NAPSLO E-News - September 23, 2006

H.R. 5637 Placed on House Suspension Calendar;
NAPSLO Working on Securing Senate Sponsor

After working with House staff and House Leadership on the NAPSLO supported concepts contained in the Non-Admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 5637), NAPSLO Washington, D.C. lobbyist Maria Berthoud of B&D Consulting reports that the bill has been placed on the Tuesday, September 26, 2006 House Suspension Calendar and, barring anything unforeseen, should pass the House at that time.  

The Suspension Calendar is usually reserved for non-controversial items and placement on the calendar traditionally indicates the bill will be approved by the full House.

With the placement on the Suspension Calendar, Ms. Berthoud now shifts her attention back to the Senate where she continues her work to secure a sponsor to introduce the bill in that body.

Many of the provisions of H.R. 5637, including the creation of a uniform system of premium tax allocation and remittance, uniform standards for producer licenses, one-state compliance on multi-state surplus lines risks, and direct access to the surplus lines market for sophisticated purchasers are concepts long endorsed by NAPSLO and items the Association has been working over the past few years with Congress to include in legislation.

Texas to Amend Rule Excluding Surplus Lines Insurers from Insuring AC Contractors

The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation notified the Texas Surplus Lines Association that it will propose to amend a rule to allow eligible surplus lines insurers to provide coverage to licensed air conditioner contractors.

The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation had adopted a rule requiring contractors to secure insurance only from authorized insurers, precluding surplus lines insurers.

NAPSLO discovered the rule while monitoring legislative changes listed in NAPSLO's Legislative Tracking Service and notified the Texas Surplus Lines Association, which contacted the state to question the exclusion. The state said it did not intend to exclude surplus lines carriers and would work to amend the rule. In the meantime the state has taken the position that the rule does not exclude surplus lines carriers.