6-$9B

o 30% of losses $9-$10B

Source: “National Flood Insurance Program Reinsurance Program,” FEMA. 25 reinsurers in the 2017 traditional 

reinsurance program paid NFIP $1.042 billion to cover losses from Hurricane Harvey.

In 2020, FEMA also continued its FloodSmart program and transferred $400 million of its flood 

risk to the capital markets through the issuance of FloodSmart catastrophe bonds. As shown in 

Figure 2, the first issuance in 2018 reinsured $500 million in coverage, followed by the 2019 

issuance of $300 million in coverage, and the 2020 issuance of $400 million in coverage. The 

three combined issuances now provide $1.2 billion in reinsurance coverage. Each of the bonds 

has a maturity of three years; the 2018 issuance matured on July 31, 2021.308

307 “Summary of the January 2020 Traditional Reinsurance Placement,” FEMA, last updated July 18, 2020, 

https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/reinsurance/january-2020.

308 “Summary of the February 2020 Capital Markets Placement,” FEMA, last updated July 18, 2020, 

https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/reinsurance/february-2020. For more information on 

alternative risk transfer, see Section VII.B.2.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

62

The NFIP is subject to reauthorization by Congress, and has received several short-term 

extensions over the past few years. FEMA posts the NFIP’s reauthorization status on its 

website.

309

c) SEC Regulation of Insurance Products

Variable annuities and variable life insurance are complex products that, as securities, generally 

must be registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (or qualify for an 

exemption from registration) before they are marketed, offered or sold to investors.

310 On May 

1, 2020, the SEC adopted a comprehensive, modernized disclosure framework for variable 

annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies that permits the use of summary 

prospectuses for both products, while making additional information available to investors 

online.311 The SEC explained that the summary prospectus is designed to be a succinct summary 

of the contract’s (or policy’s) key terms and benefits and most significant risks, making it easier 

to read and more understandable for investors. The SEC described the summary prospectus as 

the cornerstone of a “layered disclosure framework” tailored to the unique features of the product 

and alerting investors to the availability of more detailed information in the statutory prospectus 

and other locations.312 Adoption of the variable product summary prospectus rule is an 

important step in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure for insurance products 

under the SEC’s jurisdiction. FIO encourages the SEC to maintain its focus on a regulatory 

framework tailored to the unique characteristics of insurance products and markets.

3. Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

FACI, a federal advisory committee of insurance experts, was established in 2011 to provide FIO 

with nonbinding advice and recommendations and otherwise assist FIO in carrying out its duties 

and authorities. FACI includes a cross-section of members who represent the views of those

having an interest in FIO’s duties and authorities, including state insurance regulators, industry 

experts, and consumer advocates.313

309 See “Congressional Reauthorization,” FEMA, last updated July 18, 2020, https://www.fema.gov/floodinsurance/rules-legislation/congressional-reauthorization.

310 See Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 111-112 (Treasury recommended that the SEC prioritize annuity-related 

disclosure reform by adopting a rule permitting a variable annuity summary prospectus and a streamlined prospectus 

update, while continuing to provide appropriate disclosure to investors). For more information on variable annuities 

and the impact of COVID-19, see Section II.A.5.

311 Updated Disclosure Requirements and Summary Prospectus for Variable Annuity and Variable Life Insurance 

Contracts; Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 25964 (May 1, 2020),

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/01/2020-05526/updated-disclosure-requirements-andsummary-prospectus-for-variable-annuity-and-variable-life. In updating requirements for variable annuities, the 

SEC drew upon its experience in developing a summary prospectus for mutual funds.

312 85 Fed. Reg. at 25968.

313 See “FACI Members,” Treasury, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutionsand-fiscal-service/federal-insurance-office/federal-advisory-committee-on-insurance-faci/faci-members.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

63

FACI held a total of five public meetings between 2019 and the first half of 2020. In April 2019, 

FACI agreed to re-establish subcommittees. The subcommittees’ goal is to facilitate FACI’s 

ability to better provide advice and recommendations to FIO on insurance issues that FACI 

deems most important to FIO’s activities and mandate. FACI created three subcommittees: the 

Availability of Insurance Products; FIO’s International Work; and Addressing the Protection 

Gap Through Public-Private Partnerships and Other Mechanisms.

The Subcommittee on the Availability of Insurance Products focused on insurance product 

availability from a consumer perspective in 2019. The subcommittee discussed the effect of data 

privacy on insurance operations and considered the appropriate involvement of the federal 

government in developing data privacy legislation. The subcommittee also discussed the topic of 

disparate impact and the proposed final rule from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.314 The task force began discussing LTCI-related matters following publication of 

the Federal Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care Insurance’s report in August 2020.

315

In 2019, the Subcommittee on FIO’s International Work focused on the development of the ICS 

and its impact on U.S. insurers, the ICS monitoring period and the IAIS Holistic Framework. In 

September 2019, FACI presented recommendations focused on the ICS and related issues. FACI 

also provided a second set of recommendations calling for a continued focus on five substantive 

themes related to development of the IAIS Holistic Framework.316 In December 2019, FACI 

presented to FIO an additional set of recommendations from the subcommittee to help drive 

forward the work and collaboration needed to ensure timely execution of the ICS 2.0 milestones 

laid out at the November 2019 IAIS meetings. Finally, FACI provided several recommendations 

for FIO to address technical elements of the ICS and IAIS messaging.317 During the first half of 

2020, the subcommittee shifted its focus to market access issues for U.S. insurers operating in 

other countries, while continuing to monitor the IAIS for updates related to ICS 2.0. The 

subcommittee outlined eight preliminary topics for discussion, which it plans to convert into a 

white paper with draft recommendations for FACI’s consideration in late 2020.318

314 For more information on the proposed rule on disparate impact from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, see FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 24.

315 For additional information on the Federal Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care Insurance and its report, 

see Section VI.A.

316 FACI, Minutes of the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (September 23, 2019), 14, 19, 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/September2019FACI_Minutes.pdf (adopting recommendations in 

Memorandum from FACI Subcommittee on FIO’s International Work to Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance 

(September 23, 2019), https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/September2019FACI_Intl_Sub_Presentation.pdf).

317 FACI, Minutes of the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (December 5, 2019), 11,

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/December2019FACI_Minutes.pdf (adopting recommendations in 

Memorandum from FACI Subcommittee on FIO’s International Work to Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance 

(December 5, 2019), 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/December2019FACI_InternationalProposedRecs_0.pdf).

318 See FACI, Minutes of the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (February 21, 2020) 10, 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/2-20-FACI-Minutes.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

64

The Subcommittee on Addressing the Protection Gap Through Public-Private Partnerships and 

Other Mechanisms worked in 2019 to determine how the government and industry can best 

address protection gaps. At the December 2019 meeting, the FACI endorsed the National 

Mitigation Investment Strategy and presented three recommendations relating to the strategy.319 

FACI also presented two additional recommendations related to financial incentives for 

mitigation and insurance industry innovation.320

In early 2020, FACI created a fourth subcommittee to focus on topics related to the COVID-19

pandemic. The subcommittee intends to refine its focus and develop recommendations for FIO 

throughout the remainder of 2020.

4. Other State Developments: Accreditation Program 

NAIC Model Laws are not self-executing: they have binding effect only when and to the extent 

that one or more state legislatures introduces and enacts conforming insurance laws.321 The

NAIC established its accreditation program in 1990 to develop and maintain uniform baseline 

standards in all states for the purpose of promoting effective insurance company financial 

solvency regulation.

322 The accreditation program is intended to “assure that an accredited state 

has sufficient authority to regulate the solvency of its multi-state domestic insurance industry in 

an effective manner.”323 

Through the NAIC, the states collectively introduce new accreditation requirements as needed, 

and the NAIC establishes a schedule for state adoption of those model laws which are part of the 

accreditation program.324 The main criterion by which the NAIC reviews whether an individual 

state meets the accreditation standards is whether the state has adopted the required NAIC model 

laws or laws that are “substantively similar,” meaning that they include the significant elements 

identified by the NAIC.325

319 For more information on the National Mitigation Investment Strategy, see Section IV.A.2.a.

320 FACI, Minutes of the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (December 5, 2019), 12, 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/December2019FACI_Minutes.pdf (adopting recommendations in 

Memorandum from Protection Gap Subcommittee to Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance, 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/December2019FACI_ProtectionGapProposedRecs.pdf).

321 “Accreditation,” NAIC, last updated June 23, 2020, https://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_accreditation.htm.

322 “Accreditation,” NAIC.

323 See NAIC, Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation Program (April 2019), 7, 

https://www.naic.org/documents/cmte_f_frsa_pamphlet.pdf. Not all NAIC Model Laws are part of the accreditation 

program, and among those which are not, adoption by the states ranges from minimal to widespread.

324 See “Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation (F) Committee,” NAIC, https://naic-cms.org/cmte_f.htm.

325 See NAIC, Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation Program (2019), 7, 19.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

65

NAIC accreditation requirements that became effective January 1, 2020 include:

• 2014 Revisions to the Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Model Law 

(Model 440);326

• Corporate Governance Annual Disclosure Model Act (Model 305) and Corporate 

Governance Annual Disclosure Model Regulation (Model 306);327

• 2014 Revisions to Annual Financial Reporting Regulation (Model 205);

328 and 

• 2009 Revisions to the Standard Valuation Law (Model 820).329

No new NAIC accreditation requirements are listed as effective January 1, 2021.330 The 2019 

Revisions to Credit for Reinsurance Model Law (Model 785) and Credit for Reinsurance Model 

Regulation (Model 786) have been adopted as accreditation standards, effective September 1, 

2022.331

B. Terrorism Risk Insurance Program

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks resulted in insurance industry losses of more than $45

billion (in 2019 dollars), which at the time was the largest insurance industry loss in history.332 

Following those attacks, insurers and reinsurers largely withdrew from the terrorism risk 

insurance market, threatening planned construction, property acquisition, business projects, and 

other economic activity.333 In response, Congress enacted TRIA, creating TRIP within 

Treasury.334 TRIP is a federal backstop for insurance losses arising from a certified act of 

terrorism, under which Treasury may reimburse insurers for a portion of their losses once certain 

financial thresholds have been met. TRIP was established primarily to incentivize the private 

market to offer insurance for terrorism risk, while providing a transitional period for the private 

326 See Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act (NAIC 2015), 

https://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-440.pdf. This version’s revisions relate to a state’s authority to act as a group 

wide supervisor for an IAIG and for risk retention groups in a holding company that meet the definition of an IAIG, 

consistent with the IAIS’s ComFrame. For more information on ComFrame, see Section V.A.2

327 See Corporate Governance Annual Disclosure Model Act (NAIC 2014), 

https://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-305.pdf; Corporate Governance Annual Disclosure Model Regulation (NAIC 

2014), https://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-306.pdf.

328 See Annual Financial Reporting Model Regulation (NAIC 2015), https://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-205.pdf

329 See Standard Valuation Law (NAIC 2010), https://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-820.pdf

330 “Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation (F) Committee,” NAIC.

331 For more information on the Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation, see Section V.B.

332 See FIO, 2020 Program Effectiveness Report, 3.

333 TRIA § 101(a)(5). Because the provisions of TRIA appear in a note (15 U.S.C. § 6701 note), instead of 

references to sections of the U.S. Code, this Report identifies TRIA references by the sections of the Act.

334 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322 (2002). For purposes of this Report, 

TRIP refers to the program as it is administered through current Treasury regulations. See Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Program, 31 CFR pt. 50 (2020).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

66

market to resume pricing terrorism risk and build capacity to absorb future insurance losses.335 

Under the 2019 TRIP Reauthorization Act effective December 20, 2019, TRIP has been 

extended through December 31, 2027.336

1. 2019 TRIP Reauthorization 

On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed extension legislation reauthorizing TRIP for an 

additional seven-year period, to December 31, 2027. The extension act is based upon the same 

program mechanics in place for calendar year 2020. The legislation added reporting 

requirements for FIO, relating to the availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance, 

including specifically for places of worship, and for the Government Accountability Office, 

relating to cyber terrorism and associated issues.337

Prior to reauthorization, FIO and Treasury leadership met with a large number of stakeholders 

and interested parties in 2018 and 2019 in order to obtain views on the potential parameters of 

any reauthorization of TRIP.338 Treasury evaluated the views and analysis expressed during 

these meetings, and continued to engage with stakeholders and policymakers as efforts in

Congress to reauthorize TRIP took place.

339

2. TRIP Data Collection

Under TRIA, Treasury is required to collect terrorism risk insurance information annually from 

insurers in order to analyze the overall effectiveness of TRIP.340 Since the 2015 Reauthorization 

Act, FIO has conducted five data calls—a voluntary data call in 2016 and four mandatory data 

calls in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, subject to a number of limited reporting exemptions for 

certain insurers.

341 FIO collects certain data elements through third-party workers’ 

335 TRIA § 101(b).

336 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-94, 133 Stat. 2534 (2019).

337 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-94, 133 Stat. 2534 (2019).

338 FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 38.

339 See, e.g., The Reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, Before the Senate Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 116th Cong. (June 18, 2019), 

https://www.banking.senate.gov/hearings/the-reauthorization-of-the-terrorism-risk-insurance-program; Protecting 

America: The Reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, Before the House Financial Services 

Committee, 116th Cong. (October 16, 2019), 

https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=404481.

340 TRIA § 104(h).

341 See 2020 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Data Call, 85 Fed. Reg. 15036 (March 16, 2020),

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/16/2020-05299/2020-terrorism-risk-insurance-program-datacall.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

67

compensation rating bureaus to minimize the burden on reporting insurers, and uses multiple 

reporting templates based on classification of the insurer’s size and operations.342

Beginning with the 2018 data call, Treasury coordinated with state insurance regulators and the 

NAIC to develop a consolidated data call—with the same information reported to Treasury as 

well as to state regulators—in order to reduce the burden on participating insurers.

343 FIO 

estimates that an extremely high percentage of insurers required to participate in the 2017, 2018, 

2019, and 2020 TRIP data calls provided the requested data.344

3. Program Effectiveness Report

TRIA requires Treasury to submit reports every other year to Congress concerning the 

effectiveness of TRIP.345 For the report that Treasury submitted to Congress on June 30, 2020, 

FIO relied principally upon information from the 2018, 2019, and 2020 TRIP data calls, as well 

as on comments and information submitted by interested parties.

346

In the 2020 Program Effectiveness Report, FIO concluded that TRIP has been effective in 

making terrorism risk insurance available and affordable in the insurance marketplace. The 

market for terrorism risk insurance remained relatively stable through the end of calendar year 

2019, with few observable differences in the relevant benchmarks. Over time, there has been an 

increase in the amount of private reinsurance capacity for conventional terrorism risk exposure, 

but little or no increase in reinsurance capacity for non-conventional (i.e., nuclear, biological, 

chemical, or radiological (NBCR)) exposures.

Treasury did not observe any aspects of TRIP that discouraged or impeded insurers from 

providing P&C insurance in general, or terrorism risk insurance specifically. In particular, TRIP

remains an important feature of the market for workers’ compensation insurance, given the 

nature of insurance that must be provided for workers’ compensation as a matter of state law. 

Treasury estimated that total premiums charged by insurers for terrorism risk insurance from 

2003 to 2019 were approximately $43.2 billion (excluding amounts associated with captive 

insurers), which is less than two percent of the total premiums earned in the TRIP-eligible lines 

of insurance during that period.347

342 FIO, 2020 Program Effectiveness Report, 9-10.

343 Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 2018 Data Call, 82 Fed. Reg. 56328 (November 28, 2017), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/28/2017-25402/terrorism-risk-insurance-program-2018-datacall.

344 For example, the non-small insurer response rate in the 2020 TRIP data call was at least 98.8 percent, and the 

small insurer response rate was at least 78.1 percent. See FIO, 2020 Program Effectiveness Report, 12.

345 TRIA § 104(h)(2). TRIA also requires Treasury to submit to Congress a report on the competitiveness of small 

insurers in the terrorism risk insurance marketplace every other year beginning in 2017; the next small insurer report 

under TRIA is due June 30, 2021. TRIA § 108(h).

346 FIO, 2020 Program Effectiveness Report.

347 FIO, 2020 Program Effectiveness Report, 2.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

68

4. Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms

The ACRSM is a federal advisory committee established by the Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Program Reauthorization Act of 2015.348 It is statutorily required to provide FIO with advice, 

recommendations, and encouragement with respect to the creation and development of 

nongovernmental risk-sharing mechanisms to protect against losses arising from acts of 

terrorism.349 ACRSM members include insurers, reinsurers, and capital market participants.

Since its formation, it has met on 10 separate occasions, including a number of fact-finding 

meetings where the Committee received presentations from industry representatives on a variety 

of issues related to TRIP.350

At its May 11, 2020 meeting, the ACRSM adopted its first report providing recommendations to 

FIO.351 In the report, the ACRSM made short-term recommendations addressing cyber risk, 

NBCR risk, and certification, as well as long-term recommendation covering the IMARA, 

recoupment, alternative carrier mechanisms, facilitation of risk transfer to private markets, and 

the availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance for non-profit entities generally.352 

FIO will evaluate these issues as it continues to assist the Secretary in the administration of 

TRIP, and will continue to work with the ACRSM and to engage with stakeholders as it proceeds 

with its evaluation and work in these areas.

C. Cyber Insurance and Insurance Industry Cybersecurity

FIO continues to monitor developments related to the cyber insurance market and insurance 

industry cybersecurity, as discussed below.

1. The Cyber Insurance Market

U.S. insurers continued to report growth in the cyber insurance market in 2019, with 

approximately $2.5 billion in direct written premiums, an 11.1 percent increase over 2018’s $2.2 

billion—although this figure still amounts to less than one percent of the total U.S. P&C market. 

This year-over-year growth rate from 2018 to 2019 is an increase over 2018’s growth rate (6.8 

348 Pub. L. 114-1, 129 Stat. 3 (2015).

349 2015 Reauthorization Act § 110.

350 Meeting agendas and minutes, as well as additional committee information, are available through the ACRSM 

website: “Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms (ACRSM),” Treasury, 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/federal-insuranceoffice/terrorism-risk-insurance-program/advisory-committee-on-risk-sharing-mechanisms-acrsm.

351 Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms, Initial Report of the Committee (May 11, 2020), 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/5-20-ACRSM-Report-Final.pdf (ACRSM Report).

352 FIO, ACRSM Report, 6; see also FIO, 2020 Program Effectiveness Report, 80-81.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

69

percent) but remains significantly lower than the growth rate reported between 2015-2016, and 

2016-2017 (27.4 percent and 31.9 percent, respectively).353

The number of insurers writing cyber insurance has increased from 322 in 2015, to 507 in 2017, 

to 580 in 2019.354 Figure 3 shows that the cyber insurance market remains highly concentrated, 

with the top 10 cyber writers holding a combined market share of 63.9 percent in 2019, down 

slightly from 65.2 percent in 2018. 355

Source: S&P Global

353 S&P Global.

354 S&P Global.

355 FIO received stakeholder feedback indicating that insurers may be reporting similar cyber policies differently due 

to varying interpretations of “standalone” and “package” policies. This Report therefore presents data for the top 10 

writers based on total combined direct premiums written for standalone, package, and identity theft policies. See

FIO, 2020 Program Effectiveness Report, 57-58.

Figure 3: P&C Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. Cyber

Direct Premiums Written

2018 

Rank

2019 

Rank Insurance Group

2018 Direct 

Premiums

Written ($000)

Share of 

Total (%)

2019 Direct 

Premiums

Written ($000)

Share of 

Total (%)

1 1 Chubb Ltd. $ 325,800 14.6 $ 356,881 14.4

3 2 American International Group, Inc. 238,367 10.7 231,755 9.3

2 3 AXA SA 255,875 11.5 229,680 9.3

4 4 Travelers Companies, Inc. 170,867 7.7 202,777 8.2

5 5 Beazley Plc 110,948 5.0. 150,943 6.1

8 6 AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. 76,001 3.4 97,305 3.9

6 7 CNA Financial Corp. 83,357 3.7 94,722 3.8

7 8 Liberty Mutual Holding Co. Inc. 77,773 3.5 80,222 3.2

9 9 BCS Insurance Co. 69,505 3.1 76,062 3.1

15 10 Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. 38,218 1.7 65,101 2.6

Combined Top 10 $ 1,455,989 65.2 $ 1,585,449 63.9

Combined Top 25 $ 1,892,270 84.7 $ 2,075,617 83.7

Combined Top 100 $ 2,198,021 98.4 $ 2,436,123 98.2

Total U.S. Cyber Premiums $ 2,234,008 100.0% $ 2,481,367 100.0%
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

70

Stakeholders reported to FIO that the cyber insurance market has sufficient capacity available to 

meet customer demands.356 Multiple stakeholders also noted that the market is hardening. 

Prices started to increase in late 2019 after increasingly severe ransomware attacks.357 Concerns 

about profitability have increased as claims frequency has grown.358

Stakeholders reported to FIO in Spring 2020 that there is sufficient capacity in the reinsurance 

market, with multiple reinsurers available to support larger cyber coverage towers required by 

some policyholders. However, multiple stakeholders anticipated difficulty in obtaining 

reinsurance within the next two to five years as a result of continued growth in the primary 

market and risk accumulation concerns within the reinsurance sector.

Cyber is one of the fastest growing lines of insurance for captive insurers, with one estimate 

indicating that 15 percent of U.S. captives write cyber coverage, for premiums totaling $18.2 

million in 2019.359 2019 also saw progress in the development of a cyber ILS market, with 

several smaller cyber placements closing.

360

The insurance industry continues to address “non-affirmative” cyber risk.361 In response to a UK 

regulatory requirement to address non-affirmative cyber risk, Lloyd’s of London announced in 

July 2019 that Lloyd’s underwriters would be required to affirmatively state, no later than July 

2020, whether first-party property damage policies include or exclude cyber coverage, with 

third-party lines following by July 2021.362 Notably, AIG also announced in September 2019 

that it would explicitly cover or exclude cyber exposure by January 2020.363 Observers noted 

356 FIO consulted with P&C stakeholders in early 2020 to discuss the U.S. cyber insurance market and the cyber 

coverage within TRIA. These stakeholders included large direct insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and trade associations.

357 See also Suzanne Barlyn, “Insurers Look to Curb Ransomware Exposure as U.S. Cyber Rates Rise,” Reuters, 

January 22, 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ransomware-insurance/insurers-look-to-curb-ransomwareexposure-as-u-s-cyber-rates-rise-idUSKBN1ZL1J2.

358 AM Best, Best’s Market Segment Report: Cyber Insurance: Profitability Less Certain as New Risks Emerge

(July 21, 2020), 3, http://www3.ambest.com/ambv/sales/bwpurchase.aspx?record_code=299463.

359AM Best, Cyber Insurance: Profitability Less Certain as New Risks Emerge, 10-11. Captive insurers are insurers 

formed to insure the risk exposure of their policyholder owners and regulated by the captive insurance laws of a 

particular state or jurisdiction.

360 John Hewitt Jones, “Alternative Capital ‘Getting More Comfortable’ With Cyber: Markel Exec,’” Inside P&C, 

February 25, 2020, 

https://insuranceinsider.com/p-and-c/articles/131765/alternative-capital-getting-more-comfortable-with-cyber-marke

l-exec. For more information on ILS and other forms of alternative risk transfer, see Section VII.B.2.

361 “Non-affirmative” or “silent” cyber risk refers to the potential for exposure under policies that do not explicitly 

grant or exclude cyber coverage. FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 39.

362 Lloyd’s, Providing Clarity for Lloyd’s Customers on Coverage for Cyber Exposures (Market Bulletin Ref: 

Y5258) (July 4, 2019), https://www.lloyds.com/~/media/files/the-market/communications/marketbulletins/2019/07/y5258.pdf; Lloyd’s, Update—Providing Clarity for Lloyd’s Customers on Coverage for Cyber 

Exposures (Y5277) (January 29, 2020), https://www.lloyds.com/~/media/files/the-market/communications/marketbulletins/2020/1/y5277-update--providing-clarity-for-lloyds-customers-on-coverage-for-cyber-exposures.pdf.

363 Catrin Shi, “AIG Tackles Silent Cyber Exposures Across Commercial Lines, Inside P&C, September 5, 2019, 

https://insuranceinsider.com/p-and-c/articles/128626/aig-tackles-silent-cyber-exposures-across-commercial-lines.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

71

that litigation resulting from NotPetya malware attacks in 2017 has demonstrated the potential 

long tail of cyber events and “underscores the importance of managing silent cyber.”364

At the international level, in 2019, the IAIS established a Cyber Underwriting Small Group to 

examine and report to the ExCo on current supervisory issues and approaches concerning 

sustainable underwriting of cyber insurance.365 In May 2020, the IAIS established a workplan to 

develop a public paper in 2020 addressing cyber risk underwriting.366 That work will focus, in 

part, on the need to develop approaches to shift to insuring cyber risks through affirmative 

coverages.

In the long-term, demand for cyber insurance is likely to continue growing, as the Internet of 

Things and other technologies are expanding the cyber attack surface, along with the frequency 

and severity of cyber incidents.367 While the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may increase 

demand for cyber insurance from current and new policyholders, market reports indicated that 

the pandemic could slow growth of the cyber insurance market if commercial policyholders face 

budget constraints and lowered profitability.368

2. Insurance Industry Cybersecurity

Studies report that financial institutions, including insurers, remain primary global targets for 

cyber incidents, although the financial services industry also ranks best in cyber preparedness.369 

While the number of cyber incidents decreased worldwide in 2019, more severe attacks, 

particularly ransomware, resulted in higher levels of loss, with one report citing median 2019 

losses of nearly six times 2018 median losses.370

364 AM Best, Cyber Insurance: Profitability Less Certain as New Risks Emerge, 1. Here, “tail” refers to liabilities

for losses that may be covered even though they manifest a long period (even years) after the initial event.

365 IAIS, Newsletter: February 2020 (February 24, 2020), 3-4, 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/newsletter//file/88915/iais-newsletter-february-2020.

366 IAIS, Newsletter: April/May 2020 (May 29, 2020), 2, 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/newsletter//file/90279/iais-newsletter-april-may-2020.

367 The “Internet of Things” refers to “connected devices that are able to share data to increase efficiency.” See Matt 

Burgess, “What is the Internet of Things? WIRED Explains,” WIRED, February 16, 2018, 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/internet-of-things-what-is-explained-iot.

368 See Fitch Ratings, U.S. Cyber Insurance Market Update (Recent Economic Disruption May Alter Growth and 

Loss Trends) (April 29, 2020), 

https://www.fitchratings.com/research/insurance/us-cyber-insurance-market-update-recent-economic-disruption-ma

y-alter-growth-loss-trends-29-04-2020.

