What is Filling My Eyes with Tears…Pollen or Joy That Bills Are Finally Moving…

Either way, it’s a good thing.  The pollen makes our tear ducts crazy but we get beautiful springtime flowers.  The hard work of us at LMA and you, our extended teammates, makes us crazy too, but we have tears of JOY when things really start moving forward during the Legislative Session.  Weeks and weeks and weeks….of committee meetings, with bills passing to and fro between House and Senate committees (and the destinies of those bills changing quicker than we can blink our pollen filled eyes) all start coming together during this time within the process.  We are excited to report some of that movement during the last week so let’s get to it….

Insurer Fair Claim Settlement Act to Be Heard Tomorrow In Committee

As reported in our March 17th newsletter, LMA is keeping an extremely close eye on two common sense bills aimed at addressing the state’s perilous bad faith laws. SB 1494 sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher (R-Duval) is scheduled to be heard tomorrow (Tuesday 4/1/14) in a meeting of Senate Banking & Insurance Committee chaired by Sen. David Simmons (R-Seminole/Volusia). Rep. Kathleen Passidomo’s (R-Collier) Fair Claim Settlement Act (HB 187) is the companion to Thrasher’s bill and currently resides in the House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee. Under the current system, claimants who are not policyholders are not required to tender a demand or succinctly convey the amount of money required to reach a fair settlement. The lack of defined guidelines has allowed unscrupulous trial attorneys to leverage the judicial system frequently resulting in large payouts that grossly exceed policy limits. The Thrasher and Passidomo bills create a safe harbor for third-party bad faith claims. The bills require that carriers must be provided a written notice of loss from the claimant or anyone acting on the claimant’s behalf as a condition precedent to a third-party bad faith claim. Afterwards, if the carrier provides the limits of liability notice required under section 627.4137, Florida Statutes, and pays the demanded amount or policy limits, whichever is less, within 45 days of the notice, the carrier is not liable for bad faith under common law or the statutes. The bills are strongly supported by numerous insurance trade associations in addition to the Florida Chamber, Associated Industries, Institute for Legal Reform and the Florida Justice Reform Institute, among others. Florida’s trial lawyers will most likely again stand in opposition when Sen. Thrasher’s bill is heard tomorrow. LMA will have representatives in attendance and will provide a thorough update in our next newsletter.

Speaking OF Bad Faith, Supreme Court Will Hear Case Involving Citizens

Wednesday 3/26/14- The Florida Supreme Court today issued an order accepting jurisdiction in a legal dispute over bad faith between Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and the Perdido Sun Condominium Association located in Escambia County. Perdido Sun suffered damage when in the summer of 2004 Hurricane Ivan caused extensive destruction along Florida’s Western Panhandle. After the storm, Citizens and the Condo Association could not come to terms on a claim amount so Perdido Sun filed a breach of contract action in circuit court to recover additional funds. Perdido prevailed in that lawsuit and then filed another action under the bad faith statute; however, Citizens has taken the position that it is immune from bad-faith claims. The trial judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Citizens was immune from the bad faith claim based on section 627.351(6)(s)1, Florida Statute. That statute generally creates immunity for Citizens but lists five exceptions. The association thereafter appealed the trial judge’s ruling to the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee.  The exception addressed by the First District allows Citizens to be sued for “any willful tort.” The First District denied immunity to Citizens, ruling that a bad faith claim pursuant to section 624.155 constitutes a “willful tort.” The Court did, however, acknowledge that there is no statutory definition of “willful tort.” In reaching its construction of the term, the Court relied on general definitions of “willful” (‘with actual knowledge or belief that such act or omission constitutes such violation and with specific intent nevertheless to commit such act of omission”) and “tort” (a “civil wrong”).

According to section 627.351(6)(s)2, Florida Statutes, Citizens has a “duty to its policyholders to handle claims carefully, timely, diligently, and in good faith.” The First District reasoned that a violation of such duty fell within the broad definition of a “tort.” Thus, the Court allowed the condominium to sue Citizens for bad faith, provided the condominium proved its “cause of action, including the willfulness” of Citizens’ actions. The Supreme Court has yet to set a date for oral argument in this case, however, we will continue monitoring this important case and bring you news of developments as they occur.

