 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: My battle against the Surplus Line Association of California |
 |
|
My battle against the Surplus Line Association of California and the California Department of Insurance.
The Surplus Line Association of California became the "surplus advisory organization" created by statute from AB 865 in 1993 and became law on January 1, 1994. The statute allows the SLA, a private non-profit association to perform certain duties delegated to them by the Insurance Commissioner. They have been given the right to assess a so called "stamping fee" on every policy which is charged to the California Consumer. The fee is submitted directly to the SLA.
On April 15, 2007 I sent the SLA a Public Records Request because I discovered that the SLA had hired a law firm to file an Amicus Brief to the Appellate Court and an Amicus Letter to the California Supreme Court that defended one of their members who was enjoined from filing fraudulent forms to the SLA and illegally exported 1000's of insurance policies out of California for small business consumers.
I also have proof that they host a form on their website that allows their broker members to back date their forms to the year 1960. In addition, the SLA pays a law firm, the same law firm that represents Lloyd's of London, to lobby the Legislature with the funds they receive from the "Stamping Fee". It also looks as if maybe some of the lobby payments may be payment for legal services such as filing the Amicus Brief so as to hide the legal fee from State auditors if they ever do get audited.
The attorney for the SLA, Mr. Woods, who also happens to be the same Mr. Woods involved with the Quackenbush scandal with Lloyd's of London and headed his transition team, denied my request because the SLA is not a public agency.
Several letters were sent back and forth between myself and Mr. Woods where I claimed that the SLA was a state body because it fit the description of a "state body" in the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Mr. Woods continued to ignore this and instead threatened me with filing a frivolous lawsuit and that I would have to pay the attorney fees if I filed suit. He again proclaimed that the SLA was a "private" nonprofit association.
Mr. Woods can't have it both ways, either the SLA is a "public body" and must have open meetings and release their records to the public, or the SLA is a "private" organization that has illegally been given the authority to tax in violation of Article XI Sec 11 of the California Constitution.
Legal Definitions Establish “Stamping Fee” is a tax.
BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY
TERM: stamp acts.
TEXT: Statutes which impose stamp taxes. English statutes of such nature which constituted one of the primary causes of the American Revolution.
TERM: stamp tax.
TEXT: In the narrow but generally accepted sense of the term, a tax charged on written instruments as such, collected by means of stamps impressed or affixed to the instrument charged, the latter being important in the enforcement of legal rights. 23 Am J2d Deeds § 21; 49 Am J1st Stamp T § 2. In the broad sense, any tax collected by requiring the affixing of stamps to an article, such stamps to be obtained from the tax or revenue office. ALSO: See revenue stamps.
TERM: revenue stamps.
TEXT: The means of collecting many of the taxes imposed by the federal government, the requirement of the law being that a stamp be attached to an article subject to tax and canceled, or posted and displayed as prescribed by statute, such stamps being available for purchase from the government. The evidence of payment of a tax.
TERM: incidence of tax.
TEXT: The burden of a tax, that is, where the burden of payment is ultimately imposed, as where a person obligated to pay a stamp tax shifts the burden to another by charging him directly or indirectly the amount of the tax paid. AUTHORITY: 49 Am J1st Stamp T § 20.
California Insurance Code 1780.56 (b)
If the commissioner delegates to the advisory organization one or more of the duties set forth in subdivision (a), the advisory organization also shall be authorized to assess a stamping fee for each policy, declarations page, cover note, or other premium bearing document submitted to the advisory organization. The stamping fee shall be established from time to time by the governing body of the advisory organization , shall reflect all reasonable costs associated with the services provided by the advisory organization, and may be reviewed by the commissioner for reasonableness as part of the commissioner's examination of the advisory organization. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, the stamping fee may not exceed three-fourths of 1 percent of the premium for the insurance. Any proposed increase in the stamping fee above three-fourths of 1 percent shall be filed with the commissioner along with a written explanation of the reason for the increase, and the increase shall take effect upon the expiration of 60 days after the date of filing unless the commissioner disapproves it within that time. Within 60 days after the date of filing, the commissioner may provisionally approve the proposed increase, in which event the increase shall take effect immediately. The proposed increase shall be deemed fully approved upon the expiration of 120 days after the date of filing unless the commissioner disapproves the proposed increase within that time. The stamping fee shall be paid by the surplus line broker, provided, however, that the surplus line broker shall be allowed to receive and collect the stamping fee from the insured.
