NAIC to Government
2000s
- 2005 0318 - Letter - NAIC (Koken) to GOV (House - Oxley and Baker) - 4p
- Dear Chairmen Oxley and Baker:
- I received your March 9, 2005 letter expressing concern about a lack of communication between the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and Congress in recent months.
- Diane Koken, Commissioner of Insurance, Pennsylvania, President, NAIC
- Dear Chairmen Oxley and Baker:
- 2008 0708 - Letter - NAIC (Praeger) to GOV (House - Kanjorski) - Letter - 2p
- We are writing to express the views of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) on the Manager’s Amendment to H. R. 5840, the Insurance Information Act of 2008.
- We have seen what ERISA and other Federal preemption has done to the health insurance market and to consumer protections, and we do not want to spread that level of dysfunction to the rest of the insurance arena. For these reasons, we reviewed the Insurance Information Act of 2008 with great caution.
- 2008 0911 - Letter - NAIC to GOV (House - Kanjorski) - 2p
- As the primary protectors of insurance consumers, we thank you for including these significant improvements and we appreciate your patience as we have worked to provide constructive feedback on the legislation.
- 2008 1006 - Letter - NAIC (Praeger) to GOV House - Waxman, Davis) - [link to NAIC Page - 4p]
- (p1-2) - The problems stem from the operations of AIG’s holding company, its financial products division, and its securities lending division, regulated at the Federal level by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).
- 2009 0227 - Letter - NAIC to Federal Reserve (Baxter) - 2p
- <WishList> - On behalf of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, I would like to thank you and your staff for taking the time to meet with State insurance commissioners, directors and superintendents, and their staffs, by conference call on Wednesday, February 25.
- We value the candor and cooperation that have characterized our dialogue with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York ("FRBNY") during our collective response to matters affecting AIG.
- <WishList> - I am writing specifically to comment on the letter dated February 20, 2009 from Ms. Sarah Dahlgren, FRBNY Senior Vice President, to each of the 20 State insurance commissioners with primary regulatory oversight of the AIG insurance companies and to clarify the discussion from our conference call.
- <WishList> - On behalf of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, I would like to thank you and your staff for taking the time to meet with State insurance commissioners, directors and superintendents, and their staffs, by conference call on Wednesday, February 25.
- [PDF-380p]
- Policyholder Protection
- Mr. Kanjorski: And I know you are here for the National Insurance Commissioners, but could you give us an idea whether there is any real negative impact or risk to the insurance policyholders of AIG, specifically in Pennsylvania, but then as you may know, countrywide.
- Mr. ARIO: Even if there were more threats, of course, the policyholders under these insurance companies would be fully protected.
- Chairman KANJORSKI: So as I understand that, trying to be fair, if I were a policyholder, I would not fear the fact that my policy will be honored, can be honored, and the funds are there protecting me. So it will be honored; is that correct?
- Mr. ARIO. That is absolutely correct.
- Chairman KANJORSKI. Very good. (p24)
- 2009 1023 - Letter - NAIC (CEO-Vaughan) to GOV (Member of Congress) - 2p
- 2009 1117 - Letter -NAIC to GOV (Frank, Kanjorski, Bachus, Biggert) - NAIC letter to the House Committee on Financial Services regarding The Federal Insurance Office Act of 2009, Manager's Amendment - 2p
- 2009 1120 - Letter - NAIC to GOV (Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair, Joint Economic Committee, JEC) - 1p
- We are writing to correct a misstatement by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at the Joint Economic Committee’s November 19, 2009 hearing, titled “Financial Regulatory Reform: Protecting Taxpayers and the Economy.”
- Secretary Geithner asserted that the reason for the federal government’s bailout of AIG was a fear that AIG might not have been able to pay claims to its insurance policyholders.
- That flies counter to the Treasury Department’s long-held assertion that the bailout was needed to prevent financial loss to AIG’s counterparties in its credit default swap (CDS) transactions.
- It also belies the facts. AIG’s state-regulated insurance subsidiaries were, and still are, safe and solvent. Money to pay policyholders was protected from being used for other purposes, and was never at risk.
- That is because of to state insurance regulators’ ability to “ring fence” solvent insurance entities of a group to shield them from the parent’s corporate losses or bankruptcy in order to protect consumers.
- This change in rationale by Secretary Geithner is confusing at best, misleading at worst.
2010s
- 2010 0129 - NAIC to GOV - NAIC response (as distributed on the Hill) to AIG "Dear Colleague" letter - [link to 1p]
- (Bean / Royce - July 31, 2009 Dear Colleague Letter - 6p
- 2010 0410 - NAIC to GOV (Senators - All) - re: NAIC letter to Senators on the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (RAFSA) - 4p
- If a study is necessary, we urge the Senate to request the study from an objective body, such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- 2010 0420 - NAIC to Senators - re: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (RAFSA) - 4p
- Further, state guaranty funds protect policyholders from any shortfalls. (p2)
- 2010 0603 - NAIC to GOV (Frank, Bachus, Dodd, Shelby) - RE: Conference on Financial Regulatory Reform Legislation - 4p
- 2010 11 - NAIC to SEC / CFTC - Re: Follow-up to September 29, 2010 Meeting with SEC and CFTC Staff - 4p
- 2011 0209 - NAIC to GOV (Geithner, DOT) - 4p
- Understanding the impact of systemic risk on the insurance sector and how the business of insurance interacts with other activities and products within a potentially systemic institution is – and will continue to be – best understood from the perspective of the industry’s functional regulator.
- 2015 0325 - NAIC to GOV (Shelby / Brown) - Re: Hearing entitled “FSOC Accountability: Nonbank Designations” - 3p
- 2017 0426 - GOV (House) - A Legislative Proposal To Create Hope And Opportunity For Investors, Consumers, And Entrepreneurs
- [PDF-538p, Video-Youtube
- (p200-202) - Written statement of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
- 2018 04 - NAIC Letter to GOV - Government Relations CFPB Reform - 1p
- 2017 0807 - Letter - NAIC to EBSA - Re: RIN 1210–AB82 Request for Information Regarding the Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions - 4p
- While the DOL has shared jurisdiction with the states with respect to insurance products sold through ERISA plans, states have regulatory responsibilities with respect to the entire market for such products, including disclosure requirements, professional standards of conduct for agents, and supervisory controls.
2020s
- 2021 0330 - NAIC Letter to GOV
- Re: The Business of Insurance Regulatory Reform Act - 2p
- To: Scott, Manchin
- 2021 0512 - NAIC Letter to GOV
- re: support for H.R. 3099, the Primary Regulators of Insurance Vote Act of 2021 - 2p
- To: Garamendi, Loudermilk
- 2021 05 - NAIC Letter to GOV
- re: FSOC Vote for Insurance Regulators (H.R. 3099) - 1p
- Issue Brief
- 2021 0903 - NAIC Letter to GOV
- Re: Examination of Recent Trends in Regulation and Regulatory Reform - 10p
- To: James Comer, Committee on Oversight and Reform
- What do state insurance regulators do? - 1p