Senate Passes Brandes’ Flood Measure Creating Alternative to NFIP Similar House Measure Trailing Close Behind

Wednesday 3/26/14- Today in floor action the Florida Senate by a 36-0 vote gave Sen. Jeff Brandes’ (R-Hillsborough/Pinellas) comprehensive flood insurance legislation creating for consumers a private market alternative to purchasing coverage through the NFIP its final approval. The bill (SB 542), however, must be reconciled with a competing measure in the House (HB 879) by Rep. Ed Hooper (R-Pinellas). Hooper’s legislation must first win approval from the House Regulatory Affairs Committee before it can be heard by the full House.

Brandes and Hooper both hail from Pinellas County which has hundreds of subsidized NFIP policies. Each bill sponsor as well as House and Senate insurance committee leadership have asserted that state-based flood legislation is necessary even though Congress has postponed or repealed the most controversial rate increases and other provisions in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW12). There remain, however, some significant differences between the House and Senate flood bills, the most important of which has already caused a degree of controversy between the two chambers. Sen. Brandes is extremely firm in his position that an available option for consumers to reduce their flood insurance premiums should be the ability to buy flood coverage only for the amount of their outstanding mortgage. Rep. Hooper, House Insurance & Banking Subcommittee Chairman Bryan Nelson and House leadership strongly oppose the Brandes option, asserting it would result in unrepaired homes and blighted neighborhoods. The LMA team will continue its involvement in this issue and keep you updated as the chambers work out their differences. In the meantime, the following is an analysis of Sen. Brandes’ flood measure passed by the Senate:

CS/CS/CS/SB 542 creates s. 627.715, F.S., which contains requirements that authorized insurers are subject to when offering flood insurance on any residential structure or its contents in Florida. The bill requires an authorized insurer that issues flood insurance under s. 627.715, F.S., to also offer coverage equivalent to that provided under a standard National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood insurance policy. The bill defines flood in accord with the current definition used by the NFIP, and requires all flood coverage to, at a minimum, cover “flood” in accordance with this definition. Insurers may also include water intrusion, as defined by the policy, within flood coverage. An insurer may establish rates using any method currently authorized under the Florida Insurance Code or may use the alternative informational rate filing method. Under the newly created informational rate filing, the insurer may use rates, rating schedules, or rating manuals filed with the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) that allows the insurer a reasonable rate of return on flood coverage. The OIR may require the insurer to submit to an examination at the insurer’s expense to determine if the rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory using the existing standards in law. If a rate violates these standards, the insurer is prohibited from writing additional flood coverage until the office has approved the rate. This rate filing method may be used to establish rates filed with the OIR before July 1, 2024. The bill also contains the following additional provisions:

•Allows flood deductibles to be a stated dollar amount or a percentage of coverage. If flood coverage will satisfy a mortgage requirement, the deductible must be acceptable to federal mortgage and banking regulators.

•Allows flood insurance policies to be offered that adjust claims on the basis of replacement cost or actual cash value.

•Makes the following coverages optional:  (1) additional living expense coverage, (2) personal property or contents; and (3) law and ordinance coverage. The insurer must offer, however, law and ordinance coverage comparable to such coverage contained in a NFIP policy.

•Requires the declarations page of the policy to disclose policy limits, deductibles, and other coverage limitations.

•Requires the agent, prior to issuing a policy under s. 627.715, F.S., to obtain from the applicant a signed statement that provides the applicant written notice of potential differences in comparison to NFIP coverage. The applicant’s signature creates a conclusive presumption that the policyholder understood and selected the limitations on coverage in the policy as compared to a NFIP policy. *    Allows a surplus lines agent to export a flood contract or endorsement without making a diligent effort to seek coverage from three or more authorized insurers. Expires July 1, 2017

•Requires the insurer to provide 60 days written notice to the insured, regulated lending institutions, and federal agency mortgagees of the cancellation or nonrenewal of flood coverage. An insured may only cancel a policy for reasons permitted under the NFIP.