Constitution of the Surplus Line Association of California
ARTICLE XIII
FUNDS AND DISBURSEMENTS
1. The Association may assess a stamping fee for each policy, declarations page, cover note, or other premium bearing document submitted to the Association. The stamping fee shall be paid by the filing Member and the Member may collect the stamping fee from the insured. The stamping fee shall be established from time to time by the Executive Committee and shall reflect all reasonable costs associated with the services provided by the Association. At least sixty (60) days prior to any proposed increase the Membership shall be notified of the increase.
2. The Executive Committee shall levy and collect from the Members such dues and assessments, inclusive of the stamping fee referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, as may be determined by the Executive Committee to be sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of the Association. The insured, on all surplus line insurance placed by Members in the State of California, shall be charged, in addition to the specified premium for such insurance, for an amount to reimburse such Member for the California state tax on premiums, and for a surcharge in such amount as shall be fixed, from time to time, by the Executive Committee to reimburse such Member for dues and assessments paid or to be paid to the Association. If the insurance is placed directly with a Member, such Member shall charge the insured for such an amount and such surcharge; if the insurance is placed with a Member through a non-Member broker or agent, such Member shall require such broker or agent to charge the insured for such amount and such surcharge, and to remit the same to such Member, without any deduction for any commission thereon.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 11
SEC. 11. (a) The Legislature may not delegate to a private person or body power to make, control, appropriate, supervise, or interfere
with county or municipal corporation improvements, money, or property, or to levy taxes or assessments, or perform municipal functions.
The following link lists the following documents involved in my battle with the SLA.
Document List
Letter exchange between myself and the SLA attorney where the SLA attorney continuously denies my Public Records Requests because the SLA is a private nonprofit association.
Letter to Mr. Woods attorney for the SLA with Points and Authorities of case law regarding the "Stamping Fee" violation of the California Constitution.
Public records request sent to the California Department of Insurance.
California Department of Insurance finally responds "sort of" to my Public Records Request.
Non-Profit Income of the SLA for the year 2005 LISTED AS $12,000,000
SLA Amicus Brief to Appellate Court Defending Their Guilty Member
Appellate Court Brief In Response to SLA
Lobbying Activity of the SLA paid by Stamping Fee.
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks to me like you have a good argument.
Good luck!
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: Chuck's Foundations Still Quacking!! |
|
|
| Quote: | Chuck's Foundations Still Quacking!!
by SBD
The model non-profit organization that may have been used to convince former Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush that it was legal to fund his foundations with fees collected from insurers still operates to this day.
In the spring of 2000, the LA Times reporter Virginia Ellis, broke the story about how Quackenbush authorized creation of the California Research and Assistance Fund, and how insurers contributed to it rather than pay far higher penalties to resolve alleged Northridge claims-handling violations uncovered by Quackenbush's auditors in the California Department of Insurance.
"The commissioner may not . . . require payment of funds to a private charitable foundation for the purpose of supporting activities unrelated to the regulatory enforcement responsibilities of the Department of Insurance in the proceeding," California Attorney General Lockyer wrote at the time.
In April of 2000, the legislative counsel, who is the legal advisor to the state Senate and Assembly, had a more strongly worded opinion at the time. He concluded "that the commissioner did not have the power to compel insurance companies to give money to private foundations".
Quackenbush's attorney, Don Heller of Sacramento, however, told a San Francisco television station that Quackenbush's actions were taken with the advice of his legal counsel and "in the good faith belief that he was acting appropriately and lawfully."
