Question: What did laws passed in the 1950s allow?

Answer: multi-line charters

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. <hl> Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in the 1950s. <hl> From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit <hl> multi-line charters <hl> in the 1950s. From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.


Question: When did it start becoming allowed for insurance companies to write more than one line of insurance?

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since.  Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in the 1950s.  From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.

Answer: the 1950s

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. <hl> Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in the 1950s . <hl> From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in <hl> the 1950s <hl>. From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.

Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in <hl> the 1950s <hl> .


Question: What types of companies were the most commonplace in the insurance industry prior to the 1950s?

Answer: small, local, single-line mutual companies

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in the 1950s. <hl> From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies. <hl>

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in the 1950s. From an industry dominated by <hl> small, local, single-line mutual companies <hl> and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.


Question: What legal framework allowed multi-line charters in the 1950s?

Answer: laws

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. <hl> Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until laws began to permit multi-line charters in the 1950s. <hl> From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.

Insurance and the insurance industry has grown, diversified and developed significantly ever since. Insurance companies were, in large part, prohibited from writing more than one line of insurance until <hl> laws <hl> began to permit multi-line charters in the 1950s. From an industry dominated by small, local, single-line mutual companies and member societies, the business of insurance has grown increasingly towards multi-line, multi-state and even multi-national insurance conglomerates and holding companies.


Question: Who ruled in the case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association?

The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945.  The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.

Answer: United States Supreme Court

<hl> The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. <hl> The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.

The <hl> United States Supreme Court <hl> found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.


Question: When did the case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association happen?

Answer: 1944

<hl> The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. <hl> The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.

The United States Supreme Court found in the <hl> 1944 <hl> case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.


Question: When was the McCarran-Ferguson Act passed?

Answer: 1945

The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. <hl> The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945 . <hl> The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.

The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in <hl> 1945 <hl>. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.

The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in <hl> 1945 <hl> .


Question: Who created the McCarran-Ferguson Act?

Answer: The United States Congress

The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. <hl> The United States Congress , however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. <hl> The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.

The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. <hl> The United States Congress <hl>, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.

<hl> The United States Congress <hl> , however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945.


Question: What portion of the U.S. Constitution was key to the ruling in the United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association case?

Answer: the Commerce Clause

<hl> The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. <hl> The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.

The United States Supreme Court found in the 1944 case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance was subject to federal regulation under <hl> the Commerce Clause <hl> of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Congress, however, responded almost immediately with the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. The McCarran-Ferguson Act specifically provides that the regulation of the business of insurance by the state governments is in the public interest. Further, the Act states that no federal law should be construed to invalidate, impair or supersede any law enacted by any state government for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal law specifically relates to the business of insurance.


Question: What is included in the federal insurance regulation ?

A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation.  In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.

Answer: new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation.

<hl> A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. <hl> As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.

A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including <hl> new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. <hl> In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.


Question: what did the (NAIC) adopted ?

Answer: (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation

A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. <hl> In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation , including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. <hl> As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.

A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners <hl> (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation <hl>, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.

In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners <hl> (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation <hl> , including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles.


Question: What does this adoption include ?

Answer: risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles.

A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. <hl> In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. <hl> However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.

A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including <hl> risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. <hl> As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.


Question: what happened to the federal reform pressure regarding the regulation ?

Answer: waned.

A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. <hl> As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation waned. However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. <hl> McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.

A wave of insurance company insolvencies in the 1980s sparked a renewed interest in federal insurance regulation, including new legislation for a dual state and federal system of insurance solvency regulation. In response, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms for state insurance regulation, including risk-based capital requirements, financial regulation accreditation standards and an initiative to codify accounting principles. As more and more states enacted versions of these model reforms into law, the pressure for federal reform of insurance regulation <hl> waned. <hl> However, there are still significant differences between states in their systems of insurance regulation, and the cost of compliance with those systems is ultimately borne by insureds in the form of higher premiums. McKinsey & Company estimated in 2009 that the U.S. insurance industry incurs about $13 billion annually in unnecessary regulatory costs under the state-based regulatory system.


Question: What does the NAIC act as ?

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state.  They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.

Answer: The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations.

<hl> The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. <hl> The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.

<hl> The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. <hl> Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.


Question: To how much Are these laws or regulation are a must to do ?

Answer: Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. <hl> Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation , and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. <hl> The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. <hl> Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation <hl>, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.