369 Hiscox, Hiscox Cyber Readiness Report 2020 (2020), 7, 13, 

https://www.hiscox.co.uk/sites/uk/files/documents/2020-06/Hiscox_Cyber_Readiness_Report_2020_UK.PDF.

370 Hiscox, Cyber Readiness Report, 7.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

72

In 2020, experts reported that cybersecurity threats increased significantly, as more employees 

worked from home and attackers preyed on computer users’ fears about the COVID-19

pandemic. One study reported a 148 percent increase in ransomware attacks between February 

2020 and March 2020.

371

a) Federal Cybersecurity Efforts

In September 2019, in partnership with the NAIC and the Missouri and Kansas Departments of 

Insurance, Treasury successfully held the second in several planned cyber tabletop exercises for 

small and regional insurers. Through this initiative, Treasury has leveraged its expertise in 

conducting cyber tabletop exercises to provide small and regional insurers with access to these

cybersecurity resources.

Other federal efforts, which are not specific to the insurance industry, may foster cybersecurity 

improvements within the industry. In November 2019, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 

Security Agency (CISA) issued a Cyber Essentials Guide, which was followed by a series of 

toolkits to help businesses and government develop actionable responses to cybersecurity risk.372 

In April 2020, CISA also published best practices and guidance in response to the COVID-19 

pandemic to help improve cybersecurity when teleworking.373

b) State Cybersecurity Efforts

Insurance regulators and legislators continue to act at the state level on insurance industry 

cybersecurity. On July 22, 2020, the NYDFS filed its first enforcement action under its 

cybersecurity regulation, against First American Title Insurance for its alleged exposure of 

“hundreds of millions of documents, millions of which contained consumers’ sensitive personal 

information.”374

Treasury continues to encourage prompt adoption of the NAIC’s Insurance Data Security Model 

Law by the U.S. states.375 As of June 30, 2020, eleven states—Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, and 

371 Patrick Upatham and Jim Treinen, “Amid COVID-19, Global Orgs See a 148% Spike in Ransomware Attacks; 

Finance Industry Heavily Targeted,” VMWare Carbon Black, April 15, 2020, 

https://www.carbonblack.com/blog/amid-covid-19-global-orgs-see-a-148-spike-in-ransomware-attacks-finance-indu

stry-heavily-targeted/.

372 CISA, “CISA Releases New Cyber Essentials Toolkit,” news release, May 29, 2020, 

https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/05/29/cisa-releases-new-cyber-essentials-toolkit.

373 “Telework Guidance and Resources,” CISA, https://www.cisa.gov/telework.

374 NYDFS, “Department of Financial Services Announces Cybersecurity Charges Against a Leading Title 

Insurance Provider for Exposing Millions of Documents with Consumers’ Personal Information,” news release, July 

22, 2020, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr202007221.

375 Insurance Data Security Model Law (NAIC 2017), https://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-668.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

73

Virginia—had adopted the NAIC’s Insurance Data Security Model Law or a similar law.376 If 

adoption and implementation of the model law by the states does not result in uniform data 

security regulations, Congress may need to act.377 FIO will continue to monitor the states’ 

adoption of this model law and its implementation.

376 See Ala. Code §§ 27-62-1 – 12; Conn. Public Act No. 19-117, § 230; Del. Code tit. 18, §§ 8601-8611; Ind. Pub. 

L. 130 (2020); 2020 La. H.B. 614 (signed by Governor June 11, 2020); 2018 Mich. Pub. Acts 690; Miss. Code Ann. 

§§ 83-5-801 – 825; N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 420-P:1 – P:14, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3965.01 – 11; S.C. Code Ann. §§

38-99-10 – 100; Va. Code Ann. §§ 38.2-621 – 629.

377 Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 117.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

74

V. INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT

This section outlines FIO’s international engagement, including representing the United States at 

the IAIS. The section begins by describing FIO’s role within the IAIS and the significant 

milestones reached over the past year in the development of ICPs and ComFrame. The section 

then discusses the U.S.-EU and U.S.-UK covered agreements. FIO also has two insurance 

dialogue projects—one with the European Union and one with the United Kingdom—both of 

which are described in this section. Additionally, the section outlines Treasury’s, including 

FIO’s, work at the FSB on insurance. The section concludes by describing FIO’s work within 

the OECD.

A. IAIS

1. FIO’s Role Within the IAIS

FIO represents the United States at the IAIS.378 Throughout 2019 and 2020, FIO has continued 

to fulfill its statutory role representing the United States in the IAIS through various IAIS 

committees and subcommittees, including working groups and task forces. FIO works 

collaboratively as part of Team USA in its engagement with the IAIS.379

The IAIS is a voluntary, member-driven organization of insurance supervisors. Its mission is “to 

promote effective and globally consistent supervision of the insurance industry in order to 

develop and maintain fair, safe and stable insurance markets for the benefit and protection of 

policyholders, and to contribute to global financial stability.”380 With over 210 members from 

jurisdictions accounting for 97 percent of worldwide premium volume, the IAIS is the 

international standard-setting body responsible for developing and supporting the 

implementation of principles, standards, and guidance for the supervision of the insurance 

industry.

381

FIO is a permanent member of the IAIS ExCo. The ExCo provides strategic direction, appoints 

the Secretary General, manages the IAIS consistent with specific duties in the bylaws, and makes 

decisions necessary to achieve the IAIS mission.382 Three policymaking committees report to 

the ExCo: the Implementation and Assessment Committee; the Macroprudential Committee; 

378 31 U.S.C. § 313(c)(1)(E).

379 For more information on Team USA, see Section III.B.1.

380 IAIS, IAIS Annual Report 2018 (2019), 8. 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/about-the-iais/annual-report/file/87195/iais-2018-annual-report-single-page.

381 See IAIS, IAIS Annual Report 2018, 6. See also IAIS, IAIS Organisation Members (September 20, 2019), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/list/iaismembers.

382 IAIS, IAIS Annual Report 2018, 7.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

75

and the Policy Development Committee.383 FIO participates in all three of these policymaking 

committees. Figure 4 shows the IAIS’s organizational structure as of January 2020.

Figure 4: IAIS Organizational Structure as of January 2020384

Source: FIO

Effective January 2020, the Macroprudential Policy Committee changed its subcommittee 

structure to “better align with the expected future activities” given the adoption of the new 

Holistic Framework.385 The IAIS replaced three subcommittees—the Macroprudential Policy 

and Surveillance Working Group, the Systemic Risk Assessment Drafting Group, and the G-SII 

Analysts Working Group—with two new subcommittees: the Macroprudential Supervision 

Working Group (to address matters relating to macroprudential supervision); and the 

Macroprudential Monitoring Working Group (responsible for coordinating the annual global 

monitoring exercise and macroprudential assessment of trends, developments and risks to the 

financial stability of the global insurance industry).386

383 Two additional committees report to the ExCo: the Audit and Risk Committee and the Budget Committee. IAIS, 

IAIS Annual Report 2018, 7.

384 See also “IAIS Organisational Structure,” IAIS,

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/about-the-iais/organisational-structure. Note that Figure 4 does not include all 

workstreams and expert teams.

385 For more information on the Holistic Framework, see Section III.B.2.

386 IAIS, IAIS Newsletter: December 2019 – January 2020 (January 29, 2020), 5-6, 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/newsletter/file/88456/iais-newsletter-december-2019-january-2020.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

76

FIO continues to engage in the development of ICS Version 2.0 through the Insurance Capital 

Standard and Comparability Task Force, the Capital, Solvency & Field Testing Working Group, 

and the Infrastructure Task Force.387 The Infrastructure Task Force, which was formed in 2020, 

will assess the appropriateness of a differentiated treatment of infrastructure and strategic equity 

assets for the calculation of the ICS capital requirement.

A FIO staff member chairs the IAIS Resolution Working Group (ReWG), and represents the 

IAIS at relevant FSB bodies such as the Resolution Steering Group (ReSG) and the FSB 

Cross-Border Crisis Management Group for Insurers (iCBCM). In 2019 and continuing into 

2020, the ReWG has been developing an Application Paper on Resolution Powers and Planning, 

after adopting an Application Paper on Recovery Planning in 2019.388

Another member of FIO’s staff chairs the IAIS Financial Crime Task Force (FCTF) and, in that 

capacity, chairs the IAIS delegation to the Financial Action Task Force. Following the adoption 

in 2019 of the revised ICP 22, which addresses anti-money laundering and combatting the 

financing of terrorism, the FCTF turned its attention in December 2019 to updating the IAIS 

Application Paper on Combatting Money Laundering and Terrorism.389 The IAIS roadmap 

currently tracks this work for completion during 2020-21.390

FIO also participates in several other IAIS subcommittees: the Coordination Group; Financial 

Inclusion Forum; FinTech Forum; Governance Working Group; Insurance Groups Working 

Group; Macroprudential Monitoring Working Group; Macroprudential Supervision Working 

Group; Retirement Income and Pensions Forum; Strategic Plan and Financial Task Force; 

Standards Assessment Working Group; Supervisory Materials Review Task Force; and Virtual 

Small Group on COVID-19 Supervisory Measures. The IAIS committees and subcommittees 

have continued to work throughout the pandemic although the timelines for several projects have 

been extended.

387 For more information on the ICS, see Section III.B.1.

388 For more information on IAIS resolution work, see Section V.A.2. For more information on FSB resolution 

work, see Section V.D.

389 IAIS, Newsletter: December 2019 – January 2020, 7. See also IAIS, Application Paper on Combating Money 

Laundering and Terrorist Financing (October 2013), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/application-papers//file/34107/application-paper-on-combatingmoney-laundering-and-terrorist-financing. The revised ICP 22 is available at 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/insurance-core-principles/. For more information on the ICPs, 

see Section V.A.2.

390 IAIS, Newsletter: April/May 2020 (May 29, 2020), 2, 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/newsletter//file/90279/iais-newsletter-april-may-2020.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

77

2. Insurance Core Principles and ComFrame

The IAIS reached significant milestones in November 2019 with the adoption of the revised ICPs 

and ComFrame, Version 2.0 of the ICS, and the Holistic Framework.391

The adoption of the revised ICPs culminated several years of work across the IAIS during which 

nearly all of the individual ICPs were substantially revised.392 Notably, the ICPs adopted by the 

IAIS in 2019 included significant revisions to ICP 12 (Exit from the Market and Resolution), and 

new material on recovery planning in ICP 16 (Enterprise Risk Management for Solvency 

Purposes).393 Concurrent with the adoption of the ICPs and ComFrame, the IAIS also adopted 

an Application Paper on Recovery Planning, prepared by the ReWG, that provides guidance on 

the supervisory material in ICP 16 and its related ComFrame material.394

The adoption of ComFrame also marked the conclusion of many years of work across the IAIS, 

and provides a comprehensive, outcomes-focused framework of minimum supervisory 

requirements tailored to IAIGs.395 The IAIS intends for ComFrame to lead to a more efficient 

supervisory environment for both supervisors and IAIGs.

Version 2.0 of the ICS, while a part of ComFrame, was adopted as a standalone document.

396

The ICS is intended to provide a common language for discussions of group solvency of IAIGs 

and improve global convergence of capital standards that regulators apply to insurance 

companies. November 2019 also marked the start of a five-year monitoring period, during which 

ICS results will not be the trigger for any supervisory actions, but through confidential reporting

391 IAIS, “IAIS Adopts First Global Frameworks for Supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups and 

Mitigation of Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector,” news release, November 14, 2019, 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/news/press-releases-prior-to-2014//file/87183/media-release-iais-adopts-first-global-f

rameworks-for-supervision-of-internationally-active-insurance-groups-and-mitigation-of-systemic-risk-in-the-insura

nce-sector. International standards are not, in and of themselves, binding in the United States unless they are 

adopted as law through domestic processes at the state or federal level.

392 IAIS, Insurance Core Principles and Common Framework for the Supervision of Internationally Active 

Insurance Groups (November 2019), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/insurance-core-principles-and-comframe//file/89885/iais-icps-an

d-comframe-adopted-in-november-2019 (noting revisions, since 2011, to ICPs 1-10, 11 [deleted], 12-13, 15-16, 

18-20, 22-25). See also FIO, 2018 Annual Report, 40 (listing 2017 and 2018 public consultations on ICP revisions); 

FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 51 (listing 2019 public consultations). A few individual ICPs remain subject to revision.

393 IAIS, Insurance Core Principles and Common Framework, 125-142, 217-220.

394 IAIS, Application Paper on Recovery Planning (November 18, 2019), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/application-papers//file/87519/application-paper-on-recovery-pl

anning. For more information on FIO’s role in IAIS resolution work, see Section V.A.1.

395 IAIS, Insurance Core Principles and Common Framework.

396 See, e.g., IAIS, Instructions for the April 2020 Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) Data Collection Exercise of the 

Monitoring Period Project (June 30, 2020), https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/insurance-capitalstandard//file/90757/public-2020-ics-data-collection-technical-specifications.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

78

will allow supervisors to provide feedback on its performance and design. Refinements and 

enhancements to the ICS may be made during this period.397

The IAIS revised the ICPs and ComFrame to comport with, and accommodate, the Holistic 

Framework. The Holistic Framework is a set of supervisory policies and powers, an annual IAIS 

global monitoring exercise and discussion of the outcomes, and implementation assessment.398

B. Covered Agreements with the European Union and with the United Kingdom

The Bilateral Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on 

Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance, generally known in the United States 

as the U.S.-EU Covered Agreement, was signed by the parties in September 2017.

399 It entered 

into force on April 4, 2018. 400 In anticipation of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from 

the European Union, in 2018 the United States and the United Kingdom entered into a 

substantively similar agreement,401 known as the U.S.-UK Covered Agreement.402 The U.S.-UK 

Covered Agreement will enter into force upon the exchange of written notifications between the 

United States and the United Kingdom.

A “covered agreement” is an international bilateral or multilateral agreement on insurance or 

reinsurance that “relates to the recognition of prudential measures” and that “achieves a level of 

protection for insurance or reinsurance consumers that is substantially equivalent to the level of 

protection achieved” under U.S. state-based regulation.403 The ability to negotiate covered 

agreements is a key authority of the FIO Director under the FIO Act.404 The U.S.-EU Covered 

397 For more information on the ICS, see Section III.B.1.

398 IAIS, Holistic Framework for Systemic Risk in the Insurance Sector (November 2019), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/financial-stability//file/87109/holistic-framework-for-systemic-ri

sk. For more information on the Holistic Framework, see Section III.B.2.

399 Treasury, “Treasury, USTR Sign Covered Agreement on Prudential Insurance and Reinsurance Measures with 

the European Union,” news release, September 26, 2017, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0164. 

For the agreement text, see “Bilateral Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on 

Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance,” https://www.state.gov/18-404/. Background 

information and a collection of related documents are also accessible on Treasury’s website: “U.S. and EU Covered 

Agreement,” Treasury, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscalservice/federal-insurance-office/us-and-eu-covered-agreement.

400 See Notice Concerning the Entry into Force of the Bilateral Agreement between the European Union and the 

United States of America on Prudential Measures Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance, 2018 O.J. (L 91), 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.091.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2018:091:TOC.

401 See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 56-57 (comparing the two agreements).

402 Bilateral Agreement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on Prudential Measures 

Regarding Insurance and Reinsurance (December 18, 2018), https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/20181218-

US-UK-Covered-Agreement.pdf.

403 FIO Act, 31 U.S.C. § 313(r)(2).

404 The authority is exercised jointly with the United States Trade Representative.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

79

Agreement was the first ever entered into by the United States and the U.S.-UK Covered 

Agreement is the only other covered agreement that the United States has entered into to date.

The background, purpose, and status of these agreements are discussed in detail in FIO’s 2018 

and 2019 Annual Reports.405 In general, the agreements address three areas of prudential 

insurance supervision: group supervision; reinsurance, including reinsurance collateral; and 

exchange of information between supervisory authorities. These agreements resolve on a 

national basis longstanding concerns arising from both the prudential approach to credit for 

reinsurance406 of U.S. states for insurers that cede business to EU and UK reinsurers, and the 

prudential approach of the UK and EU member states to U.S. insurance groups with operations 

in those jurisdictions.

407

Full implementation of the covered agreements in the United States is highly dependent upon 

steps taken at the state level. As explained in last year’s Annual Report:

Because the business of insurance in the United States is principally regulated by 

the U.S. states, successful implementation of these covered agreements on a 

uniform national basis contemplates action by each of the states to conform 

relevant laws to the provisions of the agreements, particularly regarding the 

conditions for elimination of collateral requirements applicable to EU reinsurers 

accepting business from U.S. ceding insurers (and, similarly, applicable in the 

case of cessions to UK reinsurers once the U.S.-UK Covered Agreement enters 

into force). If that does not occur within the implementation periods set out in the 

agreements, state insurance measures that are inconsistent with the reinsurance 

provisions of the agreement may be preempted by the covered agreement in 

accordance with the FIO Act.408

FIO’s preemption authority is the mechanism provided by the FIO Act to ensure that the United 

States is able to comply with its commitments under a covered agreement.409 The covered 

agreements acknowledge the state role in insurance supervision, and FIO’s preemption authority. 

405 See FIO, 2018 Annual Report, 41-55; FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 54-64.

406 “Credit for reinsurance” describes the degree to which, under U.S. statutory insurance accounting, ceding 

insurers are permitted to recognize transfers of risk to reinsurers as reductions of policy liabilities or as assets, 

thereby freeing up regulatory capital to support new and existing business. FIO, The Breadth and Scope of the 

Global Reinsurance Market and the Critical Role Such Market Plays in Supporting Insurance in the United States 

(2014), 11, https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fio/reports-and-notices/Documents/FIO%20-

Reinsurance%20Report.pdf (Reinsurance Report).

407 See FIO, 2018 Annual Report, 41-45.

408 FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 58 (footnotes omitted).

409 Subject to certain procedures, including providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, a state 

insurance measure shall be preempted by a covered agreement if the FIO Director determines that it results in less 

favorable treatment of a non-United States insurer domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction that is subject to a covered 

agreement than a United States insurer domiciled, licensed, or otherwise admitted in that state, and is inconsistent 

with the covered agreement. 31 U.S.C. § 313(f).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

80

For example, under Article 9, Paragraph 4 of the U.S.-EU Covered Agreement, the United States 

is obligated to begin evaluating state laws for potential preemption not later than the first day of 

the month, 42 months after the date the agreement was signed, i.e., by March 1, 2021. The 

United States “shall complete any necessary preemption determination” not later than the first 

day of the month, 60 months after signature (September 1, 2022).410

1. NAIC Progress on Credit for Reinsurance Models

Through the NAIC, the U.S. states have been diligent in developing amendments to the relevant 

model legal texts to address credit for reinsurance in a manner intended to be consistent with the 

covered agreements.411 An important milestone was achieved in 2019, when the NAIC adopted 

revisions to its Credit for Reinsurance Model Law (#785) and Regulation (#786) intended to 

“make the models consistent with provisions of covered agreements with the European Union 

and United Kingdom with respect to reinsurance collateral requirements.”412

In November 2019, the NAIC’s Reinsurance Task Force issued recommendations concerning 

adoption of the 2019 credit for reinsurance model amendments as state accreditation 

standards.413 The NAIC’s Reinsurance Task Force advised that while an accreditation 

recommendation was not expected to be formally adopted by the NAIC until its 2020 Spring 

National Meeting, the relevant NAIC Committee should recognize that states can and should 

begin immediately to adopt the revisions of state laws and regulations necessary to conform to 

the 2019 model revisions so as “to best avoid potential federal preemption.”414

The Reinsurance Task Force memorandum emphasized “the recommendation of the Task Force 

that states adopt the 2019 revisions in close to identical form to the models.”415 And, notably, 

the Task Force highlighted the necessity for prompt action by the states.416

410 See also U.S.-EU Covered Agreement, Article 10, Paragraph 2(d).

411 FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 58-60.

412 NAIC, “NAIC Updates to Credit for Reinsurance Model Law and Regulation,” news release, June 25, 2019, 

https://www.naic.org/Releases/2019_docs/credit_reinsurance_model.htm. The NAIC maintains a compendium of 

its model laws and regulations on its website: “NAIC Model Laws, Regulations, Guidelines and Other Resources,” 

NAIC, https://www.naic.org/prod_serv_model_laws.htm. See also NAIC: Reinsurance Task Force, Credit for 

Reinsurance Model Law—Redlined (July 15, 2019), https://naic-cms.org/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/MO785%20redlined%206-25-19.pdf; Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation—Redlined (July 15, 2019), 

https://naic-cms.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/MO786%20redlined%206-25-19.pdf.

413 For more information on the NAIC accreditation program, see Section IV.A.4.

414 Memorandum from NAIC Reinsurance Task Force to Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation 

Committee (November 19, 2019), https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/2019%20Revisions%20to%20785%20and%20786.pdf.

415 Memorandum from NAIC Reinsurance Task Force.

416 “To summarize, FIO may begin evaluating potential preemption ‘determinations’ 42 months after the signature of 

the Covered Agreement, or March 1, 2021. FIO must complete any necessary preemption determinations 60 months 

after signature, which they believe to be Sept. 1, 2022. In order to avoid potential federal preemption determinations 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

81

Based on the referral from the Reinsurance Task Force, on December 7, 2019, the NAIC 

Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation Committee adopted updates to the 

Reinsurance Ceded accreditation standard encompassing the 2019 model amendments, as well as 

a procedural waiver to expedite the effective date of the standard to September 1, 2022. Echoing 

the Reinsurance Task Force recommendation, the Committee urged states to adhere closely to 

the text of the revised models.

417

The NAIC completed voting on adding the terms of Model #785 and #786 to its Reinsurance 

Ceded accreditation standard by its Executive Committee and Plenary during its virtual Summer 

National meeting in August 2020, and the accreditation standard has now been adopted, to take 

effect September 1, 2022.418

Relatedly, acting on recommendations of the Reinsurance Financial Analysis Working Group, 

and after exposure and public input, on June 9, 2020, the Reinsurance Task Force adopted a new 

Uniform Checklist for Reciprocal Jurisdiction Reinsurers, to assist the states in administering the 

laws and regulations they are adopting to implement the covered agreements.419

2. U.S. State Progress on Credit for Reinsurance Laws

Since last year’s Annual Report—and in consultation with the NAIC, state regulators, industry 

trade associations, and other stakeholders—FIO has been monitoring the progress of each of the 

states in passing legislation and adopting regulations consistent with the NAIC credit for 

reinsurance models. As Secretary Mnuchin stated in May 2019, and as FIO has emphasized for 

the past several years, “successful implementation of the U.S.-EU covered agreement 

contemplates action by each of the states to conform relevant laws to the provisions of the 

agreement.”420

by the FIO Director, each state should adopt the 2019 revisions to Model #785 and Model #786 in a timely manner.” 

Memorandum from NAIC Reinsurance Task Force.

417 “The Committee adopted the revisions to the standard on a “substantially similar” basis as recommended in the 

referral. However, it should be noted that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

requires a state insurance measure to be “consistent” with the Covered Agreement in order to avoid federal 

preemption, which may be interpreted as a higher standard than simply “substantially similar.” Therefore, states are 

encouraged to adopt the 2019 revisions in close to identical form to the models in order to best avoid the possibility 

of federal preemption.” “Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation (F) Committee,” NAIC, last accessed 

August 26, 2020, https://content.naic.org/cmte_f.htm (related documents tab).

418 NAIC, Summer National Meeting Executive Committee & Plenary Agenda (August 14, 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/Ex_Plenary_DRAFT_2.pdf (item 16); Executive 

Committee and Plenary Meeting Materials (August 14, 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/Materials_EXPlenary_asof_07-22.pdf (attachment 13).

419 NAIC, Reinsurance (E) Task Force Conference Call (June 9, 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/RTF%2008.2020%20Materials_0.pdf (attachment 1).

420 Treasury, “Remarks by Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin at the National Association of Insurance 

Commissioners International Forum,” news release, May 13, 2019, https://home.treasury.gov/news/pressreleases/sm688.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

82

According to the NAIC’s Solvency Modernization Initiative (SMI) Dashboards, 11 states have 

passed laws based on the 2019 amendments to the NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Law, as 

of July 22, 2020.421 Another 17 states have actions pending (e.g., bills on a legislative 

calendar).422 The NAIC’s SMI Dashboards indicate that fewer states have documented progress 

on adopting regulations based on the revised NAIC Credit for Reinsurance Model Regulation,423

but in most states regulations can be adopted without additional legislative action once the laws 

to which they will apply are in place.

Treasury anticipates that states will build on their progress by continuing to adopt revisions to 

their credit for reinsurance laws and regulations. Treasury will continue engaging and 

cooperating with the states and NAIC on implementation of the covered agreements. FIO will 

begin evaluating progress of each of the states not later than March of 2021, as required under 

the covered agreement provisions relating to preemption.424

3. NAIC Progress on Group Capital Assessment

In connection with Article 4(h) of the U.S.- EU Covered Agreement, the United States has made 

additional progress towards development of the GCC. Notably, under the U.S.-EU Covered 

Agreement, if U.S. insurance supervisors do not develop and implement a group capital 

assessment applicable to U.S. groups with EU insurance operations, EU regulators would not be 

barred from imposing Solvency II group capital requirements on such groups.425 State-level 

work on developing the GCC, and on related NAIC model law and regulation texts, intended to 

meet this undertaking, has continued.426

421 NAIC, SMI Dashboard, available through “Financial Condition Committee,” NAIC, 

https://content.naic.org/cmte_e.htm (related documents tab).

422 NAIC, SMI Dashboard.

423 According to the NAIC SMI Dashboard, as of July 21, 2020, one state has adopted the regulation, and three have 

action under consideration. NAIC, SMI Dashboard.

424 “Provided that this Agreement has entered into force, on a date no later than the first day of the month, 42 

months after the date of signature of this Agreement, the United States shall begin evaluating a potential preemption 

determination under its laws and regulations with respect to any U.S. State insurance measure that the United States 

determines is inconsistent with this Agreement and results in less favourable treatment of an EU insurer or reinsurer 

than a U.S. insurer or reinsurer domiciled, licensed, or otherwise admitted in that U.S. State. Provided that this 

Agreement has entered into force, on a date no later than the first day of the month 60 months after the date of

signature of this Agreement, the United States shall complete any necessary preemption determination under its laws 

and regulations with respect to any U.S. State insurance measure subject to such evaluation.” U.S.-EU Covered 

Agreement, Article 9, Paragraph 4.