This whole story may have actually began in 1993, before Quackenbush had been elected as Insurance Commissioner when a little known Bill was introduced into the Assembly. The bill was sponsored by the California Surplus Line Coalition which had been founded one month prior by Gerald Sullivan of Gerald J. Sullivan & Associates, a major player in the insurance brokerage business. The bill created a joint arrangement between a private nonprofit organization and the Department of Insurance with certain regulatory powers delegated by the Commissioner.
That Bill, AB 865 became law on January 1, 1994. Commissioner John Garamendi at that time was against the bill that created a "surplus line advisory organization" that was a "private nonprofit association" delegated powers by the Insurance Commissioner.
The digest from the Assembly Floor dated May 13, 1993 states:
"The Department of Insurance does not believe the legislation is necessary. In fact, the Department indicates that the Commissioner already seeks the assistance of the SLA in handling some functions relating to the regulation of non-admitted insurers. Furthermore, the Department alleges that the legislation provides broad immunity, but does not contain sufficient duties to provide the information for which the immunity is provided."
It is believed that major players in insurance brokerage, funded by nonadmitted insurers and headed by the attorney of that particular nonprofit advisory organization, set out to hand pick the next California Insurance Commissioner.
A little known Republican Assembly Member by the name of Chuck Quackenbush was recruited for the position. Quackenbush had all of the qualifications they needed; mainly that Quackenbush knew nothing about the insurance industry. Mr. Woods, the attorney for the SLA, is believed to have lined up heavyweight nonadmtted insurers, including Lloyds of London, to fund the campaign for Quackenbush.
Once Quackenbush was elected, Mr. Woods was given the duty to facilitate the transition of the Department of Insurance to Quackenbush. At this point, the statutes enacted and passed into law by AB 865 had barely begun to take shape. Apparently Garamendi approved the plan submitted by The Surplus Line Association of California or the SLA, to be the nonprofit organization of AB 865. A Bulletin released on May 11, 1994 and available on the SLA's website is not the actual document, but it says that it was signed by Dennis Ward, Deputy Insurance Commissioner for Garamendi. I have not been able to confirm if Garamendi actually approved or signed this letter.
According to a Forbes Magazine Front page story on October 20, 1997, "after Quackenbush won the commissioner's job, he appointed James Woods, the managing partner in law firm LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae's San Francisco office, to head his transition advisory team. LeBoeuf and the insurance clients it lobbies for in California have contributed at least $ 800,000 to Quackenbush and his committees since 1994."
Just before the scandal was printed on the front pages of the L.A. Times, Quackenbush went on a world wind trip with his long time friend Mr. Woods. This trip included stops in Amsterdam, London, and Beijing.
Not even three days had passed when Quackenbush returned from Beijing with Woods, that he ordered his deputies to reach a settlement with certain title companies on "all outstanding issues." One of those companies that stood to benefit the most was Fidelity, which at the time sought approval for a merger that could not be approved until it resolved a lawsuit with Quackenbush's insurance department.
The attorney representing Fidelity was James R. Woods who maintained that he never discussed the title issues with Quackenbush on the Beijing trip, and the timing of the trip and the Quackenbush decision to settle was purely a coincidence.
Quackenbush approved the creation of a nonprofit foundation for this particular settlement by the name "Title and Escrow Consumer Education and Outreach Corp". The California secretary of state listed Woods' law firm LeBoeuf' as the headquarters of the foundation. An official with Fidelity later confirmed to the Legislature that Fidelity paid LeBoeuf to write the bylaws of Quackenbush's new nonprofit foundation.
During the testimony investigating the Quackenbush Foundations, one of the deputies at the Department of Insurance testified that the foundations were set up by a law firm.
"Soublet responded, "I would say that the foundation was established by a law firm." He then went on to describe the establishment process. He claimed not to have any "personal knowledge" of whether the client in the transaction was Palmer or the DOI."