•Requires insurers to notify the OIR at least 30 days before writing flood insurance in Florida, file a plan of operation and financial projections with the OIR, offer flood coverage on forms approved by the OIR under the form approval statute in s. 627.410, F.S., and file all reinsurance contracts with the office on or before June 30th of each year.

•Prohibits Citizens Property Insurance Corporation from providing flood insurance.

•Prohibits the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund from reimbursing flood losses.

•Exempts commercial nonresidential policies, excess flood coverage policies, and policies issued by or on behalf of the NFIP from the provisions of s. 627.715, F.S.

•Allows flood rates to be established using models or an average of models approved by the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology.

•Authorizes the OIR Commissioner to provide a certification that is a condition under federal law or rule of qualifying for private flood insurance or disaster assistance.

CAT Fund Bill Trimmed To Funding FSU CAT Storm Management Center Amendment Also Added To Reverse Mitigation Inspection Referral Fees

Tuesday 3/25/14- The 2014 Regular Legislative Session may be far from over, however, early efforts to entertain a variety of bills aimed at making significant changes to Florida’s Hurricane CAT Fund have come to a screeching halt. As originally filed, the measures would have implemented reductions in the CAT Fund and/or increases in the retention. This past Tuesday (3/25/14) the Senate Banking & Insurance Committee approved CS/SB 482 sponsored by Sen. Alan Hays (R-Lake/Marion/Orange/Sumter) which, as originally filed, reduced the CAT Fund from $17 billion to $14 billion over a three year period and allowed insurers to recoup reinsurance premiums paid to the Fund. Hays, however, re-wrote his bill using a “strike-everything” amendment to earmark $1 million annually from CAT Fund investment revenues to fund on-going operations of the Florida State University Catastrophic Storm Risk Management Center. Interestingly, Former Senate President Tom Lee (R-Hillsborough) and Sen. Jeremy Ring (D-Broward) supported Hays on his amendment to fund the FSU Storm Risk Management Center and neither of them offered as amendments bills they are sponsoring lowering the CAT Fund retention level from $7 billion to $5 billion. The Lee and Ring bills have competed the last two sessions with Hays’ bill transitioning to a $14 billion CAT Fund.  Sen. Hays also amended to his bill a measure designed to reverse the unfortunate outcome of a Declaratory Statement issued last July 19th  by the Department of Business & Professional Regulation (DBPR) which concluded that DBPR licensed windstorm mitigation inspectors and contractors can offer fees to insurers and insurance agents for the referral of wind mitigation inspection clients. Although the plain reading of the applicable statute (s. 468.8319(1)(h), Florida Statutes) would appear to prohibit the payment of such referral fees, DBPR concluded otherwise and said the statute was not clear in this regard. We want to commend Sen. Hays for his leadership in adding this amendment to SB 482 which will greatly assist in reducing fraud and other misconduct surrounding the windstorm mitigation inspection process as well as promote transparency. At the present time it is unclear what action, if any, the House will be taking regarding CAT Fund legislation. Last Monday (3/24/14) Rep. Bill Hager (R-Palm Beach) did not present his CAT Fund bill (HB 391) which was on the House Appropriations Subcommittee agenda. We will continue monitoring the CAT Fund bills for activity and let you know which, in addition to SB 482, remain under active consideration.