425 See FIO, 2018 Annual Report, 47; U.S.-EU Covered Agreement, Article 10.

426 For more information on the GCC, see Section III.A.1.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

83

4. The Covered Agreement Joint Committees

The covered agreements each establish a “Joint Committee” to “provide the Parties with a forum 

for consultation and to exchange information on the administration of the Agreement and its 

proper implementation,” and require the Parties to consult within the Joint Committee annually 

unless the Parties otherwise decide.

427 The Joint Committee under the U.S.-EU Covered 

Agreement met in Washington in April 2019.428 For 2020, the committee is chaired by the EU, 

and the parties expect that the 2020 meeting will be held in the fall of this year.

EIOPA noted in June 2020 that it has been engaging with EU member state authorities on the 

implementation of the U.S.-EU Covered Agreement, with a focus on identifying any potential 

inconsistencies.

429 At the 2020 Joint Committee meeting, the U.S. side will look forward to a 

more detailed update on these steps and plans to engage with the European Union concerning the 

implementation progress of the United States.

C. Insurance Dialogue Projects

1. EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Project

FIO is continuing its work with the EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Project, a collaborative effort 

among U.S. and EU insurance authorities to increase mutual understanding and enhance 

cooperation between the United States and the EU in order to promote business opportunity, 

consumer protection, and effective supervision.430 In addition to FIO, the members of the 

EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Project include state insurance commissioners, the Federal Reserve, 

the NAIC, EIOPA, the European Commission, and insurance regulators from France, Germany, 

Ireland, and the Netherlands.

In 2019, the EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Project used three working groups to engage on three 

topics: insurer cybersecurity; the cyber insurance market; and big data.

• Insurance Cybersecurity. The insurance cybersecurity working group continued to 

discuss the creation of a template for a supervisor-only exercise to help improve 

coordination of cross-border responses in the event of an international cybersecurity 

incident.

427 U.S.-EU Covered Agreement, Article 7.

428 See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 62. Because the U.S.-UK Covered Agreement has not entered into force, the Joint 

Committee thereunder is not yet operative.

429 EIOPA, Report on Supervisory Activities in 2019 (June 2020), 12-13, 

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/supervisory_activities_2019.pdf.

430 See EU-U.S. Dialogue Project, EU-U.S. Dialogue Project: The Way Forward, Objectives and Initiatives for the 

Future (December 2012), https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/311/eu_us_dialogue_wayforward_2012_1.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

84

• Cyber Insurance Market. The cyber insurance market working group continued 

discussions with a focus on non-affirmative cyber risk, aggregation risk, cyber risk 

insurance and reinsurance challenges, and the availability of cyber insurance data.

• Big Data. The big data working group examined regulatory oversight of third-party 

vendors, including how to monitor data accuracy and new vendors, applicant and 

policyholder disclosures, opportunities for applicants and policyholders to correct 

potential errors, and the use of artificial intelligence models.

In March 2020, the working groups released summary reports providing updates on their 

work.

431 FIO expects that the next public forum will include discussions of key areas linked to 

the project initiatives addressing challenges and opportunities for the insurance industries in the 

European Union and the United States related to cybersecurity risks, the cyber insurance market, 

and the use of big data.

2. U.S.-UK Insurance Dialogue Project

Building on the EU-U.S. Insurance Dialogue Project and in light of the United Kingdom’s 

withdrawal from the European Union, FIO has started a U.S.-UK Insurance Dialogue Project 

with U.S. and UK insurance authorities that will, among other things, explore commonalities and 

differences between U.S. and UK insurance supervision. In view of the critical role that these 

markets serve for commercial and individual policyholders, officials in both jurisdictions have a 

shared interest in maintaining continuity with respect to insurance supervisory matters as the 

United Kingdom completes its departure from the European Union.

D. Financial Stability Board

The G20 established the FSB in 2009 as its financial regulatory reform implementation 

organization to promote the implementation of effective regulatory, supervisory, and other 

financial sector policies and to coordinate the work of international standard-setting bodies, 

including the IAIS, “as they work toward developing strong regulatory, supervisory and other 

financial sector policies.”432 The FSB’s membership includes authorities that are responsible for 

maintaining financial stability and consists of 68 institutions from 25 jurisdictions and 10

431 EU-U.S. Dialogue Project, EU-U.S. Dialogue Project: Insurance Cybersecurity Working Group February 2020 

Summary Report (February 2020), 

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/eu-us-project-cybersecurity-wg-feb-2020.pdf; EU-U.S. 

Dialogue Project, EU-U.S. Dialogue Project: The Cyber Insurance Market Working Group February 2020 

Summary Report (February 2020), 

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/eu-us-cyber-insurance-wg-feb-2020.pdf; EU-U.S. 

Dialogue Project, EU-U.S. Dialogue Project: Big Data Working Group February 2020 Summary Report (February 

2020), https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/eu-us-big-data-wg-feb-2020.pdf.

432 See “About the FSB,” FSB, http://www.fsb.org/about/#history. See also Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 57-59, 

130; “History of the FSB,” FSB, http://www.fsb.org/history-of-the-fsb/;
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

85

international organizations and standard-setting bodies, including the IAIS.433 Treasury, the 

Federal Reserve, and the SEC are the FSB’s U.S. members.434 Treasury’s Office of International 

Affairs represents Treasury at the FSB. FIO coordinates with the U.S. members on insurance 

matters discussed at the FSB.

In light of the progress that the IAIS made in developing the Holistic Framework, the FSB—in 

consultation with the IAIS and national authorities—decided not to engage in an identification of 

G-SIIs in 2018.435 In November 2019, following the publication of the IAIS’s Holistic 

Framework, the FSB decided to suspend G-SII identifications from the beginning of 2020.436

The FSB also oversees insurance resolution planning work for systemically important insurers

through the iCBCM, which assists and supports regulatory authorities in the development and 

implementation of resolution-related policy measures for insurance. Specifically, the iCBCM

works under the direction of the FSB’s ReSG, and in coordination with the IAIS ReWG, to

develop guidance for resolution powers and tools regarding G-SIIs as well as addressing issues 

relating to their application.437 Building upon prior work, the FSB published a final version of 

the Key Attributes Assessment Methodology for the Insurance Sector in August 2020.438 

Additionally, the iCBCM conducted its annual Resolvability Monitoring Survey, the results of 

which will be published in the FSB’s overall review of progress on resolution initiatives in the 

financial sector later in 2020.

433 FSB, 5th Annual Report: 1 April 2017 – 31 March 2018, 1, 31-38, https://www.fsb.org/2018/12/fifth-fsb-annualreport/.

434 FSB, 5th Annual Report, 13.

435 FSB, “FSB Welcomes IAIS Proposed Insurance Systemic Risk Framework and Decides Not to Engage in an 

Identification of G-SIIs in 2018,” news release, November 14, 2018, 

https://www.fsb.org/2018/11/fsb-welcomes-iais-proposed-insurance-systemic-risk-framework-and-decides-not-to-en

gage-in-an-identification-of-g-siis-in-2018/.

436 FSB, Finalisation of IAIS Holistic Framework for the Assessment and Mitigation of Systemic Risk in the 

Insurance Sector (November 14, 2019), https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P141119-1.pdf; “FSB Welcomes 

IAIS Proposed Insurance Systemic Risk Framework.” For more information on the Holistic Framework, see Section 

III.B.2.

437 FSB, FSB 2019 Resolution Report: Eighth Report on the Implementation of Resolution Reforms: “Mind the 

Gap” (November 2019), 16, https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P141119-3.pdf. For more information on 

FIO’s role in the ReWG, see Section V.A.1. For more information on IAIS resolution tools, see Section V.A.2.

438 FSB, Key Attributes Assessment Methodology for the Insurance Sector (August 25, 2020), 

https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P250820-1.pdf; see also FSB, Key Attributes of Effective Resolution 

Regimes for Financial Institutions (October 15, 2014), https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/r_141015.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

86

Box 3: LIBOR Transition

Since the late 1980s, the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) has been a global benchmark 

for short-term interest rates (between overnight and one year in length) across many currencies. 

The Alternative Reference Rate Committee estimated that current outstanding contracts 

referencing U.S. dollar LIBOR, including corporate loans, adjustable rate mortgages, floating 

rate notes, securitized products, and derivative securities, totaled nearly $200 trillion.439

By 2013, due to secular declines in the transactions that are meant to underlie the index, 

regulators and supervisors questioned LIBOR’s continued suitability. LIBOR was also proven to 

be susceptible to manipulation. The G-20 tasked the FSB with evaluating the possibility of 

replacing LIBOR; at the same time, FSOC flagged similar issues.440 In line with the FSB’s and 

FSOC’s recommendations, in 2014 the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of 

New York jointly convened the Alternative Reference Rate Committee to recommend a 

benchmark interest rate to replace LIBOR for U.S. dollar-denominated financial instruments.441 

The Committee was initially charged with identifying risk-free alternative reference rates, 

identifying best practices for contract robustness, and creating an implementation plan with 

metrics of success and a timeline to support an orderly adoption. The Committee identified the 

Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) as its recommended alternate rate for use in certain 

new U.S. dollar denominated derivatives and other financial contracts, and published a plan with 

specific steps and timelines designed to facilitate that rate’s adoption.442 The Alternative 

Reference Rate Committee designed its paced transition plan to develop SOFR markets ahead of 

LIBOR’s anticipated cessation in 2021.

In July 2020, the IAIS published its report, Supervisory Issues Associated with Benchmark 

Transition from an Insurance Perspective, based on the results of its survey.443 The report noted 

that one feature of benchmark transition risk for insurers is its potential to impact both sides of 

the balance sheet. Key recommendations in the report include that supervisors are encouraged to 

strengthen efforts to facilitate insurers’ transition away from LIBOR by: (1) enhancing 

identification of transition exposures and challenges; (2) supporting facilitation of LIBOR 

transition; and (3) stepping up supervisory cooperation and coordination. In addition, the report 

notes that the IAIS and its members are committed to supporting the FSB and the Basel 

439 Alternate Reference Rate Committee, ARRC Best Practices for Completing the Transition from LIBOR ,2020), 

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/Microsites/arrc/files/2020/ARRC-Best-Practices.pdf.

440 FSB, Reforming Major Interest Rate Benchmarks (July 22, 2014), https://www.fsb.org/wpcontent/uploads/r_140722.pdf; FSOC, 2014 Annual Report (May 2015), 117-118, 

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/FSOC%202014%20Annual%20Report.pdf.

441 “About ARRC,” Alternative Reference Rate Committee, https://www.newyorkfed.org/arrc/about.

442 See “About ARRC.” See also “Transition from LIBOR,” Federal Reserve, 

https://www.newyorkfed.org/arrc/sofr-transition. 

443 IAIS, Supervisory Issues Associated with Benchmark Transition from an Insurance Perspective (July 9, 2020), 

https://www.iaisweb.org/page/supervisory-material/other-supervisory-papers-and-reports//file/90888/iais-report-onsupervisory-issues-associated-with-benchmark-transition-from-an-insurance-perspective. The IAIS report is also 

included as an annex to the larger, more comprehensive FSB report that covers the entire financial services sector.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

87

Committee on Banking Supervision proposed next steps in further assessing transition progress 

and monitoring the evolving impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on benchmark transition.444 

While the transition from LIBOR is well underway, market participants have significant work to 

complete in 2021 to implement the transition.

E. OECD

FIO also participates in the IPPC at the OECD. The OECD is a multilateral organization with 37 

members that serves as a source of public policy advice on various matters, and collects and 

publishes statistical data and analyses on assorted topics.445 The U.S. delegation to the IPPC 

includes representatives from FIO, the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Labor, and the 

NAIC.

Over the past year, the IPPC has contributed to a number of OECD publications, including 

analyses of artificial intelligence; LTCI and healthcare insurance; the COVID-19 pandemic; and 

the insurance market.446 In addition, the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs released Transfer 

Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions, which includes a discussion of transfer pricing 

issues related to captive insurance arrangements.447

Over the next few years, the IPPC is expected to continue to address issues relating to, among 

other things, the COVID-19 pandemic; LTCI, disaster risk management and financing; 

digitalization and innovation; cyber insurance; and insurance regulatory practices. All of these 

issues relate to significant U.S. policy initiatives being led by Treasury, and therefore FIO plans 

to take a leadership role on insurance matters at the OECD.

444 IAIS, Supervisory Issues Associated with Benchmark Transition.

445 See OECD, OECD Secretary-General’s Report to Ministers 2020, 22.

446 See OECD, The Impact of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Insurance Sector (January 28, 2020), 

http://www.oecd.org/finance/Impact-Big-Data-AI-in-the-Insurance-Sector.htm; OECD, Long Term Care and 

Healthcare Insurance in OECD and Other Countries (February 10, 2020), 

http://www.oecd.org/finance/insurance/Long-Term-Care-Health-Care-Insurance-in-OECD-and-other-Countries.htm; 

OECD, Initial Assessment of Insurance Coverage and Gaps for Tackling COVID-19 Impacts (April 2020), 

http://www.oecd.org/finance/insurance/Initial-assessment-of-insurance-coverage-and-gaps-for-tackling-COVID-19-i

mpacts.pdf; OECD, Responding to the COVID-19 and Pandemic Protection Gap (May 28, 2020), 

http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/responding-to-the-covid-19-and-pandemic-protection-gap-in-ins

urance-35e74736/; OECD, Insurance Markets in Figures (June 2020), 

https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/insurance/Insurance-Markets-in-Figures-2020.pdf.

447 OECD, Transfer Pricing Guidance on Financial Transactions: Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Actions 4, 8-10

(February 11, 2020), https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/transfer-pricing-guidance-on-financial-transactions-inclusiveframework-on-beps-actions-4-8-10.pdf. See also Thomas A. Gick, et al., “OECD Recognizes Legitimacy of 

Captive Insurance,” Eversheds Sutherland, February 24, 2020, https://us.evershedssutherland.com/NewsCommentary/Legal-Alerts/229003/Legal-Alert-OECD-recognizes-legitimacy-of-captiveinsurance.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

88

VI. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INFORMED CHOICES

This section first reviews regulatory developments in retirement income and LTCI, as well as the 

state of the LTCI industry. It then provides an update on regulatory developments at the federal 

and state levels relating to retirement income and the standards of conduct for retail sales of 

insurance and other financial products. The section concludes with a discussion of InsurTech.

A. Long-Term Care Insurance

The private market for traditional LTCI has been in steep decline over the last 20 years. The 

number of individual LTCI policies sold peaked in 2002, and has generally decreased in nearly 

every year since then.448 In 2019, following seven consecutive years of negative growth, 

annualized new premium for individual LTCI policies rose one percent to $168 million; 

however, the estimated number of new policies sold fell to a record low of 55,000, a one percent 

decrease from 2018.449 As an alternative to stand-alone LTCI policies, some insurers and 

consumers have turned to “combination” products, which combine a traditional life insurance 

policy or annuity with a long-term care benefit. Measured by new lives insured, combination 

products have eclipsed traditional LTCI, constituting more than 87 percent of the market for 

individual LTCI solutions in 2018.450 Combination products generated $4.3 billion and $4.8 

billion in premiums in 2018 and 2019, respectively, while new policy counts totaled 400,000 in 

2018 and 461,000 in 2019.451

The financial performance of in-force LTCI policies remains an important issue for the insurance 

industry, investors, regulators, and policyholders. LTCI carriers continue to increase their 

reserves (i.e., the funds set aside to pay future claims), update their actuarial assumptions, and 

provide more detailed disclosures of their reserving methodologies.452 One rating agency has 

estimated that, because LTCI is a long-duration liability, most insurers will not reach their peak 

448 Treasury, Long-Term Care Insurance: Recommendations for Improvement of Regulation – Report of the Federal 

Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care Insurance (August 11, 2020), 15, 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Report-Federal-Interagency-Task-Force-Long-Term-Care-Insurance.pdf

(LTCI Task Force Report).

449 LIMRA, U.S. Individual Long-Term Care Insurance (2019 Annual Review). According to LIMRA data, during 

the five-year period from 2015 through 2019, annualized new premiums for standalone LTCI decreased by 60 

percent, while the annual number of newly-issued policies decreased by 76 percent.

450 Source: LIMRA.

451 LIMRA, 2018 Individual Life Combination Products Annual Review: LIMRA, 2019 Individual Life Combination 

Products Annual Review.

452 See, e.g., Unum Group, “Unum Group Reports First Quarter 2020 Results,” news release, May 4, 2020, 

https://investors.unum.com/file/103324/Index?KeyFile=403855793 (announcing phase-in of additional LTCI 

reserves over seven years in response to regulatory finding of $2.1 billion reserve deficiency as of December 31, 

2018); Genworth Financial, “Genworth Financial Announces Fourth Quarter 2018 Results,” news release, February 

5, 2019, http://investor.genworth.com/investors/news-releases/archive/archive/2019/Genworth-FinancialAnnounces-Fourth-Quarter-2018-Results/default.aspx (largest issuer of in-force LTCI policies announces $327 

million reserve increase based on annual review of assumptions and methodologies).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

89

reserves for in-force business for another 10 to 15 years.453 Accordingly, uncertainty about the 

profitability of in-force business will persist, and will be significantly dependent on the accuracy 

of actuarial assumptions. Concerns over LTCI writers’ financial solvency and the potential 

impact of their insolvencies on state insurance guaranty associations will continue to be key 

considerations for the viability of the LTCI market.454

The NAIC identified the regulation of LTCI as a top regulatory priority in 2019, noting that the 

current LTCI environment posed significant issues to both consumers and the state-based system 

of insurance regulation. The NAIC formed a task force charged with developing “a consistent 

national approach for reviewing LTCI rates that results in actuarially appropriate increases being 

granted by the states in a timely manner and eliminates cross-state rate subsidization.”455 The 

NAIC also charged the task force with identifying options to provide choices for consumers 

regarding modifications to LTCI contract benefits where policies are no longer affordable due to 

rate increases.

In November 2019, the NAIC released a request for a proposal to retain an actuarial consultant to 

review and conduct an LTCI data call to support the task force’s efforts456 The NAIC hired a 

consultant and began a data call with 19 insurers.457 In July 2020, the task force requested public 

comments on a document that would help develop principles for draft reduced benefit options for 

LTCI products.

458 In August 2020, the task force formed three subgroups: (1) LTCI Multi-state 

453 S&P Global Ratings, Following the Trail of U.S. Insurers’ Long-Term Care Assumptions (2019), 1, 

https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/190110-following-the-trail-of-u-s-insurers-long-term-careassumptions-10827933.

454 State insurance regulators initiated insolvency proceedings against at least two insurers with LTCI business in 

2020: (1) The Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner sought to place an insurer into rehabilitation after determining 

that even a small adverse development in LTCI reserves would lead to the company’s insolvency; and 

(2) Pennsylvania began rehabilitation of an insolvent LTCI company. Wisconsin Office of the Insurance 

Commissioner, “Insurance Commissioner Acts to Protect the Nearly 200,000 Policyholders of Time Insurance 

Company,” news release, May 18, 2020, https://oci.wi.gov/Pages/PressReleases/20200518TimeInsurance.aspx; 

Allison Bell, “Pennsylvania Puts LTCI Issuer in Rehabilitation,” ThinkAdvisor, February 6, 2020, 

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/02/06/pennsylvania-puts-ltci-issuer-in-rehabilitation/. When an insurer is 

liquidated, certain remaining claims are paid by the state guaranty association system and funded by assessments on 

solvent insurers in the relevant states.

455 “Long-Term Care Insurance (EX) Task Force,” NAIC, https://content.naic.org/cmte_ex_ltci_tf.htm.

456 NAIC, “NAIC Releases Request for Proposal for an Actuarial Consultant to Conduct LTCI Data Call,” news 

release, November 11, 2019, 

https://content.naic.org/article/news_release_naic_releases_request_proposal_actuarial_consultant_conduct_ltci_dat

a_call.htm.

457 NAIC, Conference Call Minutes (July 2, 2020), 3, 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/LTCI%28EX%29TF_080720_materials.pdf.

458 NAIC, Reduced Benefit Options Associated with Long-Term Care Insurance (LTCI) Rate Increases – Request for 

Public Comment (July 2020), https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/RBO%20Principles%20Document%20and%20Introduction_031320.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

90

Rate Review Subgroup; (2) LTCI Reduced Benefit Options Subgroup; and (3) LTCI Financial 

Solvency Subgroup.459

In recent years, FIO has commented on the growing social need for long-term care and the 

decline of the private LTCI market.460 The Insurance EO Report identified the challenges of 

financing long-term care as a matter of national interest requiring a coordinated response from 

the federal government, and recommended that an LTCI Task Force be formed to develop 

policies complementing reforms at the state level relating to the regulation of LTCI. In July 

2018, Treasury convened the Federal Interagency Task Force on Long-Term Care Insurance 

(LTCI Task Force) in response to recommendations in the Insurance EO Report.461 On August 

11, 2020, Treasury issued a report (the LTCI Task Force Report) presenting the 

recommendations of the LTCI Task Force for improving the regulation of LTCI in the United 

States.462 The LTCI Task Force Report stated that implementation of the recommendations 

would remove barriers to innovation and increase regulatory efficiency and alignment, 

potentially making LTCI more affordable and accessible while allowing the market to continue 

shaping the evolution of this product line. The LTCI Task Force Report provided analysis and 

recommendations in four main subject areas:

• Innovation and Product Development—considering product development and other 

innovation in the private market, including recommendations concerning combination 

products, limited LTCI (i.e., policies that pay benefits for less than 12 months), group 

products, and “incidental” policy benefits such as home safety assessments, home 

modifications, or caregiver training.

• Regulatory Efficiency and Alignment—proposing improvements in regulatory 

efficiency and alignment with respect to LTCI, including inflation protection 

requirements, harmony between federal and state laws and regulations, and 

cross-state subsidization and other issues relating to state regulatory review and 

approval of premium increases.

• Financial Literacy and Education—addressing the appropriate federal role in 

financial literacy and education relating to long-term care needs and LTCI, including 

a recommendation that Treasury and other agencies, working through the Financial 

Literacy Education Commission, assess federal education resources on long-term care 

needs and planning, and modify, update, and supplement these resources as needed.

459 NAIC Long-Term Care Insurance Task Force, Meeting Summary Report (August 7, 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/national_meeting/LTCI%28EX%29TF%20Summary_1.pdf.

460 See Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 143; FIO, 2018 Annual Report, 59-61; FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 71-74.

461 Treasury, Insurance EO Report, 144.

462 Treasury, LTCI Task Force Report.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

91

• Tax Incentives—discussing current tax law treatment of LTCI and proposals to 

provide additional tax incentives for the purchase and use of LTCI, including a 

recommendation to amend the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the early 

withdrawal tax if funds from an IRA, 401(k), or 403(b) account are used to pay LTCI 

premiums.

The LTCI Task Force Report identified appropriate policymakers and other stakeholders to 

implement each recommendation. For example, the LTCI Task Force Report stated that FIO 

should coordinate an analysis by actuaries, academics, and other stakeholders of the impact of 

combination products on the market for LTCI risk protection. The Report also recommended 

that FIO continue to monitor and report on the development by the NAIC and the states of a 

consistent national approach to regulatory reviews of LTCI rate increase requests.463 FIO plans 

to move forward on the recommendations specific to FIO.

B. Retirement Income

1. SECURE Act and Annuities

In December 2019, Congress passed, and President Trump signed into law, significant retirement 

legislation: the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act of 

2019.464 In addition to other reforms, the SECURE Act has three provisions intended to 

facilitate the use of annuities in employer-sponsored retirement savings plans, as follows:465

• Section 109 (portability of lifetime income options) allows plans to directly transfer 

lifetime income investments in the form of a qualified distribution plan annuity to 

another employer-sponsored plan or individual retirement account;

• Section 203 (disclosure regarding lifetime income) requires plan benefit statements to 

include a lifetime income disclosure at least once during any 12-month period. The 

disclosure must illustrate the monthly payments the participant would receive if he or 

she converted the total account balance into a lifetime income stream; and

• Section 204 (fiduciary safe harbor for selection of lifetime income provider) creates a 

“safe harbor” from fiduciary liability when employers select an insurance company to 

provide annuity contracts under a plan.

463 Treasury, LTCI Task Force Report, 26, 39.

464 The SECURE Act was introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 1994 and enacted as part of the 

Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-94 (2019).

465 Under current law, U.S. employers may include annuities in defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s. 

However, a 2019 survey found that only 15 percent of employers that implemented some form of retirement income 

solution offered in-plan deferred annuities as investment vehicles, while another 15 percent offered third-party 

annuities as payout vehicles at the time of retirement. Willis Towers Watson, Lifetime Income Solutions: Progress, 

with Work Ahead (September 2019), 3, 

https://www.willistowerswatson.com/-/media/WTW/Insights/2019/09/lifetime-income-solutions-survey-report.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

92

The condition for the safe harbor under section 204 focus on requirements that the employer or 

other responsible plan fiduciary must conclude that (1) at the time of the selection, the insurer is 

financially capable of satisfying its obligations under the annuity; and (2) the relative cost of the 

selected annuity is reasonable. The safe harbor also provides that the fiduciary will be deemed to 

satisfy its duty under the safe harbor with respect to the consideration of the financial condition 

of the insurer if it obtains written representations from the insurer on specified topics including 

its licensure, annual audit, and compliance with solvency requirements under state insurance 

laws.466 The full impact of the SECURE Act on the availability and use of annuities in 

retirement plans will emerge over time.

2. Annuities and the 403(b) Market

Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code permits certain educational institutions and 

tax-exempt organizations to establish retirement plans for their employees. A 403(b) plan 

(sometimes referred to as a “tax-sheltered annuity”) is similar to a 401(k) in that it allows an 

employee to direct a limited amount of salary into individual accounts on a tax-deferred basis, 

with similar limits on contributions, vesting schedules, and withdrawal rules. However, the tax 

and regulatory treatment of 403(b) and 401(k) plans differ in some respects, such as the 

allowable investment options.467 Because 403(b) plans were originally limited to annuities, 

L&H insurers have long played a major role in the 403(b) market.468

The 403(b) market has recently been subject to state and federal regulatory scrutiny. Beginning 

in late 2019, both state and federal regulators turned their attention to 403(b) plans, which are the 

second largest category of employer-sponsored defined contribution plans by asset size.469 In 

October 2019, NYDFS sent letters to a dozen L&H insurers requesting information about sales 

practices in the 403(b) market.470 During the same month, the SEC sent letters to companies that 

administer 403(b) plans and opened an investigation to determine whether violations of federal 

securities laws have occurred in plan administration.471 On July 28, 2020, the SEC issued an 

466 The safe harbor extends only to the selection of the insurer. It does not protect sponsors from Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) liability for other fiduciary acts such as the selection and 

monitoring of plan investments.