At around the same time, Virginia Ellis from the L.A. Times reported that the Department of Insurance attempted to hide a questionable $ 400,000 payment from the insurance giant Lloyd's of London, a nonadmitted insurer supervised by the SLA. The payment was for the extensive legal fees paid by the Department of Insurance when Quackenbush took Lloyd's side in a securities fraud lawsuit brought by another state agency. As a result, Lloyd's was allowed the right to continue to do business in California.
Quackenbush, who had a close relationship with Mr. Woods who represented Lloyd's and who later visited London at Lloyd's expense with Quackenbush, was credited by participants as playing a critical role in the settlement of the securities fraud case. The settlement saved Lloyd's from losing the right to do business in California.
According to memos released at the time, officials worried about the costs of defending Lloyds and feared that their methods would be exposed.
"The last thing you want is Assistant . Atty. Gen. Mark Richelson . . . reviewing all the accounting," Deputy Chief Counsel Richard Krenz wrote in a memo to Quackenbush's chief aide, William Palmer."
In yet another memo, it was reported that a Lloyd's lawyer was concerned about "political repercussions" if the payment wasn't "structured with great sensitivity."
These settlements and issues led to Quackenbush's downfall. He and top administrators allowed companies to pay millions of dollars to nonprofit foundations created by the department rather than pay tougher fines, as recommended by the staff of the Department of Insurance. Some of that foundation money paid for television ads featuring Quackenbush, for political polling and for donations to charities with ties to Quackenbush. None of it was spent for the benefit of any California consumer.
A quote from the Legislature's investigation report said the following about the foundations:
"The orchestrated extraction of millions from insurers to secure the political fortunes of the former Commissioner demanded planning, and a cunning sense of the possible in the face of enormous opportunity".
Even after numerous hearings, investigations by the Attorney General, the FBI, and practically every other agency, the original nonprofit organization that may have been used as the model to justify the creation of Quackenbush's Foundations was never discovered. In fact, that same nonprofit organization is still active and receiving public funds today with no one asking any questions. It even has the same attorney, Mr. Woods from LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae.
Why did the Legislature pass a Bill and why did the Governor sign a Bill that was and is illegal? AB 865 gave a private non-profit organization oversight over nonadmitted insurers and the authority to assess and collect a tax. A digest from the Senate Committee on Insurance, Claims, and Corporations dated August 18, 1993 asks the question:
Should we give a private organization independant taxing authority?
The answer should have been NO and even asking such a question raises issues of Constitutional importance.
Once Quackenbush was exposed and forced to resign in disgrace, no one bothered to investigate his claims that he was advised by legal council that it was all legal. If the attorney for Quackenbush was referring to Mr. Woods when he made that statement, there could be a good reason no one bothered to investigate. Mr. Woods is one of the authors of the California Insurance Law and Practice published by Matthew Bender and Company and used by California legal professionals as the legal authority for Insurance Law.
Mr. Puzder, a representative from Fidelity, testified at a Senate hearing that, at the time, he did not consider it unusual to contribute to a foundation rather than pay a fine. He said that Department of Insurance officials told him that the Department of Insurance had previously steered settlement money into foundations under Commissioner John Garamendi. (May 23, 2000 Senate hearing.)
Immediately after Quackenbush's resignation, a Law Professor named J. Clark Kelso was asked to temporarily step in as Insurance Commissioner until Governor Gray Davis could find someone to appoint. A month later, Davis chose a well respected Judge for the appointment. Judge Harry W. Low became Insurance Commissioner in the late summer of 2000. Recently, former Commissioner Low was appointed as the official arbitrator for the SLA, but no one knows what the SLA needs an arbitrator for when in reality they could only argue with themselves since they are run by the same members they are supposed to regulate.
So, after so many years of assessing and collecting a tax as a private nonprofit association, how did it finally get brought to light? Was it the FBI? Did someone at the Department of Insurance blow the whistle? Did a judge discover it during a legal battle? Did any elected official figure it out?