<hl> Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation <hl> , and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted.


Question: Can states make their own changes regarding the law ?

Answer: each state may make changes in the enactment process

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. <hl> Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process , but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. <hl> The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and <hl> each state may make changes in the enactment process <hl>, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.

Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and <hl> each state may make changes in the enactment process <hl> , but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted.


Question: What does the NAIC models provide ?

Answer: NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. <hl> NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states , but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. <hl> They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. <hl> NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states <hl>, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.

<hl> NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states <hl> , but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state.


Question: When do the models have the foece of law ?

Answer: these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state.

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. <hl> NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change. <hl>

The NAIC acts as a forum for the creation of model laws and regulations. Each state decides whether to pass each NAIC model law or regulation, and each state may make changes in the enactment process, but the models are widely, albeit somewhat irregularly, adopted. The NAIC also acts at the national level to advance laws and policies supported by state insurance regulators. NAIC model acts and regulations provide some degree of uniformity between states, but <hl> these models do not have the force of law and have no effect unless they are adopted by a state. <hl> They are, however, used as guides by most states, and some states adopt them with little or no change.


Question: When was the idea of the optionality of the federal charter was raised ?

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system.  The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers in the 1970s.  This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.

Answer: The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system. <hl> The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers in the 1970s. <hl> This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system. <hl> The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity <hl> issues plagued property and casualty insurers in the 1970s. This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.


Question: What has the capacity issues plauged ?

Answer: capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system. <hl> The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers in the 1970s. <hl> This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system. The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and <hl> capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers <hl> in the 1970s. This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.


Question: When did these capacity issues happened ?

Answer: in the 1970s.

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system. <hl> The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers in the 1970s. This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. <hl> Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system. The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers <hl> in the 1970s. <hl> This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.


Question: What is the idea behind the OFC concept  ?

Answer: This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system. The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers in the 1970s. <hl> This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system , somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. <hl> Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.

Nevertheless, federal regulation has continued to encroach upon the state regulatory system. The idea of an optional federal charter was first raised after a spate of solvency and capacity issues plagued property and casualty insurers in the 1970s. <hl> This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system <hl>, somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks. Although the optional federal chartering proposal was defeated in the 1970s, it became the precursor for a modern debate over optional federal chartering in the last decade.

<hl> This OFC concept was to establish an elective federal regulatory scheme that insurers could opt into from the traditional state system <hl> , somewhat analogous to the dual-charter regulation of banks.


Question: When did the Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall street reform and consumer protection act ??

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression.  The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry.  Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury.  The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system.  The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.

Answer: In 2010

<hl> In 2010 , Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. <hl> The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry. Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.

<hl> In 2010 <hl>, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry. Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.

<hl> In 2010 <hl> , Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression.


Question: For which industry is the Dodd- Frank act significant ?

Answer: for the insurance industry.

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. <hl> The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry. Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. <hl> The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications <hl> for the insurance industry. <hl> Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.


Question: What authorization has been given to the FIO?

Answer: The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system.

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry. Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. <hl> The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States. <hl>

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry. Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. <hl> The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. <hl> The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.


Question: Who created the FIO ?

Answer: Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury.

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry. <hl> Significantly, Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. <hl> The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which is touted by some as the most sweeping financial regulation overhaul since the Great Depression. The Dodd-Frank Act has significant implications for the insurance industry. Significantly, <hl> Title V of created the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in the Department of the Treasury. <hl> The FIO is authorized to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry and identify any gaps in the state-based regulatory system. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is charged with monitoring the financial services markets, including the insurance industry, to identify potential risks to the financial stability of the United States.


Question: What is the important artifact of the state based insurance regulation ?

An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers.  Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling.  Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there.  Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks.  Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.

Answer: the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers.

<hl> An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling. <hl> Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks. Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.

An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is <hl> the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. <hl> Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling. Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks. Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.


Question: What is the meaning to be "addmitted" ?

Answer: meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner

An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. <hl> Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner , and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling. <hl> Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks. Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.

An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", <hl> meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner <hl>, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling. Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks. Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.

Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", <hl> meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner <hl> , and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling.


Question: What is the meaning the act to be a "Surplus" ?

Answer: meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there.

An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling. <hl> Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks. <hl> Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.

An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling. Or they may be "surplus", <hl> meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. <hl> Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks. Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.


Question: What does the surplus line supose to do ?

Answer: Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks.