Auto Insurance Single Zip Code Rating Garners Attention, Some Controversy

Thursday 3/27/14- Over the past two weeks of Session the mammoth insurance omnibus bills (CS/HB 565 and companion CS/CS/SB 1260) in both legislative chambers have been amended to allow automobile insurers to employ a single zip code rating territory under prescribed circumstances. On Thursday, March 20 the House Regulatory Affairs Committee amended language into its omnibus bill (CS/HB 565) sponsored by Rep. David Santiago (R-Volusia) authorizing the practice of single zip code automobile insurance rating. About 24 hours earlier (Wednesday 3/19/14) the Senate Banking & Insurance Committee took similar action when it successfully voted out its omnibus measure (CS/CS/SB 1260) sponsored by Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-Hillsborough/Pinellas), including a repeal of the current statutory prohibition against single zip code auto rating. Controversy struck early in the Senate committee meeting when former Senate President Gwen Margolis (D-Miami-Dade) argued for her amendment which would have left intact the current Insurance Code prohibition against single zip code rating territories. Despite her best efforts, the committee rejected her amendment and passed the bill. On Thursday (3/20/14) Rep. Santiago, the House measure sponsor, had adopted an amendment requiring that the rates be implemented as file and use. The amendment language states that the use of a single United States Postal Service zip code as a rating territory shall be deemed unfairly discriminatory unless filed pursuant to Florida’s rating laws and such territory incorporates sufficient actual or expected loss and loss adjustment expense experience so as to be actuarially measurable and credible. Paragraph (1)(a) of Florida’s rating laws is the provision which imposes file and use. Although it has provided comments concerning the single zip code rating territory issue, the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) has shown little, if any concern regarding the matter. In fact, during the March 19th Senate Banking & Insurance Committee meeting OIR Deputy Chief of Staff Monte Stevens commented that the OIR doesn’t care “one way or another” about the amendment. Stevens likely made that comment because many observers believe there remains more than ample authority in the Insurance Code for the OIR to disapprove rates it believes are unfairly discriminatory. LMA will continue monitoring the progress of both omnibus packages and keep you apprised of developments.

OIR Releases Proposed Amendments to Reinsurance Rules

Wednesday 3/26/14- The Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) today released drafts (draft A, draft B) of its proposed amendments to Rule Chapters 69O-144.005 Credit for Reinsurance and 69O-144.007 Credit for Reinsurance from Eligible Reinsurers. In doing so the OIR noted that a rule workshop will be held on Wednesday, April 2, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 116 of the Larson Building should one be requested.  The purpose of the rulemaking effort is to amend the rules in order that they conform to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) model laws for accreditation purposes and to provide consistency among regulatory jurisdictions as to the manner in which reinsurers are granted the status of “certified reinsurer” (currently termed “eligible reinsurer” in the rule) and the manner in which Florida domestic insurance companies can apply credit for reinsurance from these entities. The amendments pertain to a requirement that ceding insurers notify the OIR in the event that reinsurance recoverable or reinsurance ceded exceeds a certain amount; the filing requirements for certified reinsurers; the factors to be considered in the evaluation and rating of certified reinsurers; the method by which a jurisdiction is determined to be qualified; the circumstances under which the Commissioner may suspend, revoke, or otherwise sanction a certified reinsurer’s certification; and the effect of a rating downgrade, rating upgrade, or revocation of the certification of a certified reinsurer. Rule 690-144.005 describes the conditions under which a domestic ceding insurer may take credit for reinsurance from various statuses of reinsurers.  The only significant change in the proposed rule revision is to add a substantive notice requirement. The domestic ceding insurer will be required to notify the OIR within 30 days if reinsurance recoverable from any single assuming insurer–or group of assuming insurers-exceeds or is likely to exceed: (a) fifty percent (50%) of the domestic ceding insurer’s last reported surplus to policyholders; or (b) more than twenty percent (20%) of the domestic ceding insurer’s gross written premium in the prior calendar year. Rule 690-144.007 describes who can be an “Eligible Reinsurer” and how to become and remain so designated; it applies only to P&C reinsurers.  The proposed rule revisions make certain changes, some of which are:

•Expands the scope of the rule to apply not only to P&C reinsurers but also to Life and Health reinsurers; *  Changes the term “Eligible Reinsurers” to “Certified Reinsurers”;

•Changes the amount of surplus and ratings required for a reinsurer to become/stay “Certified”;

•Adds some new procedural requirements in the process of applying to become a Certified Reinsurer; e.g.:

•Requires 3 years audited GAAP financial statements or, with permission of the OIR, 3 years audited IFRS financial statements;

•An actuarial opinion

•List other requirements/standards of a Certified Reinsurer;

•Makes changes to the information required to be filed annually with the OIR by a Certified Reinsurer;

•Adds the same notification requirement by domestic ceding insurer as described in 690-144.005.

We’ll keep you apprised of developments as OIR moves forward with this rulemaking effort.