467 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b).

468 In 1974, Congress extended the scope of permitted Section 403(b) arrangements to include certain custodial 

accounts in which contributions are invested in mutual funds. See Internal Revenue Code Section 403(b).

469 As of the end of 2019, 403(b) plans held $1.1 trillion in assets compared to $6.2 trillion held by 401(k) plans. 

Investment Company Institute, 2020 Investment Company Fact Book, 169, 

https://www.ici.org/pdf/2020_factbook.pdf.

470 Leslie Scism and Anne Tergesen, “New York State Officials Open Probe on 403(b) Sales to Teachers,” The Wall

Street Journal, October 2, 2019,

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-state-officials-open-probe-on-403-b-sales-to-teachers-11570031322 (noting 

that the investigation will focus on “whether there are unfair and deceptive marketing practices” in the 403(b) 

market).

471 Anne Tergesen and Gretchen Morgenson, “SEC Launches Investigation of Practices in Retirement Plans for 

Teachers, Government Employees,” The Wall Street Journal, October 9, 2019, 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

93

Investor Bulletin to help teachers in public schools make informed investment decisions, 

including about 403(b) plans.472 On the same date, an issuer of tax-sheltered annuities agreed to 

pay approximately $40 million to settle two actions brought by the SEC alleging disclosure 

failures in connection with the issuer’s 403(b) program in Florida public schools.473

C. Standards of Conduct

Throughout 2019 and continuing into 2020, policymakers continued to focus on the appropriate 

standard of conduct for the sale of retail investment products in the wake of the 2018 Court of 

Appeals decision vacating the DOL fiduciary rule in its entirety.474

On June 5, 2019, the SEC adopted Regulation Best Interest (Regulation BI), which establishes a 

new standard of conduct for broker-dealers when making recommendations to retail customers of 

any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities—including retirement plan 

rollover recommendations.475 Regulation BI provides that broker-dealers and their associated 

persons have a duty to act in the best interest of the retail customer, without putting their own 

interests ahead of those of the retail customer.

476 In the insurance context, Regulation BI applies 

to broker-dealer firms and their associated persons making recommendations to retail customers 

of any transaction or investment strategy involving variable annuities, variable life insurance, 

and other insurance products that are registered as securities with the SEC. When it published 

Regulation BI, the SEC also published rules and interpretive guidance related to Regulation 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-launches-investigation-of-practices-in-retirement-plans-for-teachers-government-e

mployees-11570651944; Greg Iaucurci, “SEC probing compensation, sales practices in 403(b) plans for school 

districts,” InvestmentNews, October 8, 2019,

https://www.investmentnews.com/sec-probing-compensation-sales-practices-in-403b-plans-for-school-districts-2-17

0353. See also Karen Hube, “Annuity Sales to Teachers by AIG Are Reportedly the Subject of an SEC Probe,” 

Barron’s, October 30, 2019, 

https://www.barrons.com/articles/sec-looks-at-aigs-sales-of-annuities-to-teachers-51572426001.

472 SEC, Tips for Teachers: Investing for Retirement—Investor Bulletin (July 28, 2020), 

https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/tips-teachers-investing-retirement-investor-bulletin.

473 SEC, “SEC Charges VALIC Financial Advisors with Failing to Disclose Payments to Promote Services to 

Florida Educators,” news release, July 28, 2020, https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-164.

474 Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. United States Department of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th 

Cir. 2018).

475 Regulation Best Interest: The Broker-Dealer Standard of Conduct, 84 Fed. Reg. 33318 (July 12, 2019), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/12/2019-12164/regulation-best-interest-the-broker-dealer-stand

ard-of-conduct. For more information on the development of Regulation BI, see FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 68-70.

476 84 Fed. Reg. at 33318. The regulation defines “retail customer” as “natural person, or the legal representative of 

such natural person, who: (i) Receives a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy 

involving securities from a broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer; and 

(ii) Uses the recommendation primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 33492.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

94 

BI.

477 The SEC required broker-dealers to begin complying with Regulation BI by June 30, 

2020.

Regulation BI applies to SEC-registered broker-dealers and their associated persons that make 

recommendations to retail customers of (1) products—including insurance products—that are 

“securities” and (2) investment strategies involving securities (including account 

recommendations). Regulation BI does not apply outside of these circumstances.

Some insurance representatives are also supervised persons of investment advisers.478 The 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 imposes a fiduciary duty on investment advisers and their 

supervised persons to serve the best interest of their clients and not subordinate their clients’ 

interest to their own.479 For insurance representatives that are also supervised persons of 

investment advisers, this fiduciary duty would apply when recommending insurance products to 

advisory clients depending on the facts and circumstances of the recommendation. 

In circumstances where Regulation BI and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 do not apply to 

the sale or marketing of insurance products, such sales and marketing interactions would still be 

subject to other relevant federal laws, state laws and insurance regulations.

In February 2020, the NAIC approved revisions to the Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model 

Regulation, clarifying that all recommendations by agents and insurers must be in the best 

interest of the consumer and that agents and carriers may not place their own financial interest 

ahead of the consumer’s interest in making recommendations. The revised model regulation 

requires agents and carriers to act with “reasonable diligence, care and skill” in making 

recommendations. The model also provides that recommendations and sales of annuities made 

in compliance with “comparable standards,” including Regulation BI, shall satisfy the 

requirements under the regulation.480 The NAIC has stated that a high degree of harmonization 

for annuity standards of conduct across state, SEC, and Department of Labor regulatory 

477 Form CRS Relationship Summary; Amendments to Form ADV; Final Rule, 84 Fed. Reg. 33492 (July 12, 2019),

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/12/2019-12376/form-crs-relationship-summary-amendmentsto-form-adv; Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers, 84 Fed. Reg. 

33669 (July 12, 2019), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/12/2019-12208/commissioninterpretation-regarding-standard-of-conduct-for-investment-advisers; Commission Interpretation Regarding the 

Solely Incidental Prong of the Broker-Dealer Exclusion from the Definition of Investment Adviser, 84 Fed. Reg. 

33681 (July 12, 2019), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/12/2019-12209/commissioninterpretation-regarding-the-solely-incidental-prong-of-the-broker-dealer-exclusion-from. 

478 Section 202(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 defines a supervised person as “any partner, officer, 

director (or other person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), or employee of an investment 

adviser, or other person who provides investment advice on behalf of the investment adviser and is subject to the 

supervision and control of the investment adviser.” 15 U.S.C § 80b-2(a)(25).

479 84 Fed. Reg. at 33671.

480 Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation (NAIC Spring 2020), 

https://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-275.pdf?27. 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

95

platforms would be beneficial to consumers and the industry.481 On May 11, 2020, Iowa became 

the first state to adopt the revised suitability model.482 Arizona adopted the model on June 5, 

2020.483

In the meantime, New York’s Regulation 187—which imposes a best interest standard on the 

sale of both annuity and life insurance products in New York—became effective for annuity 

contracts on August 1, 2019 and for life insurance products on February 1, 2020.484 The 

regulation places a duty on the producer (that is, the broker or agent; or, where there is no 

producer, the insurer) to ensure that a recommendation of an annuity or life insurance policy 

furthers the consumer’s needs and objectives when taking into consideration only the interests of 

the consumer and without regard to the producer’s or insurer’s financial compensation or 

incentives. It is unclear whether and to what extent other states may choose to adopt the NAIC’s 

revised Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation or to follow the example of New 

York’s Regulation 187. FIO will continue to monitor the progress of state insurance regulators 

in implementing a consistent approach across the United States for standards of conduct in this 

context.

In July 2020, the DOL formally proposed a class exemption that would allow investment advice 

fiduciaries under both ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code to receive compensation—

including as a result of advice to roll over assets from an employee benefit plan to an individual 

retirement account or annuity—that would otherwise violate the prohibited transaction 

provisions of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.485 The exemption would apply to 

registered investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, insurance companies, and their employees, 

agents, and representatives that are investment advice fiduciaries. The DOL noted that the 

approach in this proposal includes impartial conduct standards that are aligned with those of the 

SEC and state insurance regulators. In this way, according to the DOL, “the proposal is designed 

to promote regulatory efficiencies that might not otherwise exist under the [DOL’s] existing 

administrative exemptions for investment advice fiduciaries.”486

481 “Annuity Suitability & Best Interest Standard,” NAIC, last updated July 29, 2020, 

https://content.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_annuity_suitability_best_interest_standard.htm.

482 Iowa Code § 507B.48 (2020). See also Iowa Insurance Division, “Iowa Insurance Division Adopts Final ‘Best 

Interest’ Rule,” news release, May 11, 2020, 

https://iid.iowa.gov/press-releases/iowa-insurance-division-adopts-final-%E2%80%98best-interest%E2%80%99-rul

e.

483 Arizona Senate Bill 1557 (2020).

484 11 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 11, § 224 (July 17, 2018).

485 See U.S. Department of Labor, “U.S. Department of Labor Proposes to Improve Investment Advice and Enhance 

Financial Choices for Workers and Retirees,” news release, June 29, 2020, 

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20200629; Improving Investment Advice for Workers & Retirees; 

Notification of Proposed Class Exemption, 85 Fed. Reg. 40834 (July 7, 2020), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/07/2020-14261/improving-investment-advice-for-workers-andretirees.

486 85 Fed. Reg. at 40836.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

96

D. InsurTech 

In its 2019 Annual Report, FIO provided a comprehensive overview of InsurTech, which is the 

insurance analogue to “FinTech” and generally defined as the innovative use of technology in 

connection with insurance.487 This section provides an update on the three InsurTech topics 

addressed in last year’s report: (1) an overview of the InsurTech market; (2) the impact of 

innovation in the insurance industry; and (3) regulatory frameworks and reforms related to 

innovation and technology.

488 In addition, it discusses the role of InsurTech in responding to the 

COVID-19 pandemic.489

1. InsurTech Market Overview

InsurTech startups continue to receive significant investments and attention.490 Global capital 

investments for InsurTech startups remained steady for the first three quarters of 2019 before 

reaching record levels in the fourth quarter. The fourth quarter of 2019 saw the announcement of 

75 InsurTech investment rounds with a total value of $1.99 billion—the sixth straight quarter 

with over $1 billion in InsurTech funding.491 Funding dropped sharply in the first quarter of 

2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

492

Startups generally receive funding through multiple investment rounds occurring over a series of 

time.493 Early-stage funding in 2019 decreased by 11 percent from 2018, although deal count 

experienced moderate growth of eight percent. Late-stage funding rounds saw increases in both 

number of deals and funding amounts between 2018 and 2019.

494 Despite the drop in funding in 

the first quarter of 2020, the number of deals rose to 96, demonstrating a “continuing trend of 

growing number of deals quarter-on-quarter.”495 The P&C sector continued to receive more 

significant amounts of early-stage funding relative to L&H insurers, collecting over 81 percent of 

the total in the first quarter of 2020.496 Industry incumbents (established insurers, reinsurers, 

487 See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 75.

488 See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 75-98.

489 Topics on data and digitalization that relate to cyber insurance and cybersecurity are addressed in Section IV.C.

490 For more information on InsurTech startups—including descriptions of full stack insurers, managing general 

agents, and technology service providers—see FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 76-77.

491 Willis Towers Watson, et al., Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2019, 33, 

https://www.willistowerswatson.com/en-US/Insights/2020/01/quarterly-insurtech-briefing-q4-2019.

492 Willis Towers Watson, et al., Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q1 2020, 6, 

https://www.willistowerswatson.com/en-gb/insights/2020/05/quarterly-insurtech-briefing-q1-2020.

493 Seed funding occurs at the earliest stage of start-up investment, followed by early stage funding (Series A, Series 

B, and Series C) and late stage funding (Series D and later). See “New InsurTech Venture Capital Financings 

Dropped by Half in Q1,” Carrier Management, April 3, 2020, 

https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2020/04/03/205128.htm.

494 Willis Towers Watson, et al., Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2019, 1, 25.

495 Willis Towers Watson, et al., Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2019, 1, 58.

496 Willis Towers Watson, et al., Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q1 2020, 5.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

97

agents, and brokers) continued to be active participants in this space, and strategic technology 

investments in the fourth quarter of 2019 reached 33 partnerships.497

2. Innovation and Its Impact, Including Responses to and Effects of the COVID-19

Pandemic

Over the past year, insurance industry innovation trends remained similar to those of recent years 

with continued growth in investments, an emphasis on distribution and marketing, additional 

partnerships between startups and incumbent insurers, and a focus on AI.498 The importance of 

innovation for insurers was signaled by AM Best, which, in March 2020, began reviewing 

insurer innovation as part of its insurer evaluation process. The rating agency noted that a 

company’s innovation score does not factor into credit ratings but serves as a benchmark for 

measuring innovation and competitiveness within the industry. AM Best now categorizes 

companies as a “leader, prominent, significant, moderate, or minimal” with respect to 

innovation. Its first report categorized 50 percent of rating units as moderate with another 17 

percent as minimal.499

FIO’s 2019 Annual Report noted that in addition to efforts to modernize and adopt new 

technology, “any transformation of the insurance sector will also be driven by external 

factors.”500 The emergence of COVID-19 in early 2020 demonstrated the importance of external 

factors, and recent InsurTech discussions have focused on the importance of technology in 

bolstering the insurance industry’s response to the pandemic. Commentators have widely noted 

that the pandemic marked a turning point where investment in innovation is becoming a 

necessity, rather than simply a competitive advantage.501

Social distancing requirements and stay-at-home orders required insurers to modify their 

operations, with those insurers that have focused on investing in technology reportedly adapting 

better to remote operations.502 For some insurers, cloud-based operations facilitated the 

497 Willis Towers Watson, et al., Quarterly InsurTech Briefing Q4 2019, 1, 25. For more information on the types 

of InsurTech startups and the role of industry incumbents in InsurTech, see FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 75-80.

498 FIO provided a comprehensive overview of innovation trends in the insurance industry in its 2019 Annual 

Report. See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 75-98.

499 AM Best, Best’s Special Report: Understanding AM Best’s Innovation Scoring (March 10, 2020), 

http://www3.ambest.com/bestweek/purchase.asp?record_code=295274.

500 FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 82.

501 See, e.g., Terry Rowinski, “The Push to Digitize Insurance Amid COVID-19,” ThinkAdvisor, May 4, 2020, 

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2020/05/04/the-push-to-digitize-insurance-amid-covid-19/.

502 See, e.g., Prudential Financial Q2 2020 Earnings Call Transcript, August 5, 2020, 3, 

http://s22.q4cdn.com/600663696/files/doc_financials/quarterly_reports/2020/Q2/Prudential-Financial-Inc.(PRU)-

Q2-2020-Earnings-Call-05-Aug-2020_rF.pdf (reporting that over 95 percent of U.S. employees transitioned to 

remote work in March 2020); Principal Financial Group 1Q 2020 Earnings Call Transcript, April 28, 2020, 3, 

https://s21.q4cdn.com/251671177/files/doc_financials/2020/1Q/Principal-Financial-Group-Q1-2020-Earnings-CallApr-28-2020.pdf (reporting that over 95 of its global workforce is working remotely).
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

98

transition from working at the office to working from home.503 Similarly, online transactions 

and virtual claims adjustments increased as consumers were unable (or unwilling) to conduct 

face-to-face meetings with agents and brokers.

Changes in consumer behavior have also increased interest in innovative insurance products. 

The reductions in driving that prompted widespread premium relief has also prompted additional 

interest in usage-based insurance.

504 One insurance executive also noted that increases in 

unemployment have led consumers to be more budget-conscious, incentivizing insurers to use 

innovation as a method to quickly reduce costs and maintain market competitiveness.

505

Box 4: Insurers and Quantum Computing

Quantum computing is an emerging technology that uses the principles of quantum mechanics to 

manipulate data.506 Quantum computing may have the potential to provide significant scientific 

and technological advancements for insurers by speeding certain types of calculations; 

improving risk modeling by allowing consideration of more variables; and enabling faster and 

more secure data transfer.507 The potential ability of quantum systems to run complex 

calculations, however, also threatens to render obsolete existing encryption systems for data 

protection, and potentially poses a cyber risk for insurers.508 The federal government is 

coordinating its quantum research and development efforts through the Subcommittee on 

Quantum Information Science within the National Science and Technology Council.509 FIO will 

monitor developments in quantum computing and its potential effects on the insurance industry.

503 See, e.g., Kevin Pilla, “COVID19 Highlights Value of InsurTech Platform Insurers Say; Profit Still Elusive,” AM 

Best, May 5, 2020, https://news.ambest.com/newscontent.aspx?refnum=225027.

504 Greg Donaldson, “COVID-19 Spotlights the Benefits of Usage-Based Insurance,” PropertyCasualty360, April 

16, 2020, 

https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2020/04/16/covid-19-crisis-spotlights-the-benefits-usage-based-insurance. 

For more information on UBI, see Section II.B.1.c.

505 Renée Kiriluk-Hill, “Nationwide Exec: Innovation Accelerating to Meet Long-Term Consumer Needs Changed 

by Pandemic,” AM Best, May 28, 2020, http://news.ambest.com/newscontent.aspx?refnum=225561. For more 

information on insurer responses to COVID-19, including premium relief, see Section II.C.

506 See, e.g., “Quick View: Quantum Computing to Have the Biggest Tech Impact, If It Really Exists,” Fitch 

Solutions, October 24, 2019, https://www.fitchsolutions.com/corporates/telecoms-media-technology/quick-viewquantum-computing-have-biggest-tech-impact-if-it-really-exists-24-10-2019.

507 Danni Santana, “Top 5 Insurance Quantum Computing Use Cases,” Digital Insurance, https://www.digin.com/list/top-5-insurance-quantum-computing-use-cases.

508 See, e.g., Charlie Wood, “Quantum Computing a Potential Cyber Risk for Re/Insurers: Fitch,” Reinsurance 

News, November 12, 2019, https://www.reinsurancene.ws/quantum-computing-a-potential-cyber-risk-for-reinsurers-fitch-analysts/. See also Hudson Institute, The Executive’s Guide to Quantum Computing and 

Quantum-Secure Cybersecurity (March 2019), 

https://www.hudson.org/research/14930-the-executive-s-guide-to-quantum-computing-and-quantum-secure-cyberse

curity.

509 See National Quantum Initiative Act, Pub. L. No. 115-368 (2018); Exec. Order No. 13,895, 84 Fed. Reg. 57309 

(Oct. 22, 2019), 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

99

3. Regulatory Frameworks and Reforms

Since the issuance of FIO’s 2019 Annual Report, there have been several notable regulatory 

changes related to innovation, some of which were prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anti-Rebating Reform. FIO’s 2019 Annual Report identified the need for state law reform 

with respect to anti-rebating laws which prohibit giving anything of more than de minimis value 

as an inducement for purchasing an insurance policy.510 Such reforms could significantly 

influence insurers’ ability to provide risk-reduction products to policyholders. For example, one 

study found that installing a “smart leak” detector in homes resulted in a 96 percent reduction in 

paid water claims over a one-year period.511 

Several states have acted on anti-rebating reform in the past year, with states at different stages 

of reform.

512 In June 2020, the NAIC’s Innovation and Technology Task Force proposed 

revisions to the Model Unfair Trade Practices Act, which would permit insurers and producers to 

provide “value added” products or services for no additional cost where related to the provided 

coverage and intended to minimize risk of loss.513 The proposed model law revisions also would 

permit temporary pilot programs under specified conditions and allow state regulators to 

implement data protection regulations.514

E-Delivery. FIO’s 2019 Annual Report also highlighted the potential benefits of using of 

electronic means to communicate with policyholders throughout the insurance transaction 

process. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of flexibility in 

distribution, as social distancing restrictions significantly increased the use of digital distribution 

of products in early 2020. In response to the pandemic, many states issued notices or bulletins to 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/25/2019-23525/presidents-council-of-advisors-on-science-and-t

echnology.

510 FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 90-91. See, e.g., Model Unfair Trade Practices Act (NAIC 2004), 

https://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-880.pdf. California and Florida, with some exceptions, removed many 

anti-rebating restrictions in the 1980s. See also Jamie Parson, et al., “Time to Dust Off the Anti-Rebate Laws,” 

Journal of Insurance Regulation (Vol. 36, No. 7, 2017), 4-5, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/2019_Library_Anti-Rebate%20Laws%20Brief_1.pdf.

511 Ry Crist, “Smart Water Leak Detectors Could End Up Saving You More Than You’d Think,” CNET, May 9, 

2020, https://www.cnet.com/news/smart-water-leak-detector-insurance-study-flo-by-moen-lexisnexis/.

512 See, e.g., Florida H.B. 301 (enacted June 28, 2019) (permitting insurers and agents to provide free or discounted 

items of value for mitigation purposes); West Virginia Offices of the Insurance Commissioner, Informational Letter 

No. 205 (September 2019), 

https://www.wvinsurance.gov/Portals/0/pdf/pol_leg/info_letters/Informational%20Letter%20No.%20205.pdf

(guidance clarifying when rebating is permitted); 03 Wash. Reg. 092 (January 13, 2020) (rulemaking to increase the 

permitted value of mitigation-related products).

513 Section 4(H) of NAIC Model Unfair Trade Practices Act (Draft 2020), 

https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/UTPA_Section_4%28H%29_Exposure_Draft_for_Comment_1

.pdf.

514 Section 4(H) of NAIC Model Unfair Trade Practices Act (Draft 2020). FIO discussed the use of pilot programs 

(i.e., regulatory sandboxes) in its 2019 Annual Report. See FIO, 2019 Annual Report, 92-94.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

100

their regulated entities indicating that e-signatures and electronic transmission would be 

accepted, and industry stakeholders have encouraged regulators to make these modernizations 

permanent.515

Sandboxes, Pilot Programs, and Related Developments. State insurance regulators continue 

to use sandboxes and other programs to promote insurance industry innovation. Since the 

issuance of the 2019 Annual Report, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, New York, Utah, and 

Vermont all have instituted or advanced their innovation programs.516

Big Data, AI, and Data Use. Policy discussions over the appropriate use of data in insurance 

also continue, with regulators and policyholders continuing to address the need for a more 

consistent approach to data use at the state, national, and international levels. Key developments 

since the issuance of FIO’s 2019 Annual Report include the following:

• In June 2020, the NAIC’s Artificial Intelligence Working Group unanimously voted 

to adopt a set of “Principles for Artificial Intelligence,” which were adopted by NAIC 

members at the 2020 NAIC Summer National Meeting.517

• In June 2020, the NAIC’s Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Task Force issued for 

public comment a draft white paper on best practices for the regulatory review of 

predictive analytics in June 2020.518 The paper’s intent is to “identify best practices 

for the review of predictive models and analytics filed by insurers with regulators to 

justify rates and will provide state guidance for review of rate filings based on 

predictive models.”519

515 See, e.g., Vikram Sidhu, Cheryl Yakey, and Jared Wilner, “COVID-19 and the Future of Insurtech,” Business 

Insurance, June 1, 2020, https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20200601/NEWS06/912334751/COVID-19-

coronavirus-pandemic-and-the-future-of-insurtech-insurance-technology-i.

516 See, e.g., D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking, “Inaugural Meeting of District of Columbia 

Financial Services Regulatory Sandbox and Innovation Council Set for December 18,” news release, December 17, 

2019, https://disb.dc.gov/release/inaugural-meeting-district-columbia-financial-services-regulatory-sandbox-andinnovation; Kentucky Department of Insurance, “Insurance Innovation Application: Electronic Submission Now 

Available,” news release, July 31, 2019, http://insurance.ky.gov/ppc/Documents/Insurance_Innovation.pdf; NYDFS, 

“Superintendent Lacewell Announces the Launch of New DFS Program to Drive Innovative Financial Services and 

Products for New Yorkers in the COVID-19 Era,” news release, June 9, 2020, 

https://www.dfs.ny.gov/reports_and_publications/press_releases/pr202006091; H.B. 402 (Utah 2020) (creating 

insurance regulatory sandbox); Vermont Department of Financial Regulation, “DFR Regulatory Sandbox is Open 

and Ready to Accept Innovation Waiver Applications,” news release, January 30, 2020, 

https://dfr.vermont.gov/press-release/dfr-regulatory-sandbox-open-and-ready-accept-innovation-waiverapplications.

517 NAIC, “NAIC Unanimously Adopts AI Guiding Principles,” news release, August 20, 2020, 

https://content.naic.org/article/news_release_naic_unanimously_adopts_artificial_intelligence_guiding_principles.ht

m.

518 NAIC Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Task Force, Regulatory Review of Predictive Models White Paper (draft 

June 12, 2020), https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/CASTF%20-

%20Predictive%20Model%20White%20Paper%206-12-20.docx.

519 NAIC Casualty Actuarial and Statistical Task Force, Regulatory Review of Predictive Models White Paper, 2.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

101

• On June 30, 2020, Florida’s governor signed a bill to restrict life insurers and 

long-term care insurers from using genetic information data to set premiums and 

determine coverage.520

• The NAIC’s Big Data Working Group is continuing to review the current regulatory 

framework for the oversight of insurers’ use and need of consumer data.521

• FACI continues to discuss big data issues, with one of their areas of focus being 

diversity and inclusion.522

RegTech. “RegTech”—that is, exploring and promoting technology innovations to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of financial regulation—continues to get increased attention from

state insurance regulators.

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly influenced state insurance regulators’ RegTech efforts. 

Many state insurance regulators transitioned staff to work from home,

523 and encouraged 

consumers and regulated entities to use online services.524 Some states also permitted the 

temporary use of technologies such as electronic signatures or online licensing examinations.

525 

It remains to be determined the extent to which these modifications will be adopted on a 

long-term basis.

FIO will continue monitoring and evaluating InsurTech and conduct a more in-depth analysis of 

key topics described above and in the 2019 Annual Report, as well as the role that technology 

and innovation can play in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and future crises.

520 Florida H.B. 1189 - Genetic Information for Insurance Purposes (signed June 30, 2020).

521 “Big Data,” NAIC, last updated March 27, 2020, https://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_big_data.htm.

522 For more information on FACI, see Section IV.A.3.

523 See, e.g., Texas Department of Insurance, “How our IT Team Pulled Off the Work From Home Transition,” May 

13, 2020, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/news/2020/tdi05132020.html.

524 See, e.g., Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, “DCCA Encourages Use of Online Services,” 

news release, March 19, 2020, http://cca.hawaii.gov/blog/release-dcca-encourages-use-of-online-services/.