An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling. Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. <hl> Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks. Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer. <hl>

An important artifact of the state-based insurance regulation system in the United States is the dichotomy between admitted and surplus insurers. Insurers in the U.S. may be "admitted", meaning that they have been formally admitted to a state's insurance market by the state insurance commissioner, and are subject to various state laws governing organization, capitalization, policy forms, and claims handling. Or they may be "surplus", meaning that they are nonadmitted in a particular state but are willing to write coverage there. <hl> Surplus line insurers are supposed to underwrite only very unusual or difficult-to-insure risks. <hl> Although experienced insurance brokers are well aware of what risks an admitted insurer will not accept, they must document a ritual of actually shopping around a risk to several admitted insurers (who will reject it, of course) before applying for coverage with a surplus line insurer.


Question: How do states help insurers and brokers save time?

To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of Texas) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state.  In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers.

Answer: maintain "export lists" of risks

<hl> To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of Texas) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. <hl> In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers.

To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of Texas) now <hl> maintain "export lists" of risks <hl> that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers.


Question: Do any states opt to not maintain this list?

Answer: Texas

<hl> To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of Texas ) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. <hl> In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers.

To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of <hl> Texas <hl>) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers.

To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of <hl> Texas <hl> ) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state.


Question: What can brokers do when a client is associated with one of these risks?

Answer: immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market

To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of Texas) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. <hl> In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers. <hl>

To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of Texas) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can <hl> immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market <hl> and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers.


Question: What do these export lists represent?

Answer: no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state.

<hl> To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of Texas) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers. <hl>

To relieve insurers and brokers of that tedious and time-consuming chore, many states (with the notable exception of Texas) now maintain "export lists" of risks that the state insurance commissioner has already identified as having <hl> no coverage available whatsoever from any admitted insurer in the state. <hl> In turn, brokers presented by clients with those risks can immediately "export" them to the out-of-state surplus market and apply directly to surplus line insurers without having to first document multiple attempts to present the risk to admitted insurers.


Question: Are surplus line insurers regulated?

Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.

Answer: Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted

<hl> Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted , the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. <hl> However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.

<hl> Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted <hl>, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.

<hl> Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted <hl> , the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted.


Question: What are the disadvantages of being insured by a surplus line insurer?

Answer: the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form

<hl> Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. <hl> However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.

Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that <hl> the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form <hl> (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.


Question: What is a nonstandard form of insurance?

Answer: not from the Insurance Services Office

<hl> Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office ), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. <hl> However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.

Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, <hl> not from the Insurance Services Office <hl>), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.

Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, <hl> not from the Insurance Services Office <hl> ), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted.


Question: What happens if a surplus line insurer collapses?

Answer: its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted.

<hl> Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all. <hl>

Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, <hl> its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. <hl> However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all.


Question: What is the best choice for someone who needs coverage for risks?

Answer: the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all

Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. <hl> However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all . <hl>

Although surplus line insurers are still regulated by the states in which they are actually admitted, the disadvantages of obtaining insurance from a surplus line insurer are that the policy will usually be written on a nonstandard form (that is, not from the Insurance Services Office), and if the insurer collapses, its insureds in states in which it is nonadmitted will not enjoy certain types of protection available to insureds in states in which the insurer is admitted. However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, <hl> the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all <hl>.

However, for persons trying to obtain coverage for unusual risks, <hl> the choice is usually between a surplus line insurer or no coverage at all <hl> .


Question: What type of insurers exist as a single corporation?

Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation.  Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups.  That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well).  There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether.  All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.

Answer: Only the smallest insurers

<hl> Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation. <hl> Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups. That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.

<hl> Only the smallest insurers <hl> exist as a single corporation. Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups. That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.


Question: How do most major insurers exist?

Answer: as insurance groups

Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation. <hl> Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups . <hl> That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.

Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation. Most major insurance companies actually exist <hl> as insurance groups <hl>. That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.

Most major insurance companies actually exist <hl> as insurance groups <hl> .


Question: What is an insurance group?

Answer: they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers

Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation. Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups. <hl> That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). <hl> There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.

Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation. Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups. That is, <hl> they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers <hl> (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.


Question: Do most insurance groups operate in the same manner?

Answer: There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next

Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation. Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups. That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). <hl> There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. <hl> All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.