The answer is none of the above, I, as a consumer became suspicious and began investigating for myself and put it all together when the attorney for the SLA, Mr. Woods denied my Public Records requests, ignored the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act, and insisted that the SLA was a private nonprofit association created in 1937 and is not a public agency.
I could not believe what Mr. Woods was saying. I could not understand how an agency, created by statute could be a private nonprofit and collect a tax from California consumers and keep it with no oversight. The assessment of the tax was disguised in the Bill as being paid by the Surplus Line Broker, but "may be collected from the Insured".
When I received the bill from the Surplus Line Broker, it did not say that I had the option to pay the so called "Stamping Fee", it was part of the invoice that needed to be paid. Just because the tax is collected by the Broker, who is a member of the SLA, does not convert the tax I paid to a tax paid by the Broker. It is no different than the Sales Tax in that the consumer pays it, but the business that collects it actually submits it to the government. The business was not assessed the sales tax out of their own pocket, the consumer was and the consumer paid it, I paid it.
The SLA uses the "Stamping Fee" to pay Mr. Woods law firm for lobbying the Legislature and sponsoring bills that make it easier for their member brokers to export insurance policies out of California. According to their nonprofit form 990 filed for the tax year ending in 2005, the SLA collected over $12,000,000 in "Stamping Fees" from California consumers.
Not only does the SLA use these funds to lobby, but they also paid Mr. Woods and his lawfirm to file a Amicus Brief to the Appellate Court defending one of their members that was enjoined by the Court from continuing to file thousands of fraudulent "diligent search" forms to the SLA thereby exporting thousands of insurance policies of small business consumers illegally out of California. These small business consumers are not protected by California Insurance Law and will not have any protection if the insurer becomes insolvent. During this same litigation that the SLA filed their Amicus Brief, Crusader v. Gorst, it was revealed that an employee of Gorst submitted a porno hotline as the phone number of an admitted insurer that supposedly refused to cover the policy.
For these very reasons, California Legislature is not allowed to delegate the authority to assess a tax to a private nonprofit association. California Constitution Article XI, Section 11, subsection (a) forbids it and so does common sense which seems to be lacking in the California Department of Insurance as well as in the California Legislature.
Maybe someone should have listened to Quackenbush's attorney since his client probably believed that if the SLA, a private nonprofit association can assess and collect a tax and his only duty was to approve their plan of operations, then why couldn't he approve the plans of Foundations and require insurers to pay fines to them as well.
Maybe we should ask an attorney familiar with such issues. Mr. Woods, do you know the answer?
By SBD |
| Quote: | May 11, 1994
BULLETIN #638
RE: AB 865 - SURPLUS LINE ADVISORY ORGANIZATION
The attached letter from Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and signed by Dennis C. Ward, Chief, Enforcement Division, as Deputy, approves The Surplus Line Association of California ("Association") to act as the surplus line advisory organization to the California Department of Insurance effective March 30, 1994.
Please contact Ilona Bovee at (415) 434-4900 to obtain a copy of the Association's Plan of Operations.
James S. Pugh
Assistant Manager
JSP/imb
Attachment |
| Quote: | STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
JOHN GARAMENDI
Insurance Commissioner
45 FREMONT STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
March 30, 1994
The Surplus Line Association of California
388 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attn: James C. Widgren Chairman
Re: AB 865 - Surplus Line Advisory Organization
Dear Mr. Widgren:
Pursuant to Section 1780.55 of the California Insurance Code, the commissioner has made the following determination:
1. The Surplus Line Association of California (SLA) has the qualifications identified in §1780.54 (a) to act as the surplus line advisory organization;
2. the SLA's proposed plan of operation dated March 28, 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is approved; and
3. the commissioner hereby delegates to the SLA each of the proposed duties identified in the approved plan of operation. The approvals and delegated authorities as set forth above are effective immediately.
The Department of Insurance looks forward to establishing an effective working relationship with the SLA that will serve to safeguard the public interest.