525 See, e.g., Memorandum from John F. King, Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner to All Licensed 

Insurance Companies in the State of Georgia (March 20, 2020), 

https://www.oci.ga.gov/ExternalResources/Announcements/Directive-3202020-1057.pdf. For more information on 

state insurance regulatory responses to COVID-19, see Section II.D.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

102

VII. INSURANCE INDUSTRY FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

A. Domestic Insurance Marketplace Overview

As discussed above, the financial analysis in this section, consistent with prior FIO annual 

reports, focuses on the insurance industry’s financial performance and condition through 

December 31, 2019, the latest date for which detailed, comprehensive, and definitive data is 

available.526 The preceding sections, in contrast, provide preliminary financial analyses and 

coverage updates through approximately the first-half of 2020. 

Over the past decade and through year-end 2019, the insurance industry remained resilient, 

generating growth and maintaining profitability. The industry’s financial soundness during this 

period was supported by one of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history, which ended 

with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.527 Strong economic conditions during this period 

contributed to enhanced balance sheets, providing insurers with increased financial flexibility to 

adapt to capital challenges and ensure solvency. The last decade was marked by positive 

earnings, steady leverage ratios, stable liquidity profiles, and healthy capital positions.

There were some signs in 2019 of potential weakening, however, in the financial health of both 

the L&H and P&C sectors. As a share of net premiums collected, benefit payments were close 

to or in excess of 100 percent for the L&H sector in the last three years, while surrenders 

averaged above 52 percent. For the P&C sector, growth rates in net premiums written and 

operating income dropped sharply in 2019. Finally, both sectors continued to reach for yield in a 

low interest rate environment, as investment portfolios continued to shift from traditional bond 

holdings to alternative investments, potentially heightening the industry’s vulnerability to market 

volatility and economic shocks. A solid financial foundation, however, was built over the course 

of the last decade, which helped the insurance industry to generally withstand market disruption 

and significant loss events. Since the 2008 financial crisis, L&H insurers have pulled back or 

de-risked market sensitive product offerings and the P&C sector has benefited from a build-up of 

excess capital after years of favorable reserve development.

Since the 2009 low point for domestic insurance premiums (following the financial crisis), 

industry premiums grew in every year except in 2013. In 2019, total direct premiums written for 

the combined L&H and P&C sectors were $1.47 trillion, growing by more than four percent over 

2018 levels and nearly 34 percent from 2010, as shown in Figure 5.

526 Except as otherwise indicated, data cited in this section of the Report are as of December 31, 2019, as derived 

from S&P Global on May 12, 2020. These data are on a statutory accounting basis. S&P Global continuously 

updates its data for corrections in filings; 2019 data in this Report are based on updated data available as of May 12, 

2020, and thus may be different in some respects from corresponding figures reported in FIO’s 2019 Annual Report. 

Due to certain conventions used by S&P Global for aggregation of industry data, some columns in the 

accompanying tables may not sum to the totals that have been separately accumulated by S&P Global from 

individual legal entity data. Some figures may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

527 The National Bureau of Economic Research calculated the recent expansion as lasting from June 2009 through 

February 2020. National Bureau of Economic Research, Determination of the February 2020 Peak in US Economic 

Activity (June 8, 2020), https://www.nber.org/cycles/june2020.html.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

103

Figure 5: Total Direct Premiums Written 

for L&H and P&C Sectors ($ trillions)

Source: S&P Global

1. Financial Performance and Condition

This section focuses on the financial performance and condition of the 688 L&H insurers, the 

2,626 P&C insurers, and the 1,223 health insurers licensed in the United States during 2019.

528

Insurers in the L&H sector offer products in two segments: (1) life insurance and annuities, 

which generally protect against the risk of financial loss associated with an individual’s death 

and provide income streams for retirement, respectively; and (2) A&H products, which cover 

expenses for health and long-term care or provide income in the event of disability. Insurers in 

the P&C sector offer products that generally protect against the risk of financial loss associated 

with damage to property or exposure to liability for individuals and families (personal lines) or 

for businesses (commercial lines).

Net premiums written for the L&H sector were approximately $681 billion in 2019, or 33 

percent of net premiums written for the combined L&H, P&C, and Health sectors.529 For the 

P&C sector, net premiums written were approximately $634 billion, or 31 percent of net 

premiums written for the combined L&H, P&C, and Health sectors. The Health sector reported 

$747 billion of net premiums written for 2019, or 36 percent of the combined total for the three 

sectors.

528 S&P Global. The L&H and P&C sectors are the primary insurance sectors in the United States. The Health 

sector includes companies licensed solely as health insurers or as Health Maintenance Organizations, but is not the 

focus of the remainder of this Report.

529 Net premiums written means direct premiums written less net ceded reinsurance premiums.

$1.00

$1.05

$1.10

$1.15

$1.20

$1.25

$1.30

$1.35

$1.40

$1.45

$1.50

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Direct Premiums Written ($trillions)

Year
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

104

At the end of 2019, the L&H sector held approximately $7.4 trillion of total assets (including 

$2.8 trillion held in separate accounts), the P&C sector held approximately $2.2 trillion, and the 

Health sector held approximately $451 billion. Capital and surplus in the L&H sector stood at 

approximately $423 billion as of December 31, 2019; the P&C sector reported policyholder 

surplus of approximately $865 billion; and the Health sector reported approximately $220

billion.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 present snapshots of the L&H sector market, showing the 10 largest L&H 

insurance groups measured by direct premiums written, and market share for life insurance 

(including annuities and other deposit-type contracts) and for A&H lines of business, 

respectively. Premiums shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 aggregate all L&H sector products and 

all geographies of the United States.

Figure 6: L&H Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. Life Insurance Lines

Direct Premiums Written

2018

Rank

2019 

Rank Insurance Group

2018 Direct 

Premiums 

Written ($000)

Share of 

Total 

(%)

2019 Direct 

Premiums 

Written ($000)

Share of 

Total 

(%)

1 1 MetLife Inc. $ 96,451,607 14.1 $ 95,079,321 13.0

2 2 Prudential Financial Inc. 53,148,550 7.8 56,206,131 7.7

8 3 AXA Equitable Holdings Co. 22,579,431 3.3 44,721,302 6.1

3 4 New York Life Insurance Co. 35,452,211 5.2 33,425,321 4.6

4 5 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. 27,154,611 4.0 30,375,127 4.2

6 6 Lincoln Financial Corp. 25,804,565 3.8 28,471,688 3.9

7 7 Principal Financial Group Inc. 25,322,774 3.7 27,038,400 3.7

5 8 American International Group, Inc. 26,446,934 3.9 25,684,294 3.5

10 9 Jackson Holdings LLC 21,511,557 3.2 23,056,675 3.2

9 10 Transamerica Corp. 22,352,418 3.3 22,360,111 3.1

Combined Top 10 $ 356,224,658 52.2 $ 386,418,370 52.8

Combined Top 25 $ 540,697,303 79.2 $ 585,268,702 80.0

Combined Top 100 $ 670,840,403 98.3 $ 724,135,272 98.9

Total U.S. Life Insurance Lines $ 682,291,102 $ 732,109,644 

Source: S&P Global (includes Life Insurance (No Annuity), Annuity Considerations, Deposit-type Contracts (State 

Page), Other Considerations (State Page))

The data presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7 for life and annuity business, and in the comparable 

figures that follow for other lines of business, are aggregated at a group level from filings made 

with state insurance regulators by individual legal entity insurers. For example, premiums 

shown for MetLife Inc. include premiums written by all of its insurance subsidiaries in the 

United States, but exclude business written by affiliated entities in other jurisdictions. Similarly, 

Jackson Holdings is foreign-owned, and the results shown include only U.S. operations.

The aggregate market shares of the top 10, 25, and 100 companies in 2019 were little changed 

compared to 2018.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

105

Figure 7: L&H Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. A&H Lines

Direct Premiums Written

2018

Rank

2019 

Rank Insurance Group

2018 Direct 

Premiums

Written ($000)

Share 

of Total 

(%)

2019 Direct 

Premiums 

Written ($000)

Share 

of Total 

(%)

1 1 UnitedHealth Group Inc. $ 57,090,551 29.2 $ 59,181,570 29.1

2 2 CVS Health Corp. 32,621,384 16.7 35,408,470 17.4

3 3 Cigna Corp. 20,526,988 10.5 22,479,764 11.1

4 4 MetLife, Inc. 7,937,343 4.1 8,352,302 4.1

6 5 Unum Group 6,178,416 3.2 6,425,091 3.2

5 6 Aflac Inc. 7,905,196 4.1 5,440,830 2.7

7 7 Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. 4,289,460 2.2 4,648,741 2.3

8 8 Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America 3,938,319 2.0 4,044,781 2.0

12 9 Sun Life Financial Inc. 2,193,316 1.1 2,767,187 1.4

9 10 Lincoln National Corp. 2,699,929 1.4 2,754,927 1.4

Combined Top 10 $ 145,821,340 74.7 $ 151,503,663 74.5

Combined Top 25 $ 172,217,718 88.2 $ 179,469,957 88.3

Combined Top 100 $ 193,510,242 99.1 $ 202,027,354 99.4

Total U.S. A&H Lines $ 195,264,885 $ 203,325,775 

Source: S&P Global

Figure 7 shows A&H premiums written by insurers authorized to offer both life and health 

insurance; it excludes A&H premiums written by insurers authorized to offer only health 

insurance. Thus, for example, the data presented in Figure 7 for UnitedHealth Group do not 

reflect that insurer’s total health insurance premiums on a consolidated basis, but only premiums 

written by its subsidiaries licensed to offer both life and health insurance. UnitedHealth Group 

also writes health insurance business through subsidiaries that offer only health insurance, and 

those premiums are reflected in Figure 9.

As noted above, P&C insurers underwrite a variety of products, generally categorized as either 

personal lines or commercial lines. Figure 8 reports market share information on a combined 

P&C sector basis; details for commercial lines and personal lines market shares are provided in 

the discussion below.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

106

Figure 8: P&C Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. Combined Lines

Direct Premiums Written

2018 

Rank

2019 

Rank Insurance Group

2018 Direct 

Premiums 

Written ($000)

Share of 

Total 

(%)

2019 Direct 

Premiums 

Written ($000)

Share of 

Total 

(%)

1 1 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Inc. $ 65,861,617 9.7 $ 65,615,190 9.3

2 2 Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 43,443,910 6.4 46,106,971 6.5

4 3 Progressive Corp. 33,754,923 5.0 39,222,879 5.5

3 4 Liberty Mutual Holding Co. Inc. 34,605,081 5.1 35,600,051 5.0

5 5 The Allstate Corp. 33,251,176 4.9 35,025,903 4.9

6 6 Travelers Companies, Inc. 26,244,172 3.9 28,016,966 4.0

7 7 Chubb Ltd. 22,125,338 3.3 23,531,504 3.3

8 8 United Services Automobile Association 21,984,970 3.2 23,483,080 3.3

9 9 Farmers Insurance Group of Companies 20,309,989 3.0 20,643,559 2.9

10 10 Nationwide Mutual Group 18,416,861 2.7 18,442,145 2.6

Combined Top 10 $ 319,998,037 47.2 $ 335,688,248 47.4

Combined Top 25 $ 446,375,931 65.8 $ 467,866,511 66.0

Combined Top 100 $ 591,592,271 87.2 $ 621,490,286 87.7

Total U.S. P&C Sector $ 678,281,318 $ 708,570,030 

Source: S&P Global (includes all lines of business)

For both commercial lines and personal lines, there was little change in the aggregate market 

shares of the top 10, 25, and 100 companies in 2019.

The health market tightened somewhat at the top, with the aggregate market share of the top 10

writers increasing nearly two percentage points (to 58 percent) compared to 2018.

Figure 9: Health Insurance Groups by 2019 U.S. Health Lines

Direct Premiums Written

2018 

Rank

2019 

Rank Insurance Group

2018 Direct 

Premiums 

Written ($000)

Share of 

Total (%)

2019 Direct 

Premiums 

Written ($000)

Share of 

Total 

(%)

1 1 UnitedHealth Group Inc. $ 100,589,323 14.0 $ 107,481,328 14.1

2 2 Anthem Inc. 67,215,601 9.4 73,276,652 9.6

3 3 Humana Inc. 55,848,935 7.8 63,946,708 8.4

4 4 Centene Corp. 52,256,719 7.3 63,556,714 8.3

5 5 HealthCare Services Corp. 37,655,147 5.2 39,629,317 5.2

6 6 CVS Health Corp. 23,465,746 3.3 26,079,700 3.4

7 7 Kaiser Permanente Health Plan, Inc. 19,279,172 2.7 20,035,052 2.6

8 8 GuideWell Mutual Holding Corp. 17,954,524 2.5 18,661,884 2.5

10 9 Independence Health Group Inc. 16,165,007 2.2 17,859,403 2.3

11 10 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan 

Mutual Insurance Co.

14,165,208 2.0 14,465,141 1.9

Combined Top 10 $ 406,646,314 56.6 $ 444,991,901 58.4

Combined Top 25 $ 538,013,562 74.9 $ 577,014,166 75.8

Combined Top 100 $ 693,970,345 96.6 $ 737,282,114 96.8

Total U.S. Health Insurance Lines $ 718,513,533 $ 761,457,340 

Source: S&P Global
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

107

Finally, as noted above, both the P&C and L&H sectors continue to search for yield in their 

investment portfolios, potentially increasing their vulnerability to market volatility and economic 

shocks. For example, volatility in energy prices can have an immediate impact on insurers’ 

investment portfolios. As of year-end 2019, U.S. insurance companies (L&H, P&C, and title) 

held $102.5 billion in bonds and $10 billion in stocks issued by oil and gas companies. Together 

this amounted to 2.4 percent of the combined bond and stock portfolio of all U.S. insurance 

companies.530

2. Life and Health Sector

a) Performance

This section presents additional analysis of the financial performance of the L&H sector in 2019, 

and then assesses the L&H sector’s overall financial condition as of December 31, 2019.

i. Net Premiums Written

Net premiums written is the sum of direct premiums written and reinsurance assumed, less 

reinsurance ceded. Direct premiums written is a principal measure of the size and growth of the 

insurance industry. Over 2019, direct written premiums of $761 billion for the L&H sector grew 

by almost four percent, somewhat less than the strong growth seen in 2018, but nonetheless, one 

of the highest annual growth marks over the past 10 years. After reinsurance transactions, L&H 

sector net premiums written were $681 billion in 2019, marking a very strong 13 percent 

increase from the $604 billion reported in 2018.

Annuity premiums and deposits increased by nearly 27 percent, while life insurance and A&H 

premiums were essentially flat compared to 2018. The recapture of a number of large

retrocession reinsurance transactions that were executed in 2018 by American General Life 

Insurance Company, Hannover Life Reassurance Company, and United States Life Insurance 

Company in the City of New York drove the increase in annuity premiums and deposits.531 For 

2019, annuity premiums and deposits constituted 50 percent of total net premiums written, as 

shown in Figure 10. This significant share of the life insurance industry’s premiums reflects 

strong growth trends in pension risk transfers (group annuities) and in fixed indexed annuities 

(individual annuities).

Net premiums written were 73 percent of total L&H sector revenues in 2019, marking a return to 

a level near the 10-year historical average of 71 percent, following a drop in 2018 to 67 percent. 

Sales of traditional life insurance products accounted for 21 percent of 2019 L&H sector net 

premiums written, while the remaining 28 percent was comprised almost entirely of A&H sector 

premiums.

530 Jennifer Johnson & Michele Wong, “Oil Futures Plunge Below Zero as Capital Markets Volatility Continues,” 

The Hot Spot, April 21, 2020, https://www.naic.org/capital_markets_archive/hotspot_200421.pdf.

531 AM Best, Best’s Special Report: First Look: 12-Month 2019 Life/Annuity Financial Results (March 12, 2020), 

http://www3.ambest.com/industryresearch/DisplayBinary.aspx?TY=P&record_code=295354&URatingId=2562038.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

108

Figure 10: L&H Sector Net Premiums, Considerations, and Deposits ($ thousands)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Life Insurance Premiums $ 151,398,875 $ 115,034,222 $ 137,148,663 $ 145,090,526 $ 145,090,210

Annuity Premiums & Deposits 324,041,791 318,539,213 287,222,231 269,686,758 341,885,736

A&H Premiums 158,826,446 162,844,867 169,320,345 184,223,762 187,161,183

Credit Life & Credit A&H Premiums 1,379,933 1,261,511 1,261,969 1,314,045 NA

Other Premiums & Considerations 2,497,634 2,192,329 2,097,850 3,987,512 NA

Total $ 638,190,255 $ 599,872,141 $ 597,051,057 $ 604,302,603 $ 680,812,726

Source: S&P Global

Figure 11: 2019 Composition of Net Premiums and Annuity Considerations

for the L&H Sector

Source: S&P Global

ii. Policyholder Contract Benefits, Surrenders, and Other Expenses

Policyholder contract benefits are claims or obligations of L&H insurers under life insurance, 

annuity, and other contracts and policies. Contract surrenders occur when a policyholder or 

contract holder elects to cancel a policy or contract before the end of its contractual term and to 

receive its accumulated cash value (if any). Contract benefit payments and contract surrenders 

comprise the majority of total expenses for L&H insurers. Non-benefit-related expenses include 

general administrative and overhead expenses, expenses incurred in acquiring business 

(particularly producer commissions), and expenses related to payments made under contractual 

provisions of polices, including loss verification and adjustment expenses. Figure 12 shows

aggregate L&H sector benefit payments, surrenders, reserve increases, and all other expenses for 

recent years.

Individual Life

17%

Group Life

4%

Individual Annuities

29% Group Annuities

21%

Accident and Health

28%

Other 

1%
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

109

Figure 12: L&H Sector Expenses ($ thousands)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Benefits Payments $ 263,909,819 $ 271,355,287 $ 281,360,939 $ 290,368,216 $ 302,991,515

Total Surrenders 272,998,652 265,095,216 308,928,842 350,278,913 339,607,523

Total Increase in Reserves 80,546,645 133,139,152 106,352,393 143,358,245 120,613,773

Total Transfers to Separate Accounts 36,922,715 (38,046,582) (65,770,433) (89,648,289) (71,995,355)

Commissions 55,501,271 64,569,458 58,001,783 58,358,066 61,213,028

General & Administrative Expenses 60,074,070 62,361,327 65,850,564 65,948,083 67,875,444

Insurance Taxes, Licenses and Fees 10,481,358 10,828,050 8,814,167 10,777,995 9,325,406

Other Expenses (4,914,286) (2,709,027) (4,129,166) 11,349,432 14,424,529

Total $ 775,520,244 $ 766,592,880 $ 759,409,089 $ 840,790,661 $ 844,055,863

Source: S&P Global

Total L&H sector expenses rose by less than one percent in 2019. Total contract surrenders 

decreased three percent in 2019, reserve increases dropped by 16 percent, while total benefits 

payments rose four percent. A 20 percent decrease in the net amount transferred from separate 

accounts was the only notable unfavorable change in 2019 expenses, and largely offset the 

decrease in reserve additions.

iii. Investment Income

Net investment income represented about 20 percent of aggregate L&H sector revenues in 2019, 

continuing the modestly declining trend that began in 2018. Net investment income was 

essentially flat versus 2018, decreasing by less than one percent for the year. Figure 13 and 

Figure 14 show L&H sector net investment income from invested assets (excluding net realized 

gains and losses on the disposition of assets) and the net investment yield for recent years.

Figure 13: L&H Sector Annual Net Investment Income ($ billions)

and Net Yield on Invested Assets (%)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Net Investment Income $ 170,760,967 $ 173,025,713 $ 182,257,219 $ 187,407,117 $ 186,665,355

Total Cash & Investments 3,703,872,525 3,891,873,165 4,074,921,665 4,125,282,222 4,343,504,080

Net Yield on Invested Assets 4.66% 4.56% 4.58% 4.57% 4.41%

Source: S&P Global
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

110

Figure 14: L&H Sector Annual Net Investment Income ($ thousands)

and Net Yield on Invested Assets (%)

Source: S&P Global

Longer-term interest rates steadily declined over the first nine months of 2019, followed by a 

moderate recovery in the fourth quarter (see Figure 15); the net yield on invested assets fell to 

4.41 percent from the 2018 result of 4.57 percent. The decline in net yield was primarily the 

result of a five percent increase in total cash and invested assets, coupled with flat net investment 

income. The general interest rate environment remained near historically low levels at the end of 

the year, and continued to present risks to the L&H sector.532

Figure 15: Percentage Yield on 10-Year Treasury Bonds

Source: S&P Global

532 See also FIO, 2018 Annual Report, 12.

$164

$167 $167 $167

$172 $171 $173

$182

$187 $187

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

$130

$140

$150

$160

$170

$180

$190

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Net Yield (%)

Net Investment Income (% billions)

Year

Net Investment Income (left axis) Net Yield on Invested Assets (right axis)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

Dec-09

Jun-10

Dec-10

Jun-11

Dec-11

Jun-12

Dec-12

Jun-13

Dec-13

Jun-14

Dec-14

Jun-15

Dec-15

Jun-16

Dec-16

Jun-17

Dec-17

Jun-18

Dec-18

Jun-19

Dec-19

Percentage Yield

Month and Year
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

111

In 2019, the L&H sector net realized capital losses increased to $6.9 billion from $4.7 billion in

2018, or nearly 45 percent. This followed a 45 percent decrease in realized capital losses 

experienced in 2018. The deterioration in 2019 appeared to be due to higher realized losses on 

affiliated investments. Losses on derivative securities (almost exclusively used for hedging 

transactions) were slightly lower compared to 2019.

iv. Net Income and Return on Equity

Figure 16 presents a summary income statement for the L&H sector. Total revenues in the L&H

sector were $923 billion in 2019, an increase of two percent from the $905 billion reported in 

2018. The significant ($62 billion) change in the reinsurance allowance, i.e., reserve adjustments 

on reinsurance ceded, from a $32 billion benefit in 2018 to a $30 billion expense in 2019, largely 

offset the 13 percent increase in net premiums written, and coupled with the flat net investment 

income, explains the slower gain in total revenues. Total expenses were essentially flat at $844

billion, leading to a 33 percent increase in pre-tax operating income. Net income increased by a 

slower 18 percent to $45 billion in 2019 due to the increase in net realized capital losses and a 45 

percent increase in federal income taxes.

Figure 16: L&H Sector Net Income ($ thousands)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Premiums, Consideration & Deposits $ 638,190,255 $ 599,872,141 $ 597,051,057 $ 604,302,603 $ 680,812,726

Net Investment Income 170,760,967 173,025,713 182,257,219 187,407,117 186,665,355

Reinsurance Allowance (86,443,933) (16,975,046) (25,108,912) 32,044,503 (29,719,855)

Separate Accounts Revenue 35,197,929 34,652,744 36,551,982 37,271,230 36,754,163

Other Income 90,479,682 61,330,223 49,163,993 44,038,913 48,753,809

Total Revenue 848,184,900 851,905,776 839,915,339 905,064,366 923,266,198

Total Expenses 775,520,244 766,592,880 759,409,089 840,790,661 844,055,863

Policyholder Dividends 18,271,884 18,230,320 17,498,496 18,192,333 18,111,045

Net Gain from Operations before Tax 54,396,094 67,061,448 63,004,352 46,079,338 61,099,291

Federal Income Tax 10,566,280 16,282,427 12,360,768 3,423,453 9,455,725

Net Income before Capital Gains 43,832,635 50,782,390 50,645,915 42,657,393 51,643,566

Net Realized Capital Gains (Losses) (3,543,569) (11,384,798) (8,554,343) (4,742,726) (6,860,568)

Net Income $ 40,285,063 $ 39,397,552 $ 42,094,584 $ 37,917,551 $ 44,782,998

Source: S&P Global

Figure 17 shows key operating ratios for the L&H sector. The L&H sector’s 2019 pre-tax 

operating margin increased to 6.6 percent from 5.1 percent in 2018. Similarly, the increase in 

operating income led to an increase in the sector’s pre-tax operating return on average equity to 

14.8 percent from the 11.6 percent recorded in 2018, and the return on average equity rose to 

10.9 percent from 9.5 percent.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

112

Figure 17: L&H Sector Operating Ratios

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pre-Tax Operating Margin 6.41% 7.87% 7.50% 5.09% 6.62%

Return on Average Equity 11.17% 10.54% 10.85% 9.53% 10.87%

Pre-Tax Operating Return On Average Equity 15.08% 17.93% 16.24% 11.58% 14.83%

Return on Average Assets 0.64% 0.61% 0.62% 0.55% 0.63%

Source: S&P Global

b) Condition

This section presents information on the 2019 financial condition of the L&H sector, noting 

certain financial indicators and trends in recent years and over the past decade, which provide 

some insight into the sector’s financial safety and soundness.

i. Capital and Surplus

With year-over-year growth in its capital and surplus, the L&H sector has maintained a stable 

capital foundation for its operations over the past decade, as reflected in Figure 18 (illustrating 

the last five years). Underlying that healthy capital position has been steady annual growth in 

total assets, including separate accounts.533 Total assets, made up primarily of cash and invested 

assets, have contributed to an average annual growth rate of 3.8 percent in the sector’s capital 

base. Moreover, when removing capital contributions in the form of surplus notes, growth in 

capital and surplus has averaged slightly more, at four percent annually, reflecting the ability of 

L&H insurers to generate capital from organic sources—which provides further evidence of the 

sector’s financial soundness.534

Figure 18: L&H Capital and Surplus Position ($ thousands)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Capital & Surplus $ 367,249,564 $ 380,686,099 $ 395,024,290 $ 400,998,417 $ 422,898,928

Year-Over-Year Growth 3.8% 3.7% 3.8% 1.5% 5.5%

General Account Assets 3,912,020,651 4,117,531,087 4,301,459,820 4,359,735,817 4,584,453,664

Year-Over-Year Growth 2.0% 5.3% 4.5% 1.4% 5.2%

Capital & Surplus to

General Account Assets 9.4% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2%

Source: S&P Global

In reviewing the most recent five years in Figure 18, the L&H sector reported a significant boost 

in capital and surplus in 2019, after experiencing a slowdown in the previous year. The 5.5 

percent year-over-year growth in capital and surplus to $422.9 billion in 2019 was the second 

highest annual growth rate in the last decade, surpassed only by year-over-year growth of 6.6 

percent in 2014.

533 In 2018, total assets declined by 2.7 percent from the prior year due to a drop in separate account assets.

534 Growth in surplus notes averaged 2.6 percent annually over the past decade, pulling down overall growth in 

capital and surplus to 3.8 percent on average each year.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

113

Averaging at 3.6 percent since 2010, annual growth in total general account assets has remained 

positive over the last 10 years. The ratio of capital and surplus to general account assets 

averaged 9.2 percent annually in the last five years and has remained relatively stable for the 

entire decade. The steady levels of available capital have further aided the L&H sector in 

meeting its obligations as they arise.