Countersignature Legislation Passes on House Floor

Thursday 3/27/14- Today by a vote of 115-1 the Florida House of Representatives gave its final approval to House Bill 375 sponsored by Rep. David Santiago (R-Volusia). HB 375 makes it clear that a contract of insurance remains valid and binding, even when an insurer fails to make certain that one of its licensed and appointed agents countersigned the policy prior to delivery to the insured. As we noted in last week’s newsletter, currently it is unlawful for an authorized property & casualty insurer to assume liability on a risk resident, located, or to be performed in this state unless the policy or contract of insurance is issued by or through, and is countersigned by, an agent who is regularly commissioned and licensed and appointed to act as an agent on behalf of the issuing insurer. The proposed law change appears necessary because insurance companies waive any defense regarding a policy’s invalidity due to the lack of a countersignature if the company accepts payment for that policy from the insured. Because of this, insureds are typically protected from an insurance company claiming a disputed policy is invalid based solely on the lack of a countersignature. Currently, it is unclear whether insurance companies enjoy the same protection if the consumer claims a similar defense. This measure will resolve all doubt in this regard should it pass both chambers and become law. HB 375’s companion, Senate Bill 870 sponsored by Sen. Christopher Smith (D-Broward) was scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 25, however, for some reason the bill was not considered. It is again scheduled for Judiciary Committee consideration tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Stay tuned for further updates.

Speed Limit Measure Moving In Senate But Stalled In the House

Thursday 3/27/14- As we reported in our newsletter of January 27th, the Legislature has been considering bills which would raise the maximum allowable speeds on certain state roads and interstates after review and consideration by traffic safety engineers at the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). SB 392 sponsored by Senators Jeff Brandes (R-Hillsborough/Pinellas) and Jeff Clemens (D-Palm Beach), and HB 761 by Rep. Matthew “Matt” Caldwell (R-Lee)could allow state transportation officials to increase speed limits on Florida’s “limited access highways” (Interstates) to 75 mph and raise the maximum posted limits on divided four-lane highways in sparsely populated rural areas from 65 mph to 70 mph. The transportation department could also hike speeds to 60 mph on other roads they deem safe and would have the authority to set minimum speeds on certain highways. This past Thursday (3/27/14) SB 392 won approval from the Senate Appropriations Committee by a 15-4 vote, however, not without significant concerns raised by Committee Chairman Joe Negron (R-Indian River/Martin/Palm Beach/St. Lucie) who said that increasing speeds would lead to more accidents. He went on to note that government-imposed speed limits have helped decrease highway injuries and fatalities because studies show that drivers have a greater likelihood of crashing at higher speeds. “I think that once you start getting into the 80s and 90s that the opportunity for serious injury and death go up significantly,” said Negron, who noted that many motorists already drive nine to 10 M.P.H. above the posted limit. After the committee meeting senate bill co-sponsor Jeff Clemens (D-Palm Beach) said, “What’s important is that people travel at the same speeds”. “If you have people who are able to travel at a much higher speed, travelling with people who are travelling at a much lower speed, that’s what’s actually creating a much more dangerous situation on our highways.” A review of Senate staff’s bill analysis supports Clemens’ contention and indicates that (according to data from the Federal Highway Administration) drivers traveling significantly faster OR slower than the speed at which 85% of the other travelers are driving  at a greater risk for being in a crash. It is not high speeds alone that relate to crash risk; it is the variation of speed within the traffic stream. After Thursday’s Appropriations Committee vote the Senate bill is now ready for action on the Senate floor. However, the House companion (HB 761) has been sitting in the House Economic Affairs Committee for nearly a month. LMA will closely monitor these measures and update you on Senate action or movement in the House.