Very truly yours,
JOHN GARAMENDI
DENNIS C. WARD
Deputy Insurance Commissioner
DCW:gam attachment
cc: James R. Woods
LeBoeof, Lamb, Greene & MacRae |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DLI78
PO3
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 273
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Go get 'em, SBD. If a liar, um lawyer is threatening you it means he is scared. Joke him if he can't take a f***!
_________________
DLI 78
Army Linguist
1978-1986 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
streetsweeper95B
PO2
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 365
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
sic 'em SBD!
_________________
"Proud Member of the Freak Show" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nods
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I also have proof that they host a form on their website that allows their broker members to back date their forms to the year 1960. |
For real, SBD? 
Is there any possible legitimate and legal reason for a broker to use such a service?
This is just a whole new mind-numbing level of "stupid." Incredible.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Navy_Navy_Navy wrote: | | Quote: | | I also have proof that they host a form on their website that allows their broker members to back date their forms to the year 1960. |
For real, SBD?
Is there any possible legitimate and legal reason for a broker to use such a service?
This is just a whole new mind-numbing level of "stupid." Incredible. |
Check it out for yourself.
Link to SL-2 Form on SLA Website
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm.. maybe I'm not looking at the right thing?
I see three web-forms for documenting past declinations of coverage - those would have to go back for some time - it's not a post-dating of the declination, though - it's just an option that allows the visitor to select the correct year of the declination.
Nothing I can see would allow someone to back-date a document. I haven't ever worked in insurance, though, so maybe I'm just overlooking it - what am I missing?
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Navy_Navy_Navy wrote: | Hmm.. maybe I'm not looking at the right thing?
I see three web-forms for documenting past declinations of coverage - those would have to go back for some time - it's not a post-dating of the declination, though - it's just an option that allows the visitor to select the correct year of the declination.
Nothing I can see would allow someone to back-date a document. I haven't ever worked in insurance, though, so maybe I'm just overlooking it - what am I missing? |
The section of the web form documenting past declinations of coverage actually documents the name and date of an admitted California Insurer that declined the coverage which then allows the broker to place the coverage with a nonadmitted insurer or more specifically an insurer not regulated by the California Department of Insurance and provides no protection to the insured if the nonadmitted insurer happens to go bankrupt and can't pay your claims.
The date has to be close to the date coverage was placed with a nonadmitted insurer. The form allows the broker to back date the search to whatever date they need to comply with the requirement which means that the form is probably never really generated unless the Insurance Commissioner or the insured questions the placement.
| Quote: | California Insurance Code Section 1763. (a) A surplus line broker may solicit and place insurance, other than as excepted in Section 1761, with nonadmitted insurers only if that insurance can not be procured from insurers admitted for the particular class or classes of insurance and that actually write the particular type of insurance in this state. Each surplus line broker shall be responsible to ensure that a diligent search is made
among insurers that are admitted to transact and are actually writing the particular type of insurance in this state before procuring the insurance from a nonadmitted insurer. Each surplus line broker shall file with the commissioner or his or her designee, within 60 days of placing any insurance with a nonadmitted insurer, a written report,that shall be kept confidential, regarding the insurance. This report shall include the name and address of the insured, the identity of the insurer or insurers, a description of the subject and location of the risk, the amount of premium charged for the insurance, a copy of the declarations page of the policy or a copy of the surplus line broker's certificate or binder evidencing the
placement of insurance, and other pertinent information that the commissioner may reasonably require. In addition, each surplus line broker shall file a standardized form to be prescribed by the commissioner setting forth the diligent efforts to place the coverage with admitted insurers and the results of these efforts. The form shall be signed by a person licensed under this code who has made the diligent search required by this section or who supervised an unlicensed person or persons who actually conducted the search. The insurance shall not be placed with a nonadmitted insurer for the purpose of procuring a rate lower than the lowest rate that will be accepted by any admitted insurer except as provided by subdivision (c). The commissioner may make and publish reasonable rules and regulations, consistent with this chapter, in respect to transactions governed thereby and the basis or bases for his or her determinations hereunder. |
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