The L&H sector’s capital position can largely be attributed to sustained positive earnings, before 

factoring in capital gains/losses, over the last decade. Net income before realized capital 

gains/losses contributed 13 percent to the previous year’s capital and surplus on average since 

2010. Figure 19 presents the primary drivers of capital and surplus for the L&H sector.

Figure 19: Primary Drivers of Capital and Surplus for the L&H Sector

Source: S&P Global

Growth in the L&H sector’s capital base can be observed more clearly by eliminating the effect 

of capital contributions in the form of surplus notes. Organic growth in capital and surplus has 

mainly been the result of consistently strong underwriting results that have enhanced net income. 

At $61.1 billion, the L&H sector’s pre-tax operating income was nearly a third higher in 2019 

compared to $46.1 billion in 2018.535 Partially offsetting the growth in capital and surplus has 

been stockholder dividends. In 2019, stockholder dividends were $28.6 billion, dropping from a 

decade high of $38 billion in 2018. Overall, stockholder dividends have comprised 7.7 percent 

of prior year-end capital and surplus on average annually since 2010. Without stockholder 

dividends, growth in capital and surplus (including infusions from surplus notes) would have 

averaged 4.2 percent for the decade.

535 Pre-tax operating income is before net realized capital gains/losses.

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Percentage of Prior Year

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

-End Capital & Surplus

Year

Net Income excluding Capital Gains Net Realized Capital Gains (Losses)

Net Unrealized Capital Gains (Losses) Dividends to Stockholders
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

114

Figure 20 shows that the average risk-based capital ratio for the L&H sector declined 

significantly in 2018 compared to the previous years in the last decade before improving in 2019 

when, on average, statutory capital and surplus was 4.31 times the level of required capital. The 

considerable reduction in the sector’s average risk-based capital ratio in 2018 was largely due to 

the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017, which reduced the corporate tax 

rate from 35 percent to 21 percent for life insurers and other corporate entities and affected the 

RBC factors used in the life RBC calculation.

536 The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also included 

several provisions that were specifically directed at life insurance companies to further offset the 

tax rate decrease, such as changes in tax reserves, deferred acquisition cost tax, and the dividends 

received deduction.537

Figure 20: Average Risk-Based Capital Ratio for the L&H Sector538

Source: The American Council of Life Insurers Fact Book and S&P Global

Ever since the sector’s leverage peaked in 2008 with the onset of the financial crisis, L&H 

insurers have seen their balance sheet leverage ratios remain relatively steady. The greater 

financial flexibility afforded by expected and persistent leverage ratios has enabled insurers to 

better meet two significant goals in fulfilling policyholder obligations: (1) returning a profit by 

investing the premiums received from underwriting activities; and (2) limiting the risk exposure 

created by the policies underwritten. Insurers may also cede premiums to reinsurance companies 

in order to move some of the risks off their own balance sheets. As Figure 21 illustrates, general 

account leverage for the L&H sector has been relatively stable for the last 10 years.

536 Individual Tax Reform and Alternative Minimum Tax, Pub. L. No. 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054 (2017). See also FIO, 

2018 Annual Report, 104-107.

537 NAIC, Interpretation of 2018 Life Risk-Based Capital Results in Light of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, 

February 22, 2019, https://naic.org/documents/cmte_e_lrbc_190306_tax_guidance.pdf.

538 Average RBC in 2019 was calculated with S&P Global data.

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Ratio

Year
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

115

Figure 21: L&H Sector Leverage Ratios

Source: S&P Global

While the L&H sector experienced an uptick to 11.46 in its net leverage ratio at year-end 2019 

compared to 11.39 in 2018, the ratio fell within the range observed for the 10-year period.539 

After four years of unwavering performance in the net leverage ratio, the L&H sector raised its 

risk exposure to underwriting activities in 2019. Net premiums, annuities, and considerations 

(collectively referred to as net premiums in the net leverage ratio) of $680.8 billion in 2019 rose 

by nearly 13 percent, while general account liabilities of $4.2 trillion rose by 5.1 percent from 

2018. Both factors put upward pressure on the leverage metric, offsetting year-over-year growth 

in capital and surplus. Sales of life insurance and annuity products increased during 2019 

compared to the previous year, in large part due to strong economic conditions. Increased life 

insurance sales were driven by universal life products, while annuities were led by indexedlinked products.540 Also, sales of protection-oriented life insurance products were boosted ahead 

of the mandatory adoption of a new mortality table used to calculate reserves.541

As the net retention rate grew to 74.2 percent in 2019, cessions to reinsurers declined. Cessions 

accounted for 25.8 percent of gross premiums at year-end 2019, dropping from 31.1 percent at 

year-end 2018, and made up 23 percent of gross premiums on average for the decade. With the 

539 Net leverage ratio is an indicator of the sector’s exposure to pricing and estimation errors, determined by 

calculating total liabilities and net premiums, annuities, and considerations as a multiple of capital and surplus.

540 LIMRA, Premium Growth Rates Summary 4Q 2019, https://www.limra.com/globalassets/limra/newsroom/facttank/sales-data/2019/q4/2019_4q_premiumgrowthrateschart-sales-results.pdf.

541 “LIMRA, U.S. Individual Life Insurance Sales Increased 15% in Fourth-Quarter 2019,” Advisor Magazine, 

September 23, 2020, https://www.lifehealth.com/limra-u-s-individual-life-insurance-sales-increase-15-fourthquarter-2019/. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the macroeconomic environment, as well as the 

continuing low interest rate environment, could affect the future sales of these products. For more information on 

the impact of the pandemic on the L&H sector, see Section II.A.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Multiple of Capital and Surplus

Year

Net Leverage (net premium written and net liabilities)

Asset Leverage

Total Reserves & Deposits
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

116

average annual growth rate of cessions sharply exceeding that of net premiums since 2010, it is 

not surprising that surplus relief has been on the rise. Surplus relief has slowly climbed to 5.49 

percent at year-end 2019 from 3.72 percent at year-end 2014.542

Growing annually at three percent on average since 2010, total policy reserves and deposit-type 

contract reserves were $3.5 trillion at year-end 2019, up by 3.5 percent from $3.4 trillion at yearend 2018. The multiple of policy reserves and deposits to capital and surplus has held relatively 

firm over the last six years, ranging from a decade low of 8.23 at year-end 2019 to a high of 8.39 

at year-end 2018. Prior years of the decade showed the ratio reaching a peak of 9.03 at year-end 

2011. Overall and as demonstrated in Figure 21, the ratio has improved from the beginning of 

the decade and has leveled off, suggesting that the financial resources set aside by the sector 

have been in line with expected claims.

The asset leverage ratio aims at measuring the potential impact on the balance sheet arising from 

the volatility and credit quality of the sector’s investment portfolio, reinsurance recoverables, and 

agents’ balances, and is calculated as the sum of cash and invested assets plus reinsurance 

recoverables and agents’ balances to capital and surplus. In the past decade, the L&H sector’s 

asset leverage ratio has ranged between a low of 10.26 at year-end 2015 and a high of 10.99 at 

year-end 2011. At year-end 2019, the multiple was 10.48, not materially changed from 10.51 at 

year-end 2018 and 10.53 at year-end 2017. The steadiness of the asset leverage multiple over the 

last 10 years indicates that no substantial deviations have occurred in the sector’s exposure to 

investment, interest rate, and credit risks.

The relatively stable pattern of these leverage ratios over the past decade has aided the L&H 

sector in alleviating capital strain and enhancing its financial flexibility.

ii. Asset Base

Bolstering the sector’s stable capital base have been positive general account asset growth and 

investment allocations consistent with policyholder obligations. General account assets rose to 

$4.6 trillion in 2019 from $4.4 trillion in 2018, averaging an annual growth rate of 3.6 percent 

over the last decade. After a significant decline in 2018, separate account assets recovered in 

2019, increasing by nearly 14 percent to $2.8 trillion. The annual growth rate of separate 

account assets has continued to exceed that of general account assets, averaging 5.8 percent over 

the past decade. Total L&H sector assets, including separate accounts, were $7.4 trillion and 

$6.8 trillion for the years ending 2019 and 2018, respectively.

Figure 22 describes the composition of the L&H sector’s asset portfolio and distribution of cash 

and investments for the last five years. Of total asset holdings, general account assets have 

542 The use of reinsurance for surplus relief is most common when an insurer begins to rapidly expand its volume of 

premiums written. The calculation in this Report involves the amount of surplus not yet reported as income from

commissions and expense allowances on reinsurance ceded during the current year as a share of capital and surplus.

It captures the amounts related to A&H business as well as life and annuity business for general and separate 

accounts.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

117

averaged over 62 percent of the portfolio on a yearly basis over the last five years, while separate 

account assets have averaged close to 38 percent.

Figure 22: Composition of L&H Sector

General Account Assets and Investment Portfolio

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

General Account Assets / Total Assets 61.8% 62.3% 61.3% 63.9% 62.1%

Separate Account Assets / Total Assets 38.2% 37.7% 38.7% 36.1% 37.9%

Bonds 73.8% 73.5% 73.0% 72.5% 71.1%

Preferred Stocks 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Common Stocks 2.0% 2.2% 2.3% 2.0% 2.1%

Mortgage Loans 10.9% 11.2% 11.7% 12.6% 13.0%

Real Estate 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%

Contract Loans 3.4% 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0%

Derivatives 1.5% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.8%

Cash & Short Term Investments 2.8% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.7%

Other Investments 4.7% 4.7% 5.0% 5.1% 5.3%

Total Cash & Investments 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Share of General Account Assets 94.7% 94.5% 94.7% 94.6% 94.7%

Source: S&P Global

As detailed in Figure 22, the structure of the sector’s investment portfolio has remained generally 

consistent for the last five years. Cash and invested assets of $4.3 trillion continued to account 

for nearly 95 percent of the general account asset portfolio at year-end 2019, mirroring previous 

years in the decade. Bond holdings have constantly made up more than 71 percent of the L&H 

sector’s investment portfolio since 2010, reflective of the significant role that life insurers play in 

the corporate bond market. The predictability of cash flows from bond investments serves to 

enhance insurers’ ability to meet future policyholder obligations, making such investments a key 

feature of their business model. Of total bonds, over 96 percent have consistently been longterm in nature—in line with the long-term nature of obligations assumed under life policies and 

contracts. This concentration is indicative of insurer risk management practices that match asset 

and liability durations, aimed at mitigating the impact of interest rate fluctuations on capital and 

surplus and providing the ability to estimate cash flows in order to meet debt and policyholder 

obligations as they fall due.

Mortgage loans remain the second largest investment class held by the L&H sector, averaging 

nearly 11 percent of cash and invested assets annually over the last decade.543 Mortgage loan 

holdings of $565.5 billion comprised 13 percent of the investment portfolio at year-end 2019, 

representing a peak for the decade. While mortgage loans accounted for a greater share of the 

sector’s investment holdings in 2019, the allocation to bonds has gradually been on a decline 

from a high of 75.8 percent in 2010 to a low of 71.1 percent in 2019.

As Figure 22 indicates, the L&H sector has slowly reduced the allocation of its investment 

portfolio to bond holdings, falling by 57 basis points on average in each of the last five years. 

543 L&H mortgage loans predominately consist of loans made to commercial properties.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

118

Over the same time, the L&H sector raised its holdings of mortgage loans by 55 basis points on 

average. The reallocation is likely reflective of the continuing effects of the low interest rate 

environment, which began after the 2008 financial crisis and is expected to persist in the near to 

medium term, and the L&H sector’s search for additional spread to mitigate the impact to 

investment earnings.

iii. Liquidity

The L&H sector’s liquidity profile strengthened in 2019, even after two consecutive years of 

significant surrender activity and growth in benefit payments. Reaching decade highs in 2018, 

surrenders of $350.3 billion made up 55.7 percent of premiums collected, net of reinsurance, 

while benefit payments of $667.5 billion comprised 106.1 percent, as illustrated in Figure 23.

544 

In 2019, surrenders and benefit payments declined to $339.6 billion and $661.5 billion, 

respectively. Though declining somewhat from 2018, surrenders were still slightly in excess of 

50 percent of net premium receipts at 50.8 percent and benefit payments dropped just below a 

one-to-one ratio at 99.1 percent in 2019. Positive cash flows from operations, however, have 

been steady over the past decade, contributing to consistent growth in cash and invested assets 

and a stable current liquidity ratio, suggesting that the L&H sector continues to possess the 

capacity to fulfill its ongoing business needs and policyholder obligations in the normal course as 

they arise.

Figure 23: Cash Flows from Operations for the L&H Sector

Source: S&P Global

Net premium receipts were $667.5 billion in 2019, a 6.1 percent increase from $629 billion in 

2018. In the last three years, benefit payments as a share of net premiums collected have been 

544 Premiums collected, net of reinsurance, are also referred to as net premium receipts.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Share of Net Premium Collected)

Year

Surrenders Benefit Payments
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

119

close to or in excess of 100 percent. On average, benefit payments have consumed 91.1 percent 

of net premiums collected on a yearly basis over the past decade.

From 2010 to 2016, surrenders comprised 42 percent of net premium receipts on average each 

year as compared to 52.2 percent from 2017 to 2019, highlighting the change in surrender 

activity in recent years. Year-over-year growth in surrenders averaged 2.3 percent between 2010 

and 2016, soaring to nine percent for the last three years. By contrast, the average annual growth 

rate for net premium receipts sank from 3.4 percent to 2.7 percent for those same periods, 

respectively.

Several factors may have influenced the recent trends. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates 

in three separate moves in 2017, when surrenders rose by 16.5 percent from the year before. 

Another four interest rate hikes were made in 2018, at the height of surrenders for the decade. 

Thus, expectations of higher interest earnings may have driven market participants to seek out 

investment opportunities elsewhere during those years. With the Federal Reserve easing interest 

rates again in 2019, surrender activity slowed down, declining by three percent from 2018 levels. 

As would be expected of L&H insurers, claims related to death, disability, and annuity coverage 

have typically driven benefit payments and the increased spikes observed in recent years would 

align with the needs of an aging U.S. population.

With an average annual growth rate of 3.5 percent over the last decade, cash and invested assets 

were $4.3 trillion at year-end 2019, rising by 5.3 percent from the prior year-end and in direct 

correlation with the 5.1 percent year-over-year growth in general account liabilities. As a result, 

the ratio of general account liabilities to cash and invested assets has remained unchanged—at 

95.9 percent as of year-end 2019 compared to 96 percent as of year-end 2018 and averaging at 

95.9 percent yearly for the decade. As expected of the L&H sector, bonds have consistently 

made up the bulk of cash and investments, totaling $3.2 trillion at year-end 2019, up by 3.4 

percent from the level at the previous year end.

Almost 30 percent of the bond portfolio had maturities that ranged between five and 10 years in 

2019, not significantly changed from 2018. Another 37.8 percent, or $1.2 trillion of bonds, had 

maturities of greater than 10 years as of year-end 2019, little changed from year-end 2018. More 

than half of these bonds over the last decade have included bonds with maturities in excess of 20 

years. In other words, nearly two-thirds of the entire bond portfolio have consistently been 

allocated to holdings that are medium to long term in duration in each of the last 10 years, 

supporting the longer time horizon of a life insurer’s obligations. Moreover, the L&H sector has 

held 94 percent of its total bonds in investment-grade holdings on average each year since 2010, 

mitigating the sector’s credit risk exposure.

Certain trends that have emerged since the 2008 financial crisis remain unabated, potentially 

weakening the quality of the L&H sector’s investment portfolio, as reflected in Figure 24. The 

share of the bond portfolio allocated to public bonds continued to remain on a downward 

trajectory, falling by 10 percentage points since 2010 and by more than 11 percentage points 

from 75.5 percent at the height of the 2008 crisis. The current liquidity ratio has declined from a 

high of 93.2 percent in 2010 and is now comparable to the 90.2 percent observed in 2008. While 

cash and short-term investments rose to 28.1 percent of capital and surplus at year-end 2019 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

120

from 26.1 percent at year 2018, that share has generally dropped over the past decade. Finally, 

sustained low interest rates can erode investment yields as well as negatively affect the 

profitability of insurance products with guaranteed returns. This has led life insurers to 

increasingly turn to investments that offer higher returns but which tend to be less liquid.

Figure 24: A View of L&H Sector Liquidity

Source: S&P Global

As publicly-traded bond holdings have dropped, privately-placed bonds have accounted for a 

greater share of total bond holdings during the past 10 years, reaching a decade high at 35.7 

percent at year-end 2019. Because most private-placement bonds are not assigned ratings by 

credit rating agencies, the amount of due diligence available to investors is limited. This reduced 

level of transparency makes the assessment of risk versus return comparatively difficult to 

determine. Private-placement bonds have gradually risen from a 2.1 multiple of capital and 

surplus at year-end 2010 to 2.7 at year-end 2019.

The ongoing low interest environment has led insurers to look to alternative investments to ease

tight margins, potentially exposing them to increased liquidity risk. In particular, insurers have 

increased their holdings of CLOs. The exposure to leveraged lending makes these securities 

more vulnerable to significant ratings downgrades and defaults during times of market 

disruption, leading in such instances to increased capital charges for the insurers holding such 

assets. At year-end 2019, U.S. insurers had $158.3 billion in book/adjusted carrying value of 

CLO exposure, rising by 23 percent from $128.9 billion at year-end 2018. Of that total, L&H

insurers held over 79 percent or $125.8 billion of CLO exposure at year-end 2019, up from 77.1 

percent and $99.5 billion at year-end 2018. CLOs accounted for five percent of the L&H 

sector’s bond portfolio as of year-end 2019, rising from four percent as of the prior year end. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cash & ST Investments 

Current Liquidity Ratio

as a Share of Capital & Surplus

Public Bonds to Total Bonds

Year

Current Liquidity Ratio Public Bonds Cash & ST Investments
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

121

According to one analysis, of the $158.3 billion in U.S. insurer CLO holdings at year-end 2019, 

less than four percent were at risk of rating downgrades.545

Box 5: CLO Update

CLO are structured securities that are collateralized primarily with leveraged loans.546 Debt 

issued by the CLO is divided into a capital structure of tranches with different ratings and return 

expectations.547 CLOs hold roughly half of the outstanding leveraged loan market, which has 

experienced rapid growth over the last decade, driven by private equity leveraged buyouts and 

the demand for high-yielding assets.548 CLOs and similar instruments in the U.S. market 

reached $871.6 billion at year end 2019.549

At the end of 2019, U.S. insurers held $158 billion in CLOs, up from $27 billion at year-end 

2011.550 Insurers are also involved through their affiliates that serve as sponsors and investment 

advisors to funds that invest in CLOs. Most insurance company investments are in higher credit 

rated tranches such as AAA and AA, but they also include investments in riskier mezzanine and 

equity (i.e., “subordinate”) securities.551

545 NAIC & CIPR, U.S. Insurer CLO Exposure at Risk of Ratings Downgrade, 1.

546 See, e.g., NAIC & CIPR, The Rise in the U.S. Insurance Industry’s Exposure to Collateralized Loan Obligations 

as of Year-End 2019 (May 2020), 7, https://www.naic.org/capital_markets_archive/special_report_200514.pdf. See 

also Emily Liu and Tim Schmidt-Eisenlohr, “Who Owns U.S. CLO Securities?” FEDS Notes (July 19, 2019), 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/who-owns-us-clo-securities-20190719.htm (noting that the 

use of leveraged loans has grown rapidly since the 2008 financial crisis, with an increasing share of such loans 

securitized into CLOs). See also “Leveraged Loan Primer,” S&P Global, 

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/pages/toc-primer/lcd-primer. The Bank of England reports that 

gross issuance of leveraged loans reached pre-crisis levels in 2018, but subsequently slowed; it estimates that there 

are $3.2 trillion in leveraged loans outstanding globally. Bank of England Financial Policy Committee, Financial 

Stability Report (July 2019), 24, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/financial-stabilityreport/2019/july-2019.pdf. See also SIFMA, Leverage Lending FAQ & Fact Sheet (February 2019), 

https://www.sifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Leverage-Lending-FAQ.pdf.

547 Guggenheim Partners, Understanding Collateralized Loan Obligations, (May 2019), 3, 

https://www.guggenheimpartners.com/perspectives/portfolio-strategy/collateralized-loan-obligations-clos.

548 FSB, Vulnerabilities Associated with Leveraged Loans and Collateralised Loan Obligations (December 19, 

2019), 7, https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P191219.pdf.

549 See “US ABS Issuance and Outstanding,” SIFMA, https://www.sifma.org/resources/research/us-abs-issuanceand-outstanding/ (showing, via .xls download available through webpage, quarterly totals for combined CLO, CDO, 

Structured Finance, and other on “ABS Outstanding” tab); Joe Rennison and Robert Smith, “CLOs: Ground Zero 

for the Next Stage of the Financial Crisis?,” The Financial Times, May 13, 2020, 

https://www.ft.com/content/f10eaaac-0f4e-46bc-8f78-0754028da46a.

550 NAIC & CIPR, U.S. Insurer CLO Exposure at Risk of Ratings Downgrade, 1; NAIC & CIPR, U.S. Insurance 

Industry CDO/CLO Update (June 11, 2012), https://www.naic.org/capital_markets_archive/120611.htm.

551 One report showed that roughly 75 percent of U.S. insurance company CLO holdings were in senior risk 

tranches, with P&C insurers holding approximately 17 percent of these senior risk tranche investments and life 

insurers holding approximately 80 percent. NAIC & CIPR, Exposure to Collateralized Loan Obligations (, 2.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

122

One emerging trend is the growing proportion of the insurance industry’s CLO holdings held by 

private equity-backed insurers. FIO’s analysis revealed that private equity firms had some 

affiliation or involvement with six of the top-10 of the industry’s largest holders of CLOs.552 A

recent Federal Reserve study stated that private equity-backed insurance operating entities held 

some of the riskiest portions of CLOs.553

In recent years, financial market supervisors have highlighted concerns about growing risk 

exposures in the CLO market.

554 Additionally, many rating agencies in recent years have noted 

the growing trend of CLOs issuances with fewer covenants (i.e., “covenant-lite”) and looser

structural protections.

Due to the more illiquid nature of affiliated holdings, significant growth in affiliated investments 

has the potential to adversely affect an entity’s capital base. The L&H sector’s affiliated 

holdings of cash and invested assets increased following the 2008 financial crisis, averaging an 

annual growth rate of 7.1 percent from 2010 to 2017, before declining in 2018. In 2019, 

affiliated holdings resumed its upward trend, rising by 9.1 percent to $192.0 billion from $176.0 

billion in 2018—the only year in which the L&H sector reduced its affiliated investments. 

Affiliated cash and invested assets represented 45.4 percent of capital and surplus as of year-end 

2019, up from 43.9 percent as of year-end 2018. The composition of the affiliated investment 

portfolio remained unchanged, with common stock accounting for 30 percent of the L&H 

sector’s affiliated portfolio at year-end 2019, while other investments made up another 49.4 

percent.555 By comparison, affiliated common stock and affiliated other investments made up 

29.3 percent and 48.2 percent of total affiliated holdings, respectively, at year-end 2018. Bonds 

continued to make up the third largest concentration of affiliated investments.

In addition, there has been a recent increase in holdings of structured securities. Structured 

securities are exposed to credit, market, and inflation risks and thus are susceptible to credit 

pressures and interest rate movements, especially in times of stress.556 The L&H sector held total 

552 FIO’s analysis was limited to CLOs held at U.S. legal insurance entities, based on 2019 filings under SAP. For 

more information on private equity-backed insurers, see Section VII.A.2.c.

553 Federal Reserve, Capturing the Illiquidity Premiums (February 2020), 3-4,

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3534847.

554 See, e.g., FSOC, 2018 Annual Report (rev. June 2019), 27, 

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/FSOC2018AnnualReport.pdf (noting “increasing demand for securitized 

products, such as collateralized loan obligations . . . in the corporate debt market.”); Mayra Rodriguez Valladares, 

“Rating Agencies Sound Alarm About Leveraged Loans and CLOs,” Forbes, December 18, 2018, 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrarodriguezvalladares/2018/12/18/rating-agencies-sound-alarm-about-leveragedloans-and-clos/ (noting FSB letter to G-20 identified “riskier credit instruments,” including leveraged loans, directly 

and through CLOs, as an emerging vulnerability).

555 “Other” investments include, but are not limited to: surplus notes, limited partnerships, joint ventures, hedge 

funds, private equity funds, and direct investments.

556 The degree and scope of the risks associated with these types of securities differ, depending on their structure. 

They are structured in ways to meet investors’ risk appetites and can range from pass-throughs to complex tranching 

arrangements.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

123

structured securities of $748.7 billion in 2019, up from $718.8 and $689 billion in 2018 and 

2017, respectively. While average annual growth in MBS has turned negative since 2011, 

growth in other loan-backed and structured securities has been considerable, averaging 6.6 

percent on a yearly basis.557 Other loan-backed and structured securities accounted for almost 43 

percent of total structured investments at year-end 2019, rising from nearly 28 percent at yearend 2011. MBS holdings, on the other hand, have dropped to 57.4 percent of the total from 72.2 

percent over the same period.558 Of the MBS portfolio, the share of residential mortgage-backed 

securities has gradually fallen over the years, ending at 55.7 percent as of year-end 2019 

compared to 67.7 percent as of year-end 2011, while the allocation to commercial mortgagebacked securities has correspondingly risen.

While some negative trends in liquidity have surfaced, the L&H sector has also exhibited certain 

compensating strengths, contributing to the stability of its overall financial profile. First, despite 

the downward trend in cash and short-term investments, the current liquidity ratio has held 

relatively firm, in excess of 90 percent in each of the last 10 years, as shown in Figure 24, 

reflecting an expected capacity to satisfy the sector’s on-balance sheet obligations. Second, 

publicly-traded bonds and private placements together have largely consisted of investmentgrade bonds, averaging over 94 percent of the entire bond portfolio since 2010. In addition,

when viewing CLOs on an aggregate basis, those at risk of rating downgrades made up 0.2 

percent of the sector’s bond investments and 1.4 percent of capital and surplus as of year-end 

2019.

559 On an individual basis, however, risk exposures of CLO holdings and related 

vulnerabilities can vary across insurers. Third, affiliated cash and investments have averaged 

only 4.1 percent of total cash and invested assets annually since 2010. Finally, the bulk of 

unaffiliated investments is aligned with the L&H sector’s asset/liability matching philosophy, 

with long-term bonds dominating more than three-quarters of unaffiliated holdings on average 

annually.