Only the smallest insurers exist as a single corporation. Most major insurance companies actually exist as insurance groups. That is, they consist of holding companies which own several admitted and surplus insurers (and sometimes a few excess insurers and reinsurers as well). <hl> There are dramatic variations from one insurance group to the next <hl> in terms of how its various business functions are divided up among its subsidiaries or outsourced to third party corporations altogether. All major insurance groups in the U.S. that transact insurance in California maintain a publicly accessible list on their Web sites of the actual insurer entities within the group, as required by California Insurance Code Section 702.


Question: Does GEICO have more than one insurance company?

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies.  When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy).  Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company.  But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO.

Answer: GEICO's seven insurance companies

<hl> An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies . <hl> When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy). Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company. But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO.

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of <hl> GEICO's seven insurance companies <hl>. When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy). Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company. But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO.

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of <hl> GEICO's seven insurance companies <hl> .


Question: Do you pay the actual insurance group or the specific insurance company?

Answer: deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy)

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies. <hl> When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy) . <hl> Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company. But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO.

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies. When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually <hl> deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy) <hl>. Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company. But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO.

When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually <hl> deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy) <hl> .


Question: Are claims filed against/to the insurance group?

Answer: Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies. When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy). <hl> Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company . <hl> But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO.

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies. When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy). <hl> Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company <hl>. But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO.

<hl> Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company <hl> .


Question: Do customers know that they are dealing with one of many GEICO companies?

Answer: But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies. When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy). Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company. <hl> But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO . <hl>

An example of how insurance groups work is that when people call GEICO and ask for a rate quote, they are actually speaking to GEICO Insurance Agency, which may then write a policy from any one of GEICO's seven insurance companies. When the customer writes their check for the premium to "GEICO", the premium is actually deposited with one of those seven insurance companies (the one that actually wrote their policy). Similarly, any claims against the policy are charged to the issuing company. <hl> But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO <hl>.

<hl> But as far as most layperson customers know, they are simply dealing with GEICO <hl> .


Question: Which type of insurance company/group is harder to run?

Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other.  For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group, and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company.

Answer: it is more difficult to operate an insurance group

<hl> Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. <hl> For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group, and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company.

Obviously, <hl> it is more difficult to operate an insurance group <hl> than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group, and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company.


Question: Are there legal ramifications of mistakes within the group?

Answer: employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other.

<hl> Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group, and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company. <hl>

Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since <hl> employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. <hl> For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group, and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company.


Question: What is extremely important for all claims to include?

Answer: all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group

Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. <hl> For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group , and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company. <hl>

Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. For example, <hl> all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group <hl>, and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company.

For example, <hl> all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group <hl> , and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company.


Question: Do premiums get recorded to the group or individual company?

Answer: claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company.

Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. <hl> For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group, and the flows of premiums and claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company. <hl>

Obviously, it is more difficult to operate an insurance group than a single insurance company, since employees must be painstakingly trained to observe corporate formalities so that courts will not treat the entities in the group as alter egos of each other. For example, all insurance policies and all claim-related documents must consistently reference the relevant company within the group, and the flows of premiums and <hl> claim payments must be carefully recorded against the books of the correct company. <hl>


Question: In what way is first order logic unlike English?

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal.  There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

Answer: is completely formal

<hl> Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal , so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal. <hl> There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic <hl> is completely formal <hl>, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal. There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic <hl> is completely formal <hl> , so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal.


Question: Why is first order logic completely formal?

Answer: so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal

<hl> Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal . <hl> There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, <hl> so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal <hl>. There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, <hl> so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal <hl> .


Question: What is one type of legal expressions?

Answer: terms

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal. <hl> There are two key types of legal expressions: terms , which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. <hl> The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal. There are two key types of legal expressions: <hl> terms <hl>, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

There are two key types of legal expressions: <hl> terms <hl> , which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false.


Question: What legal expression expresses predicates that are true or false?

Answer: formulas

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal. <hl> There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas , which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. <hl> The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal. There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and <hl> formulas <hl>, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and <hl> formulas <hl> , which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false.


Question: What are the terms and formulas of first-order logic?

Answer: strings of symbols

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal. There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. <hl> The terms and formulas of first-order logic are strings of symbols which together form the alphabet of the language. <hl> As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.

Unlike natural languages, such as English, the language of first-order logic is completely formal, so that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is legal. There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false. The terms and formulas of first-order logic are <hl> strings of symbols <hl> which together form the alphabet of the language. As with all formal languages, the nature of the symbols themselves is outside the scope of formal logic; they are often regarded simply as letters and punctuation symbols.