Unaffiliated cash and invested assets were $4.2 trillion at year-end 2019, up by 5.1 percent from 

$4.0 trillion at year-end 2018 and growing at an annual pace of 3.4 percent on average. The ratio 

of unaffiliated cash and invested assets to total general account liabilities has remained at a 

multiple of one in each of the last 10 years, while the contribution of unaffiliated investments to 

capital and surplus has remained steady and substantial. The level of unaffiliated investments 

has been nearly 10 times that of capital and surplus on average annually since 2010, further 

reinforcing the L&H sector’s ability to support its policyholder and funding commitments as 

they come due.

The L&H sector plays an important role in housing finance and as a result, these insurers are 

eligible to borrow from the Federal Home Loan Banks. Since the 2008 financial crisis, insurers 

have increased their membership with the Federal Home Loan Bank system as an alternative 

557 Other loan-backed and structured securities can include car loans, student loans, and credit card debt; but do not 

include mortgage loans.

558 S&P Global changed its reporting of data on structured securities; for consistency, the analysis on structured 

securities focuses on data for the years 2011 through 2019 and does not extend to 2010.

559 CLOs at risk of rating downgrades refers to CLO investments in mezzanine and equity tranches.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

124

source of liquidity. In 2019, Federal Home Loan Bank membership included 471 insurers that 

had access to $89 billion of Federal Home Loan Bank advances. Because the cash flows from 

mortgage loan holdings and mortgage-backed securities match those required to meet the long 

duration liabilities held by life insurers, the L&H sector’s engagement with the Federal Home 

Loan Banks is of particular note and illustrated in Figure 25. By contrast, the P&C sector’s 

Federal Home Loan Bank activities increased in 2013 before decreasing and staying at steady 

levels in recent years.

Figure 25: U.S. Insurance Industry Borrowing Capacity from Federal Home Loan Banks

Source: S&P Global

c) Private Equity-Backed Insurers 

Since the 2008 financial crisis, private equity firms have been increasingly active participants in 

the life insurance M&A market by acquiring insurance entities and blocks of business, and by 

executing reinsurance transactions.560 The life insurance companies owned by private equity 

firms are now some of the sector’s larger providers of fixed annuities while also growing their 

presence in other product areas.561 Starting from a very limited presence in the sector prior to 

2009, private equity firms held eight percent of all life insurers’ general account assets in 

560 Common reinsurance agreements have involved in-force block transactions as well as “flow” reinsurance where a 

ceding company cedes all or a portion of existing (in-force block) or new policies (“flow”) to the reinsurer that is 

affiliated with a private equity firm.

561 For example, Athene Holding Ltd, connected to the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, is one of the 

largest fixed annuity and fixed index annuity providers in the L&H sector.

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Available Loan Advances ($billions)

Year

Life P&C
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

125

2018.562 Several noteworthy transactions in recent years include: (1) private equity firm CF 

Corporation’s $1.8 billion purchase of Fidelity & Guaranty Life; (2) private equity-backed 

insurer Athene’s $19 billion reinsurance deal with Voya Financial; and (3) private equity firm 

KKR’s $4.4 billion acquisition of Global Atlantic.

563

The interest of private equity in the L&H sector is, in part, because insurers can provide firms

with a permanent and long-term capital base to leverage their sophisticated and non-traditional 

investment strategies. Policyholder premiums provide private equity firms a predictable and 

stable source of investment capital that is insulated from market fluctuations and investor 

redemptions.564 Managers are able to deploy such capital towards more complex and higher 

yielding admitted assets—such as structured securities and alternatives—with the goal of earning 

investment returns greater than a typical L&H insurer’s traditional investments. Some private 

equity firms also earn fees from managing the general accounts of their owned-insurance entities.

Private equity’s entry into the L&H sector has coincided with a growing number of L&H 

insurers that have sought to divest their interest rate sensitive and low returning long-term 

liability businesses—predominately annuity blocks—as a result of the prolonged low interest 

rate environment and potentially mispriced product guarantees.565 Private equity firms have 

capitalized on this dislocation in the sector by acquiring or reinsuring these entities or blocks at 

substantial discounts, often below book value. To that end, private equity’s emergence in the 

insurance industry has increased competition among carriers and driven innovation in the fixed 

annuity market.

Based on FIO’s analysis, L&H insurers backed by the larger private equity firms generally own 

more structured assets relative to capital as compared to traditional life insurers—particularly 

CLOs including lower tier tranches. At year-end 2019, five of the top-ten holders of CLOs in the 

U.S. L&H sector were affiliated with private equity firms, as shown in Figure 26.

566

562 Federal Reserve, Capturing the Illiquidity Premium. In 2009, fixed annuity sales from private equity-backed 

insurers accounted for an estimated three percent of total fixed-annuity sales. Divya Kirti and Natasha Sarin,

“Private Equity Value Creation in Finance: Evidence from Life Insurance,” Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

(2020), 2, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2154/.

563 KKR’s acquisition of Global Atlantic is expected to close in early 2021 pending regulatory approval.

564 Kirti and Sarin, “Private Equity Value Creation in Finance: Evidence from Life Insurance,” 1.

565 See Athene, “Athene Investor Day” (presentation, Athene Investor Day, New York, NY, September 20, 2018), 

http://s1.q4cdn.com/886888837/files/doc_presentations/2018-09-20-Investor-Day-Presentation.pdf.

566 Rankings based on FIO’s analysis of identifiable CLOs filed on Schedule D of the annual SAP investment 

schedules. Values provided are estimates based on S&P Global statutory investment schedules. CLOs are not a 

standard reporting requirement and therefore can be difficult to identify. Individual company amounts may be 

understated.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

126

Figure 26: The Top 10 Largest Holders of CLOs

in the U.S. L&H Sector (Year-End 2019)

Rank Company 

Carrying 

Value

($ millions)

Share of L&H

Group’s Cash & 

Investments (%) 

Share of L&H 

Group’s

Surplus (%) 

1 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. $ 7,151 4% 38%

2 Sammons Enterprises Inc.* 6,582 8% 122%

3 Prudential Financial, Inc. 6,525 3% 40%

4 MetLife, Inc. 5,559 2% 32%

5 NZC Capital LLC* 5,429 18% 177%

6 Athene Holding Ltd.* 5,019 6% 325%

7 Global Atlantic Financial Group Ltd.* 4,909 8% 171%

8 American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. 4,151 7% 119%

9 New York Life Insurance Co. 3,459 1% 16%

10 Fidelity National Financial, Inc.* 3,160 12% 209%

Average of Top 10 $ 5,195 7%

Combined Top 10 57%

*indicates private equity involvement in those insurers

Source: S&P Global

Additionally, private equity-backed insurers have become significant investors in illiquid and 

macroeconomic sensitive assets such as CMLs and private placements, which are direct loans 

made to mostly private middle market domestic and foreign companies.567

Based on their investment holdings, private equity-backed insurers could potentially be more 

sensitive to downturns in the credit markets.

3. Property and Casualty Sector

This section presents additional analysis of the financial performance of the P&C sector in 2019, 

and then assesses the P&C sector’s overall financial condition as of December 31, 2019.

a) Performance

i. Net Premiums Written 

Figure 27 shows the 2019 composite of P&C sector direct premiums written by lines of business. 

Figure 28 shows a longer-term view of the level and composition of direct premiums written by 

major lines of business, and Figure 29 shows the corresponding dollar values and a reconciliation 

567 Federal Reserve, Capturing the Illiquidity Premium; Apollo, “Apollo Global Management 2019 Investor Day” 

(presentation, Apollo Global Management 2019 Investor Day, New York, NY, November 7, 2019), 146, 

https://www.apollo.com/~/media/Files/A/Apollo-V2/documents/events/2019/apollo-global-management-investorday-presentation-2019.pdf.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

127

to net premiums earned (i.e., direct premiums written less net reinsurance premiums ceded and 

the change in unearned premiums reserve).

For 2019, total P&C sector net premiums written reached a record level at $639 billion, marking 

a three percent increase over 2018 levels, but much slower than the 10 percent growth 

experienced in 2018. The premium growth in 2018 was unusually high, however, and largely the 

result of changes in many insurers’ reinsurance programs in response to changes in the U.S. tax 

code.568 The changes in reinsurance utilization in 2018 appeared to be related to the Base 

Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which may have led 

insurers to reduce premiums ceded to non-U.S. affiliates due to possible tax implications.569 

Direct premiums written for personal lines of business grew by four percent in 2019, while direct 

premiums written for commercial lines of business increased by nearly six percent. Net 

reinsurance premiums ceded increased by 16 percent, or some $10 billion, slowing the growth in 

net premiums written. Economic growth in the United States and rate increases continued to 

drive direct premiums written growth, with solid increases in homeowners’ and both personal 

and commercial automobile lines. In 2019, the majority of the direct premiums written by the 

P&C sector consisted of auto, home and farm-owners, and commercial insurance.

Figure 27: P&C Sector Composite of Direct Premiums Written 

Source: S&P Global

568 ISO and American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Property/Casualty Insurance Results: 2019 (April 

2020), 2, http://www.pciaa.net/pciwebsite/common/page/attachment/88979 (2019 Property/Casualty Insurance 

Results).

569 See FIO, 2018 Annual Report, 104-107; ISO and American Property Casualty Insurance Association, 2019

Property/Casualty Insurance Results, 2.

A&H 

1%

Other 

5%

Commercial Auto

6%

Commercial Multi-Peril

6%

Fire & Allied

7%

Homeowner & 

Farmowner

15%

Marine Lines 

4%

Product Liability & 

Other

12%

Private Auto 

36%

Workers' Comp

8%
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

128

Figure 28: P&C Sector Direct Premiums Written ($ billions)

Source: S&P Global

Figure 29: P&C Sector Direct Premiums Written ($ thousands)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Personal P&C Direct Premiums $ 300,054,135 317,762,245 $ 338,252,174 $ 359,106,190 $ 372,456,544 

Commercial P&C Direct Premiums 280,072,580 284,084,864 292,344,887 307,150,707 327,298,339 

A&H Direct Premiums 6,142,327 6,565,978 7,222,990 7,306,903 7,300,858 

Direct Premiums Written 591,757,789 613,383,327 642,531,528 678,281,318 708,570,030 

Net Reinsurance Premiums (71,247,200) (79,397,787) (84,086,607) (59,997,519) (69,749,274)

Net Premiums Written 520,510,588 533,985,541 558,444,921 618,283,798 638,820,756 

Change in Unearned Premiums Reserve 8,400,547 4,801,796 12,093,908 18,547,320 12,122,216 

Net Premiums Earned $ 512,110,041 $ 529,183,745 $ 546,351,012 $ 599,736,478 $ 626,698,540 

Source: S&P Global

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Direct Premiums Written ($ billions)

Year

Personal P&C Direct Premiums Commercial P&C Direct Premiums

Accident & Health Direct Premiums
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

129

ii. Underwriting Results

Figure 30 shows the P&C combined ratio and its construction for the past several years.570

Figure 30: P&C Sector Combined Operating Ratios

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Loss Ratio 57.48% 60.68% 64.14% 60.71% 60.04%

Loss Adjustment Expense Ratio 11.83% 11.61% 11.76% 10.70% 10.99%

Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Ratio 69.31% 72.29% 75.91% 71.42% 71.03%

Net Commission Ratio 10.55% 10.41% 10.29% 11.26% 11.00%

Salaries & Benefits Ratio 8.24% 8.32% 7.91% 7.38% 7.40%

Tax, License & Fees Ratio 2.55% 2.51% 2.47% 2.39% 2.34%

Administrative & Other Expense Ratio 6.72% 6.68% 6.67% 6.25% 6.45%

Expense Ratio 28.05% 27.92% 27.34% 27.28% 27.20%

Policyholder Dividend Ratio 0.59% 0.56% 0.61% 0.62% 0.78%

Combined Ratio 97.95% 100.76% 103.85% 99.32% 99.01%

Source: S&P Global

The combined ratio for the P&C sector decreased slightly to approximately 99.0 percent in 2019 

from 99.3 percent in 2018, reflecting an improvement in underwriting profit. A combined ratio 

greater than 100 percent indicates that premiums did not cover losses and expenses in a given 

period (i.e., underwriting operations made a negative contribution to net income). Investment 

income, realized capital gains/losses, and income taxes are not considered in the combined ratio. 

Natural catastrophes were less severe in 2019 and contributed to the expansion in underwriting 

profits, and when coupled with larger favorable reserve development were the main drivers of 

the lower combined ratio.571 Figure 31 shows losses from natural catastrophes in the United 

States over the last 10 years, and Figure 32 shows reserve development over the same period.

572

The expense ratio decreased very slightly in 2019 compared with 2018. Insured property losses 

dropped in the United States by roughly half in 2019 although the number of catastrophes in 

2019 with a threshold of $25 million or more in insured losses was the highest in any year.

573 

The P&C sector posted lower favorable reserve development in 2019 as the sector continued to 

feel the impacts from a worsening loss experience in many lines.

570 S&P Global ratios include the policyholder dividend ratio for transparency because dividends represent a cash 

outlay.

571 ISO and American Property Casualty Insurance Association, 2019 Property/Casualty Insurance Results, 2.

572 Favorable reserve development occurs when the current year estimates of losses arising from business written in 

previous years are less than the previous estimates.

573 “Facts + Statistics: U.S. Catastrophes,” Insurance Information Institute, 

https://www.iii.org/publications/insurance-handbook/insurance-and-disasters/facts-statistics-us-catastrophes. For 

more information on insurance, natural hazards, and mitigation, see Section IV.A.2.a.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

130

Figure 31: Estimated Insured Property Losses, U.S. Catastrophes, 2010-2019 574

Sources: Insurance Information Institute; Property Claim Services (PCS), a unit of ISO, a Verisk Analytics 

Company; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Figure 32: Total One Year Reserve Development for the P&C Sector

($ thousands), 2010-2019

Source: S&P Global. Reflects total incurred net loss development for all accident years.

574 Losses are adjusted for inflation through 2019 by the Insurance Information Institute using the GDP implicit 

price deflator.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Catastrophes

Estimated Losses ($billions)

Year

Total Losses (left axis) Number of Catastrophes (right axis)

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Reserve Development ($ thousands)

Year
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

131

iii. Investment Income

Net investment income for the P&C sector dropped slightly more than one percent to $56 billion 

in 2019, reversing the increasing trend experienced over the previous two years. Cash and 

invested assets balances increased by 10 percent over 2019 to $1.9 trillion; as a result, the net 

yield on invested assets dropped to 3.15 percent in 2019 from 3.36 percent in 2018. Figure 33

depicts a longer-term view of the trend in net investment income and net yield on invested assets 

for the P&C sector, and Figure 34 provides this data for the past five years. Realized capital 

gains and losses are reported separately and are not a component of net investment income. 

Because P&C insurers are less dependent than L&H insurers on net investment income to fund 

losses and expenses, net investment income accounted for about nine percent of total P&C sector 

revenues in 2019 (compared to 20 percent in the L&H sector).

Figure 33: P&C Sector Annual Net Investment Income ($ billions)

and Net Yield on Invested Assets (%)

Source: S&P Global

Realized capital gains on investments also contributed to profitability in 2018, as the P&C sector 

recorded net realized capital gains of nearly $11 billion, marking a 45 percent decrease from 

2017. Realized capital gains in 2018 were more in line with historical results. Lower gains on 

common stocks and net losses on bonds were the main drivers of the decrease in net realized 

capital gains.

Figure 34: P&C Sector Annual Net Investment Income ($ thousands)

and Net Yield on Invested Assets (%)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Net Investment Income $48,765,011 $47,461,805 $49,709,970 $57,037,035 $56,258,555 

Total Cash & Investments 1,531,415,182 1,587,837,614 1,691,629,655 1,703,062,854 1,869,951,353 

Net Yield on Invested Assets 3.18% 3.04% 3.03% 3.36% 3.15%

Source: S&P Global

$48.1

$50.9 $50.3

$49.3

$54.9

$48.8

$47.5

$49.7

$57.0

$56.3

3.0%

3.2%

3.4%

3.6%

3.8%

4.0%

4.2%

4.4%

4.6%

$42

$44

$46

$48

$50

$52

$54

$56

$58

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Net Yield (%)

Net Investment Income (% billions)

Year

Net Investment Income (left axis) Net Yield on Invested Assets (right axis)
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

132

iv. Net Income

The P&C sector’s net income increased a further four percent in 2019, following a strong 

rebound in 2018, rising to $63 billion from $61 billion reported in 2018, as shown in Figure 35. 

Thanks to the improvements in the combined ratio (noted above), underwriting profit nearly 

tripled in 2019, rising to $7.8 billion from $2.6 billion in 2018. The expansion in underwriting 

profit was muted by the decrease in net investment income and a significant increase in 

policyholder dividends. Nonetheless, pre-tax operating income increased by five percent to $72 

billion in 2019 from $68 billion in 2018. A 17 percent increase in federal income taxes to $8.5 

billion in 2019 limited the gain in net income to just under four percent. Figure 36 provides a 

summary income statement for the P&C sector.

Figure 35: P&C Sector Net Income ($ billions)

Source: S&P Global

-$40

-$20

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

$ billions

Year

Net Investment Income Net Underwriting Gain (Loss) Net Income
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

133

Figure 36: P&C Sector Summary Income Statement ($ thousands)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Net Premiums Earned $ 512,110,041 $ 529,183,745 $ 546,351,012 $ 599,736,478 $ 626,698,540 

Losses and Loss Adjustment Expense 

Incurred 354,958,963 382,522,916 414,726,222 428,318,512 445,154,764 

Other Underwriting Expense Incurred 145,136,437 148,009,926 151,095,360 167,668,693 172,266,025 

Other Underwriting Deductions 857,268 1,073,235 1,572,203 1,026,092 1,468,154 

Net Underwriting Gain (Loss) 11,157,373 (2,422,331) (20,802,833) 2,618,240 7,819,180 

Policyholder Dividends 3,016,579 2,943,624 3,308,785 3,709,994 4,884,684 

Net Investment Income 48,765,011 47,461,805 49,709,970 57,037,035 56,258,555 

Net Realized Capital Gains (Losses) 10,073,274 8,484,994 19,639,559 10,691,626 11,039,186 

Finance Service Charges 3,333,008 3,452,738 3,625,986 3,725,717 3,829,827 

All Other Income (1,808,648) (2,410,912) (9,004,230) (2,365,109) (2,524,051)

Net Income After Capital Gain 

(Loss) Before Tax 68,503,439 51,622,428 39,859,667 67,997,514 71,538,014 

Federal Income Tax 10,188,539 7,314,767 (784,873) 7,244,680 8,511,126 

Net Income $ 58,314,974 $ 44,307,882 $ 40,644,540 $ 60,752,834 $ 63,026,888 

Source: S&P Global

Figure 37 displays key measures of returns for the P&C sector. The 2019 pre-tax operating 

margin improved slightly to 8.8 percent from 8.7 percent in 2018. The 2019 return on average 

equity of 7.8 percent was slightly below the 8.0 percent mark in 2018, and below the average of 

nine percent for the past 10 years.

Figure 37: P&C Sector Operating Ratios (%)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pre-Tax Operating Margin 10.39% 7.47% 3.42% 8.71% 8.84%

Return on Average Equity (Capital & Surplus) 8.47% 6.33% 5.50% 7.98% 7.77%

Pre-Tax Operating Return on Average Equity 8.49% 6.16% 2.74% 7.53% 7.46%

Return on Average Assets 3.24% 2.40% 2.10% 3.02% 2.98%

Source: S&P Global

b) Condition

This section analyzes the financial condition of the P&C sector at the end of 2019, focusing on 

surplus, assets, and liquidity.

i. Surplus as Regards Policyholders

The P&C sector exhibited healthy developments in its capital base in 2019, bolstering its 

financial safety and soundness. Policyholder surplus for the P&C sector reached a peak in 2019, 

totaling $865.3 billion at year-end, a 14.3 percent increase from the prior year end and the 

greatest year-over-year growth over the past decade. Driven largely by net unrealized capital 

gains from a strong stock market, the boost in 2019 raised the sector’s yearly average growth rate 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

134

in surplus to 5.4 percent for the last 10 years.575 Optimism for a continuing strong economy 

contributed to net unrealized capital gains of $85.5 billion in 2019, in stark contrast to the $45.4 

billion in net unrealized capital losses reported in 2018 when stock market volatility in the fourth 

quarter of that year disrupted the marketplace. Net unrealized capital gains have contributed 2.4 

percent to prior year-end policyholder surplus on average each year in the last decade.

Even with the elimination of capital infusions in the form of surplus notes, the average annual 

growth rate in policyholder surplus in the last decade did not materially change, and 

demonstrates the growth stemming from P&C insurers’ core business. Organic surplus growth 

for the P&C sector can mainly be attributed to positive earnings including net realized and 

unrealized capital gains, offset in part by stockholder dividends. The P&C sector paid 

stockholder dividends of $35.7 billion and $32.1 billion in 2019 and 2018, respectively. As a 

share of prior year-end policyholder surplus, stockholder dividends have averaged five percent 

annually over the last decade, less than the L&H sector average due to the P&C sector’s larger 

surplus base. The P&C sector has consistently generated capital year after year from net realized 

capital gains since 2010. As a share of prior year-end policyholder surplus, net realized capital 

gains have averaged 1.8 percent annually since 2010.

As shown in Figure 38, reduced leverage ratios in 2019 have enhanced the P&C sector’s 

financial capacity. The recent improvement can primarily be attributed to the considerable 

growth in policyholder surplus, resulting in decade lows in 2019 for all of the ratios shown in the 

figure. Though they measure different exposures, the asset and net leverage ratios presented in

Figure 38 were headed towards convergence before widening in 2018, when a decline in surplus 

combined with increased exposures adversely impacted the ratios. In 2019, these two ratios 

resumed a pattern of closely mirroring each other.

Figure 38: P&C Sector Leverage Ratios

Source: S&P Global

575 Removing the highs and lows over the decade resulted in an average annual growth rate of 5.1 percent for the 

decade.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Multiple of Policyholder 

Surplus

Year

Net Leverage (net writings and net liabilities)

Asset Leverage

Total Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

135

Balance sheet strength can be affected by the volatility and credit quality of the investment 

portfolio, reinsurance recoverables, and agents’ balances.576 The steadiness of the asset leverage 

ratio since 2013 along with the recent nine basis point yearly decline in 2019 has generated 

greater financial flexibility, enabling the P&C sector to use its capital more efficiently in 

mitigating such potential risk exposures as investment, interest rate, and credit. Over the past 

decade, the asset leverage ratio has ranged between a high of 2.55 in 2011 to a low of 2.31 in 

2019, with an annual average of 2.4 over the decade.

The net leverage ratio is an indicator of the P&C sector’s ability to handle above average losses 

and fulfill debt and policyholder obligations. Since 2011, the net leverage ratio has generally 

declined, enhancing the sector’s capacity to support its business.577 In particular, liabilities of 

$1.3 trillion at year-end 2019 were 1.55 times policyholder surplus compared to 1.67 at year-end 

2018. Net premiums written were $638.8 billion in 2019, up from $618.3 billion in 2018, and 

made up 79 percent and 87 percent of policyholder surplus for same two years, respectively.

Reinsurance activity in the last two years has materially contributed to the performance of the net 

leverage ratio by impacting the net premiums written component. Net reinsurance premiums 

were $69.7 billion in 2019, up by 16.3 percent from $60 billion in 2018, when the level had 

dropped sharply from $84.1 billion in 2017. The annual decline in net reinsurance premiums in 

2018 alone boosted the average growth in total net premiums written to 4.2 percent each year 

since 2010. When excluding 2018, the annual growth rate in net premiums written would have 

averaged 3.5 percent over the decade.

At year-end 2019, the ratio of loss and loss adjustment reserves to policyholder surplus was 0.79, 

decreasing from 0.87 at year-end 2018. Loss and loss adjustment reserves were $680.9 billion 

and $661.3 billion in 2019 and 2018, respectively. The ratio has averaged less than one annually 

over the last 10 years, demonstrating that the P&C sector in the aggregate has remained 

consistent in its estimation of reserves to cover potential liabilities arising from claims made on 

policies underwritten.

ii. Asset Base

Underlying the robustness of the P&C sector’s capital position has been the growth and 

composition of asset holdings. Total assets of $2.2 trillion as of year-end 2019—rising by nearly 

nine percent from the previous year-end—have been growing at an annual rate of four percent on 

average over the last decade, helping the sector maintain a stable capital base relative to the risk 

exposure from its asset holdings. About 39.5 percent in policyholder surplus was available to 

cover the sector’s asset holdings exposed to risk578 as of year-end 2019, improving slightly from 

576 Agents’ balances refer to net admitted uncollected premiums and agents’ balances in the course of collection, 

including direct and group billed uncollected premiums; amounts collected but not yet remitted to home office; 

accident and health premiums due and unpaid; life insurance premiums and annuity considerations uncollected on 

in-force business (less premiums on reinsurance ceded and less loading); and title insurance premiums and fees 

receivable. Reinsurance balances payable are not deducted.

577 All of the ratios experienced an uptick in 2018 due to a decline in surplus combined with heightened exposures.

578 Assets exposed to risk refers to total assets less cash.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

136 

37.6 percent as of year-end 2018. In each of the last 10 years, the P&C sector has maintained 

nearly 38 percent in excess capital on average to meet unexpected losses, contributing to its 

financial wherewithal. 

The configuration of the sector’s asset portfolio has remained virtually constant for the last 

decade, with the bulk of holdings allocated to cash and investments. Figure 39 illustrates the 

composition of the P&C sector’s assets at year-end 2019, which largely mirrors the distribution 

of assets in previous years. 

Figure 39: 2019 Composition of Asset Portfolio for P&C Sector 

Source: S&P Global

Averaging at nearly 85 percent annually, cash and invested assets have largely made up total 

assets, followed by premiums and considerations due with nearly nine percent on average each 

year over the decade. As Figure 40 below details, the P&C sector has allocated nearly 60 

percent to bonds on average annually in recent years, while common stock holdings have 

averaged in excess of 23 percent of the sector’s investment portfolio.

Figure 40: Composition of P&C Sector’s Investment Portfolio

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Bonds 62.1% 61.3% 57.9% 60.3% 57.0%

Preferred Stocks 0.9% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.8%

Common Stocks 21.1% 21.7% 24.2% 22.9% 25.9%

Mortgage Loans 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2%

Real Estate 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7%

Contract Loans 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Derivatives 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Cash & Short Term Investments 5.8% 5.8% 6.9% 6.0% 6.2%

Other Investments 8.5% 8.7% 8.9% 8.5% 8.2%

Total Cash & Invested Assets 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: S&P Global

Cash and Invested 

Assets (84.9%)

Premiums and 

Considerations Due 

(9.1%)

Reinsurance 

Recoverable (2.6%)

Receivable from Parent, 

Subsidiary or Affiliates (0.9%)

All Other Admitted 

Assets (2.5%)
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

137

This composition of investment holdings aligns with the risk management practices employed by 

the P&C sector to address both the shorter-term obligations of some P&C lines (such as auto 

liability) as well as longer-tailed liabilities (such as medical malpractice and workers’ 

compensation). Annual growth in total bonds has been firm, averaging 2.1 percent in the last 

decade, whereas common stocks have grown by 9.2 percent on average. Total bonds, both 

short-term and long-term combined, were $1.1 trillion at year-end 2019, up by nearly five

percent from the previous year-end. Of the entire bond portfolio, at least 93 percent has 

consistently been comprised of long-term bonds in each of the last five years, while close to 72 

percent had durations ranging between one and 10 years on average.

The P&C sector has been allocating an increasing share of its bond holdings to private 

placements over the last 10 years. Private placements comprised 16.3 percent of the aggregate 

bond portfolio at year-end 2019, climbing from 15.1 percent at year-end 2018 and by more than 

10 percentage points from year-end 2010. Despite the growth in privately-issued bond holdings, 

publicly-traded bonds still comprised almost 89 percent of total bonds on average annually over 

the past decade—but only averaged 86 percent in the most recent five years. In addition to the 

shift between public and private bond holdings, the share of the sector’s investment portfolio 

allocated to equities reached 25.9 percent in 2019, a decade high and more than 10 percentage 

points greater than in 2010. Recently, common stock investments were $483.7 billion and 

$389.9 billion in 2019 and 2018, respectively. Between year-end 2011 and year-end 2019, bond 

holdings as a share of cash and investments declined by more than 10 percentage points, while 

common stock holdings rose in tandem by nearly nine percentage points. Figure 40 displays this 

trend between 2015 and 2019.

Though still a small percentage of total cash and invested assets, mortgage loans have shown 

consistent year-over-year growth since 2011. Total mortgage loans were $22.1 billion as of 

year-end 2019, accounting for 1.2 percent of cash and invested assets but 5.3 times the value of 

mortgage holdings of $4.2 billion at year-end 2010. As with the L&H sector, the P&C sector has 

been gradually repositioning its investment holdings, which can be attributed to both market 

performance and the reach for yield. The effects of a prolonged low interest rate environment 

are apparent, driving insurers to move away from more traditional bond and equity holdings and 

increasingly toward such investments as private placements and mortgage loans where additional 

spread can be earned.

iii. Liquidity

Over the past decade, against the backdrop of sustained economic growth and prior to the onset 

of COVID-19, the P&C sector has been able to manage its liquidity effectively in meeting the 

day-to-day needs of its business operations. With benefits and loss-related payments consuming 

significantly less of total net premiums collected annually, the sector has reported positive net 

cash flows from operations in each of the last 10 years. Recent net cash flows from operations 

were $85.3 billion and $84.4 billion in 2019 and 2018, respectively. On a cash basis, net 

premium receipts have averaged an annual growth rate of 4.1 percent, covering benefit and 

loss-related payments by 1.7 times on average each year since 2010. As Figure 41 illustrates, 

premiums collected, net of reinsurance, exceeded benefit and loss-related payments by 73 

percent and 74 percent for the years ending 2019 and 2018, respectively. Moreover, the current 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

138

liquidity ratio579 attained a decade high of 144 percent in 2019 as did the ratio of cash, common 

stock, and investment-grade bonds to liabilities.580

Figure 41: A View of P&C Sector Liquidity

Source: S&P Global

Positive year-over-year net cash flows from operations have contributed to an average annual 

growth rate of 4.1 percent in cash and invested assets over the last 10 years, expanding the P&C 

sector’s financial flexibility. Liquid assets (the numerator of the current liquidity ratio) have 

been at least 2.1 times the level of aggregate policyholder surplus each year since 2010.

Certain concentrations of risk within the sector’s investment portfolio have evolved since yearend 2010, likely indicative of the P&C sector’s response to a sustained low interest rate 

environment since 2008 and the search for higher yields to address tight margins, as was 

observed for the L&H sector. Within the bond portfolio, private-placement bonds have been 

taking up a larger share of aggregate surplus over the last 10 years. The percentage stood at a

high of 21.5 at year-end 2019, more than doubling from 10 percent at year-end 2010. Annual 

579 Current liquidity is used to determine the amount of liabilities that can be covered with liquid assets. It is 

calculated as follows: the numerator equals net admitted cash and investments less the sum of net admitted first lien 

real estate loans, net admitted real estate loans less first liens, net admitted occupied properties, net admitted income 

generating properties, net admitted properties held for sale, affiliated long-term bonds, and affiliated preferred stock; 

the denominator equals total liabilities less ceded reinsurance premiums payable.

580 This liquidity analysis is based on cash inflows and outflows—premiums that were collected as well as benefit 

and loss-related payments made during the year. The combined ratio referenced in the income statement discussion 

refers to premiums earned and written, and captures dividends and other expenses. These include commissions, 

salaries and benefits, administrative expenses, and taxes, in addition to incurred loss and loss adjustment expenses.

 $-

 $10

 $20

 $30

 $40

 $50

 $60

 $70

 $80

 $90

 $100

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Net Cash Flows ($ billions)

Ratio

Year

Net Cash Flows from Operations (right axis)

Premium Collected / Benefit and Loss-Related Payments (left axis)

Cash and Invested Assets / Liabilities (left axis)

Cash, Common Stock, and Investment-Grade Bonds / Liabilities (left axis)
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

139

growth in private placements averaged 14.7 percent over the past decade, while annual growth in 

publicly-traded bonds averaged 0.7 percent.

About 30 percent of the P&C sector’s bond portfolio has consistently been comprised of 

securities issued by U.S. federal, state, and local governments. More than two-thirds of all bond 

holdings have consisted of some form of revenue bond investments, including special revenue 

and industrial revenue bonds on average in each of the last 10 years. While revenue bonds can 

often be issued by local or municipal governments, the debt service is typically paid by a private

company. Thus, the credit risk exposure for these types of bond holdings is heightened for the 

bondholder, i.e., repayment becomes a risk exposure to the insurer if the entity responsible for 

repayment becomes financially distressed. At year-end 2019, revenue bond holdings were 

$784.9 billion, rising from $744.4 billion at year-end 2018. Revenue bond investments by the 

P&C sector grew at a yearly rate of 2.8 percent on average in the last decade, while government 

bond holdings averaged 0.2 percent.

In addition, there has been a continued rise in the P&C sector’s holdings of structured securities, 

with considerable growth reported in the last two years. As noted above with respect to L&H 

sector holdings, structured securities can be exposed to credit, market, and interest rate risks and 

thus are susceptible to credit pressures and interest rate movements, especially in times of 

stress.581 Total structured securities held by the P&C sector were $266.8 billion in 2019, up 

from $233.8 and $204.7 billion in 2018 and 2017, respectively. Although MBS have grown 

steadily since 2016, growth in other loan-backed and structured securities have outpaced MBS 

holdings. MBS holdings have fallen from nearly 81 percent of the structured securities portfolio 

in 2011 to 69.3 percent in 2019. By contrast, other loan-backed and structured securities 

increased by at least a multiple of 1.5 both in value and composition—$81.9 billion and 30.7 

percent of total structured securities in 2019 compared to $35.8 billion and 19.5 percent in 2011. 

Figure 42 illustrates the trends in the P&C sector’s portfolio of MBS and other structured 

holdings since 2011.582

581 The degree and scope of the risks associated with these types of securities differ, depending on their structure. 

They are structured in ways to meet investors’ risk appetites and can range from pass-through securities to complex 

tranching arrangements.

582 The collection of the data on structured securities by S&P Global differed in 2010 and previous years so the

analysis only focuses on 2011 through 2019 in order to maintain data consistency.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

140

Figure 42: Shift in P&C Sector Structured Securities Holdings

Source: S&P Global

With the exception of 2018, the P&C sector has shown positive year-over-year growth in 

affiliated holdings over the past decade, exposing the sector to another source of liquidity risk. 

In particular, the interconnectedness of these types of investments has implications for the 

holder. The P&C sector held affiliated investments of $212.4 billion and $195.9 billion in 2019 

and 2018, respectively. Affiliated cash and investments constituted 11.4 percent of total cash 

and invested assets at year-end 2019, not significantly changed from 11.5 percent at year-end 

2018 but up from 10.3 percent of cash and investments at year-end 2010. Figure 43 shows the 

growth and shift in the composition of affiliated investments over the past decade.

Figure 43: P&C Sector’s Affiliated Exposures

Source: S&P Global

 $-

 $50

 $100

 $150

 $200

 $250

 $300

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Share of Total Structured Securities

($ billions) 

Year

RMBS CMBS Other Loan-Backed and Structured Securities

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175

$200

$225

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Affiliated Investments ($ billions)

Year

Bonds Common Stock Other Investments
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

141

The “other investments” in Figure 43 include affiliated preferred stock, mortgage loans, and cash 

and invested assets in addition to other types of affiliated investments such as surplus notes, 

limited partnerships, joint ventures, hedge funds, private equity funds, and direct investments. 

These types of investments have come to dominate affiliated holdings, close to doubling their 

share of total affiliated investments from year-end 2010. Additionally, in the last five years, 

affiliated preferred stock, mortgage loans, and cash and invested assets have averaged only 1.4 

percent of all other affiliated investments.

Several factors mitigate the P&C sector’s potential vulnerability to risk exposures in the event of 

worsening market conditions. First, high quality bonds continue to make up the bulk of the 

sector’s portfolio of fixed-income securities, including MBS. Investment-grade bonds have 

averaged 96 percent of the P&C sector’s bond portfolio and nearly 64 percent of cash and 

invested assets annually over the last 10 years. The ratio of investment-grade bonds to 

policyholder surplus has been at a 1.44 multiple on average each year, illustrating the sector’s 

quality of capital. Second, bond holdings at or near default have declined significantly in the last 

decade, from a high of $11.5 billion and 1.7 percent of policyholder surplus to $5.7 billion and 

0.66 percent at year-end 2019. Third, the P&C sector has consistently maintained close to 

three-quarters of its portfolio of MBS and other structured securities in publicly-traded holdings, 

which tend to be relatively liquid and subject to less market volatility. Fourth, when examining 

the ratio of affiliated holdings to policyholder surplus, the increase in affiliated investments has 

remained relatively steady. Affiliated cash and investments represented 24.5 percent of 

policyholder surplus at year-end 2019, compared to 25.9 percent at year-end 2018 and 24.2 

percent of policyholder surplus at year-end 2010. Moreover, unaffiliated bond holdings have 

accounted for more than 68 percent of the unaffiliated investment portfolio on average each year, 

while unaffiliated common stocks have averaged just over 18 percent annually. Finally,

unaffiliated cash and invested assets have been at least twice the level of policyholder surplus 

each year since 2010. All of these factors help to mitigate concerns of the sector’s potential 

exposures to liquidity risk.

4. Market Performance

Stock price movements are indicators of investors’ perceptions about the recent financial results 

and future financial prospects of a firm, an industry sector, or in a broader context, the general 

economy. The discussion that follows considers the price performance of stock indices for the 

L&H and P&C sectors, as compared to the performance of the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index 

(S&P 500).

Over the 10-year period from December 31, 2009 through the end of 2019, the P&C sector 

performed essentially in line with the S&P 500, with a long period of outperformance that began 

in mid-2014 and narrowed over 2019 as shown in Figure 44. On the other hand, the L&H sector 

stock index underperformed the S&P 500 during this period. The L&H sector’s performance has 

been more volatile, both underperforming and outperforming the S&P 500 since the 2008 

financial crisis; however, the sector has underperformed since the end of 2017. Since the end of 

2009, the P&C stock index gained 196 percent and the L&H stock index increased 116 percent; 

over the same period, the S&P 500 gained 188 percent. In the short-term, for 2019 the P&C 

stock index significantly underperformed the S&P 500, appreciating by 17 percent versus a 29 
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

142

percent gain for the S&P 500, and the L&H stock index slightly underperformed the S&P 500, 

gaining 21 percent (see Figure 44).

Figure 44: Insurance Industry Stock Price vs. S&P 500

Source: S&P Global

The price-to-book value multiple, which compares on a per share basis the market value of a 

firm to its book value (i.e., reported equity on its balance sheet), is a popular metric by which to 

measure valuation. If a share of an insurer’s stock is selling for less than its book value per 

share, the market is valuing the firm at less than its assets minus its liabilities (net worth); the 

opposite is true if the stock is trading at a premium to its book value. Figure 45 compares L&H 

and P&C sector price-to-book value ratios from year-end 2009 through year-end 2019.

Figure 45: Insurer Price/Book Value Ratios

Source: S&P Global

216 

296 

288 

 -

 50

 100

 150

 200

 250

 300

 350

Dec-09

Jun-10

Dec-10

Jun-11

Dec-11

Jun-12

Dec-12

Jun-13

Dec-13

Jun-14

Dec-14

Jun-15

Dec-15

Jun-16

Dec-16

Jun-17

Dec-17

Jun-18

Dec-18

Jun-19

Dec-19

Stock Price

Month and Year

SNL U.S. Insurance L&H SNL U.S. Insurance P&C S&P 500

1.22 1.13 

0.81 0.82 

1.26 

1.08 1.04 0.99 

1.21 1.01 

0.92 

1.09 1.13 

1.13 1.14 

1.37 1.35 1.35 1.37 

1.53 

1.39 

1.50 

 -

 0.2

 0.4

 0.6

 0.8

 1.0

 1.2

 1.4

 1.6

 1.8

Dec-09

Jun-10

Dec-10

Jun-11

Dec-11

Jun-12

Dec-12

Jun-13

Dec-13

Jun-14

Dec-14

Jun-15

Dec-15

Jun-16

Dec-16

Jun-17

Dec-17

Jun-18

Dec-18

Jun-19

Dec-19

Ratio

Month and Year

SNL U.S. Insurance L&H SNL U.S. Insurance P&C
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

143

B. Capital Markets Activity

The U.S. domestic insurance industry continued to access the equity market for new capital 

throughout 2019. During the year, 16 insurance-related public equity offerings were completed, 

with an aggregate value of $7.4 billion.583 This level of activity was slightly lower in terms of 

both the number of deals and the aggregate value compared to 2018, when there were 18 

offerings valued at $11.5 billion. Of the offerings in 2019, five transactions—valued at $259 

million—were initial public offerings (IPOs), marking an increase in number of transactions, but 

a significant decrease in aggregate value from the two IPOs valued at $3.3 billion in 2018. The 

largest single public equity offering by an insurer in late 2019 was the $3.1 billion sale of AXA 

Group’s remaining stake in Equitable Holdings, Inc.; the company also conducted two offerings 

totaling $1.9 billion in common stock earlier in the year.

Debt markets continued to be the preferred source of additional capital for insurers in 2019, 

consistent with the gradual decline in interest rates over the first nine months of the year, 

followed by a moderate increase in the fourth quarter. During the year, U.S. insurers raised an 

aggregate $105.0 billion in 159 separate debt offerings.584 Debt issuance increased notably from 

the $72.9 billion raised in 118 offerings in 2018. In the aggregate, the funds raised by the top 

five issuers of debt accounted for 65 percent of the 2019 industry total.

1. Mergers & Acquisitions of U.S. Insurers

In 2019, there were 52 merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions announced involving U.S. 

insurers, with a total value of $52.0 billion.585 The number of deals was significantly less than 

the 90 transactions in 2018, but the aggregate value of the 2019 deals nearly doubled the $27.6 

billion in 2018. The aggregate value of 2019 M&A activity was somewhat higher than other 

recent historical figures. The largest transaction in 2019 was the March announcement of the 

acquisition of Wellcare Health Plans, Inc. by Centene Corp., a deal valued at approximately $17 

billion. The second-largest deal announced in 2019 was the acquisition of Cigna Corporation’s 

group life and disability insurance operations by New York Life Insurance Company, valued at 

$6.3 billion. Other notable deals announced in 2019 included the $3.1 billion acquisition of 

Privilege Underwriters, Inc. by Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc.

583 All data in this section with respect to capital markets and mergers and acquisitions are sourced from S&P 

Global, as collected and calculated by FIO. The data include Bermuda-based holding companies for which primary 

insurance underwriting subsidiaries are domiciled in the United States.

584 Foreign currency-denominated transactions converted to U.S. dollars by S&P Global.

585 Transactions were announced between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, and were either completed 

during the year or remained pending at the end of 2019. S&P Global did not report transaction values for all deals.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

144

2. Alternative Risk Transfer Insurance Products

Alternative risk transfer (ART) financial instruments include catastrophe bonds (“cat bonds”), 

collateralized reinsurance, industry loss warranties (ILWs), reinsurance sidecars, longevity 

swaps, catastrophe futures, and other ILS.586 By using the capital and derivatives markets to 

attract investors from outside the insurance industry, ART markets increase the capacity for 

reinsurance and retrocession, and thereby increase the U.S. insurance industry’s ability to supply 

insurance.

The outstanding amount of cat bonds and other ILS securities totals $41.5 billion.587 The entire 

ART market totals $91 billion.588 Over the past year, the composition of the ART market has 

changed slightly: the ILS segment has continued to grow while collateralized reinsurance has 

contracted. A January 2020 market report opined that “[r]ecent uncertainty in loss development 

is resulting in cedants retaining more collateral over longer periods of time than in the past. This 

trapped collateral creates a drag on investor returns and ultimately raises the cost of the 

alternative capital being provided.”589 Risk transfers through sidecars and industry loss 

warrantees are holding steady. While ILW trading volume rose materially, outstanding amounts 

have not.590

One of the more noteworthy developments over the past year is the continuing growth of 

mortgage insurance risk as a share of the total cat bond market. Mortgage insurance now 

constitutes 23 percent of total outstanding issuance compared to 18 percent and 12 percent, 

respectively, for international and U.S. multi-peril. While 2020 issuance is lagging behind 2019, 

it is nonetheless set to exceed 2018.591 Another development has been the strong rebound in 

overall ILS issuance in 2020. As of July 28, 2020, there were $10 billion in new issues of ILS 

compared to $10.3 billion for all of 2019.592

586 For more detailed descriptions of ART instruments, see FIO, 2018 Annual Report, 97-102.

587 Artemis, Q2 2020 Quarterly Catastrophe Bond and ILS Market Report (June 2020), 17, 

https://www.artemis.bm/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/q2-2020-cat-bond-ils-market-report.pdf.

588 Aon, Reinsurance Market Outlook (July 10, 2020), 3, 

http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20200710-re-analytics-reinsurance-market-outlookjunejuly.pdf (June/July 2020 Reinsurance Market Outlook).

589 Aon, Reinsurance Market Outlook (January 8, 2020), 7, 

http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20200108-re-analytics-reinsurance-market-outlook-jan.pdf.

590 “In addition, a lot of activity has been seen in the industry lost warranty (ILW) market, given the more limited 

availability of ultimate net loss coverage.” Aon, June/July 2020 Reinsurance Market Outlook, 6.

591 FIO calculations using Artemis Deal Directory, https://www.artemis.bm/deal-directory/.

592 FIO calculations using Artemis Deal Directory, https://www.artemis.bm/deal-directory/.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

145

C. International Insurance Marketplace Overview

The United States remained the world’s largest single-country insurance market in 2019, with a 

29 percent market share of global direct premiums written (see Figure 46).593 This market share

increased slightly (by approximately 50 basis points) compared to 2018, but represents a nearly 

two percentage point increase over 2014. When viewed as a single market, the combined share 

of the EU (including the United Kingdom) of global direct premiums written (29 percent) is 

closely comparable to the market share of the United States. China remained the second-largest 

single-country insurance market, with 11 percent of global direct premiums written. Globally,

direct premiums written increased by 2.9 percent in real terms (adjusted for inflation) in 2019, 

led by solid growth in non-life premiums in advanced economies.

594 Growth in global non-life 

premiums of 3.5 percent outpaced the 2.2 percent increase in life premiums and the 2.5 percent 

growth in global GDP in 2019. 595 Although life premium growth rebounded nicely from the 

nearly flat comparison in 2018, it still lagged the growth in global GDP.

Consistent with the past several years, emerging markets exhibited a considerably greater rate of 

premium growth than advanced markets, in total and in both the life and non-life sectors. The 

improvement in growth in global life premiums was driven mainly by a 5.6 percent gain in 

emerging economies that reversed the 2.0 percent drop experienced in 2018; growth in life 

premiums in advanced economies also strengthened to 1.3 percent in 2019, following less than 

one percent growth in 2018.

593 Swiss Re sigma, World Insurance: Riding Out the 2020 Pandemic Storm (July 9, 2020), 

https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/sigma-2020-04.html. Swiss Re sigma examines 

insurance and macroeconomic data from 147 countries sourced through Swiss Re Institute. Growth rates are 

presented in real terms, i.e., adjusted for inflation as measured by local consumer price indices. Swiss Re sigma 

separates the insurance industry into “life” and “non-life” sectors according to standard EU and OECD conventions; 

under these conventions, the “non-life” sector includes health insurance.

594 See Swiss Re sigma, World Insurance, 8.

595 Swiss Re sigma, World Insurance, 2-3.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

146

Figure 46: Gross Premiums Written and Market Share for

Top 20 Countries and World Total, 2014 vs. 2019596

2014 

Rank

2019 

Rank Country

2014 

Premium 

Volume 

($ millions)

2014

World 

Market

Share (%)

2019 

Premium 

Volume

($ millions)

2019

World 

Market

Share (%)

Change in 

World 

Market 

Share (%)

1 1 United States $ 1,280,443 26.8% $ 1,548,123 28.8% 7.4%

4 2 PR China 328,439 6.9% 617,399 11.5% 66.9%

2 3 Japan 479,762 10.0% 459,347 8.5% (15.0%)

3 4 United Kingdom 351,266 7.4% 366,243 6.8% (7.4%)

5 5 France 270,520 5.7% 262,283 4.9% (13.9%)

6 6 Germany 254,644 5.3% 243,852 4.5% (15.0%)

8 7 South Korea 159,515 3.3% 174,520 3.2% (2.8%)

7 8 Italy 194,735 4.1% 167,838 3.1% (23.5%)

9 9 Canada 125,373 2.6% 133,157 2.5% (5.7%)

11 10 Taiwan 95,622 2.0% 117,823 2.2% 9.4%

15 11 India 69,889 1.5% 106,307 2.0% 35.1%

10 12 Netherlands 95,956 2.0% 83,657 1.6% (22.6%)

13 13 Brazil 85,444 1.8% 74,106 1.4% (23.0%)

17 14 Ireland 53,954 1.1% 73,347 1.4% 20.7%

19 15 Hong Kong 41,038 0.9% 72,253 1.3% 56.4%

14 16 Spain 71,473 1.5% 71,002 1.3% (11.8%)

12 17 Australia 88,075 1.8% 68,690 1.3% (30.7%)

16 18 Switzerland 65,211 1.4% 58,953 1.1% (19.7%)

18 19 South Africa 49,159 1.0% 47,093 0.9% (14.9%)

22 20 Luxembourg 35,280 0.7% 45,467 0.8% 14.4%

World Total $ 4,778,248 100% $ 5,380,600 100%

Source: Swiss Re sigma, World Insurance

Insurance indices in major insurance markets recorded strong gains in 2019 and generally 

followed trends of their respective broader benchmarks. Among the indices FIO tracked (see 

Figure 47), S&P Global’s China Insurance composite was the best performing, increasing 30 

percent in 2019. The strong performance of China insurance equities could be a result of the 

increasing demand for P&C and life insurance products as a result of rising incomes and 

demographic trends in that country.597 Chinese-domiciled insurers have attracted investor capital 

due to China’s fast-growing insurance market and the potential of being the largest insurance 

market in the world by the mid-2030s.598 The SNL U.S. Insurance Life & Health Index finished 

596 In its reported 2019 global insurance totals, Swiss Re Institute included for the first time health insurance 

premiums ($912 billion) in the U.S. figures to align with practices in other regions. To maintain a consistent sample 

for a 5-year comparison this value was removed from both the 2019 U.S. and 2019 world total amounts.

597 Reshma Kapadia, “Chinese Insurer Ping An Is Betting Big on Tech. Here’s How That Will Boost Its Stock,” 

Barron’s, January 3, 2020, https://www.barrons.com/articles/chinese-insurer-ping-an-is-betting-big-on-tech-hereshow-that-will-boost-its-stock-51578076483.

598 See Swiss Re sigma, World Insurance, 10.
Annual Report on the Insurance Industry (September 2020)

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

FEDERAL INSURANCE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

147 

up 21 percent for the year and followed the strong rebound of U.S. equities in 2019.599 

Historically, the performance of U.S. life insurance stocks have been strongly correlated with 

interest rates and equity market returns.600 The SNL U.S. Insurance P&C Index underperformed 

relative to most other insurance indices in 2019, although still increased 16 percent for the year. 

U.S. P&C insurance stocks are typically more a defensive group in the insurance industry and 

tend to outperform L&H insurers during periods of equity market stress and elevated credit 

defaults.

Figure 47: Performance of Global Insurance and Reinsurance Indices

as compared to Broader Market Average (S&P 500) 

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

12/31/2018

1/29/20192/27/20193/28/20194/26/20195/25/20196/23/20197/22/20198/20/20199/18/2019

10/17/201911/15/201912/14/2019

Stock Price

Date

S&P 500 SNL China Insurance SNL U.S. Insurance L&H

SNL U.S. Insurance P&C SNL European Insurance

2019 Annual Return

Market Index

S&P 500 29%

Insurance Index

SNL China Insurance 30%

SNL U.S. Insurance L&H 21%

SNL European Insurance 18%

SNL U.S. Insurance P&C 16%

Source: S&P Global

D. Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic likely will continue to affect the insurance industry through the 

remainder of 2020, as discussed in greater detail above in Section II. FIO will continue to 

monitor the effects of the pandemic, civil disruptions, natural hazards, weather-related events 

like the wildfires on the West Coast, and other relevant developments on the U.S. insurance 

industry, policyholders, and consumers. Full-year 2020 insurance industry results will be 

reviewed by FIO in its 2021 Annual Report. 

599 S&P Global. In 2018, the SNL U.S. Insurance L&H Index and the S&P 500 declined 22 percent and six percent, 

respectively.

600 Joel Salomon, “Understanding the Interest Rate Sensitivity of Insurance Companies,” Factset, January 28, 2020, 

https://insight.factset.com/understanding-the-interest-rate-sensitivity-of-insurance-companies.