Governor Scott Fills Last, Long Remaining Position on Citizens Board

Tuesday 3/25/14- For almost nine months now Governor Rick Scott has left vacant the new consumer seat on the Citizens Property Insurance Corporation’s Board of Governors (BOG). On Tuesday of last week (3/25/14) he announced the appointment of Bette Brown, 57, of Tavernier, Chief Credit Officer for the Community Bank of Florida. This ninth position on the BOG was established in last legislative session’s (2013 Regular Session) SB 1770 which created the residential property clearinghouse and made other significant changes to eligibility for coverage with the state-run insurer. The statute establishing the board position says it “serves solely to advocate on behalf of the consumer.” In its announcement regarding Brown’s appointment the governor’s office noted that she has more than 35 years of real estate lending and commercial banking experience. She is the president-elect of the Rotary Club of the Upper Keys and is active in the Florida Keys Board of Realtors and the Mariner’s Hospital Board. She received her bachelor’s degree from Stetson University and has a graduate degree in banking from the Stonier Graduate School of Banking. “Gov. Scott appoints people who he feels will best serve Florida families and are committed to keeping the cost of living low in Florida,” Scott spokesman John Tupps said. “I am pleased to welcome Bette Brown as the first Consumer Representative on the Citizens Board of Governors,” commented Chris Gardner, Chairman of the Citizens Board of Governors. “Her policyholder focus and proven commitment to serving her community will be an asset to Citizens and its policyholders. “Certainly she offers perspective from the Keys, which rely heavily on Citizens coverage. And lenders generally have an interest in seeing that reliable insurance is available in their markets at prices buyers can afford.

Workers’ Comp Retrospective Rating Bill Temporarily Postponed

Thursday 3/27/14-  HB 785, Workers’ Compensation sponsored by Rep. Ben Albritton (R-DeSoto, Hardee and Polk), was heard in the Regulatory Affairs Committee last Thursday and temporarily postponed (tp’d). This bill, which has met with limited resistance, primarily authorizes an employer to negotiate the premium for workers’ compensation coverage with the insurer who is providing the coverage.  Retro plans can be beneficial to employers who exercise claims cost means since the initial premium on a retro plan is an estimate and the final premium depends upon the employer’s losses during the policy period. While retrospective rating plans have been used in Florida for over 50 years, it has most often been the very large and sophisticated employers that have taken advantage of their potential to decrease premiums. However, since there is the same potential to increase premiums when using a retro plan, this bill contains provisions to protect insureds when retro plans are being negotiated between an employer and insurer and limits those to those employers who have: (1) exposure in more than one state; (2) an estimated annual standard workers’ compensation premium in Florida of at least $175,000; and (3) an estimated annual countrywide standard workers’ compensation premium of at least $1 million. While we will wait to see the final decision, there doesn’t appear to be a down side to Florida insurers if this bill becomes law.

Agent/Agency House Bill Passes on the House Floor

Thursday 3/27/14 –  CS/CS/HB 633, Division of Insurance Agent and Agency Services sponsored by Rep. Clay Ingram (R-Escambia) passed on the House Floor late last Thursday afternoon by a vote of 116- 0.  As reported in prior newsletters, this bill has moved fairly easily through various committees to find itself as easily passed by the full House.  This bill, along with its companion, CS/SB 1210, makes significant changes to the insurance agency licensure law to streamline the licensing process and to better align the regulation of insurance agencies in Florida with other states. The Department of Financial Services (DFS) is the state agency responsible for licensing insurance agencies in accordance with s. 626.172, F.S. In Florida, insurance agents who are sole proprietors and do not employ other insurance agents must be licensed as both an insurance agent and an insurance agency.  According to DFS, no other state requires licensure of an insurance agency when a licensed agent is the sole proprietor of the agency. Furthermore, because insurance agents are vetted by the agent licensing process, DFS believes also licensing the agency serves no purpose. The bill eliminates the insurance agency licensing requirement for agencies that are owned and operated by a single licensed agent who conducts business in her/his own name and does not employ or use other insurance licensees.

Insurance Omnibus Bill Added to Special Order Calendar for Tomorrow

Friday 3/28/14 – CS/CS/HB 565 by Rep. David Santiago (R-Volusia) was placed on Tuesday’s House calendar to be heard.  As reported in prior newsletters, this bill has a myriad of insurance reforms designed to streamline insurance processing which includes the following:

•Authorizes local government units to contract with certain corporations not for profit for insurance;

•revises original appointment & renewal fees related to certain insurance representatives;

•revises specified time period applicable to certified examination that must be filed by foreign or alien insurer applying for certificate of authority;

•prohibits an insurance agency from conducting insurance business at location without designated agent in charge;

•provides agency license requirements;

•revises qualifications for approval as mediator by DFS;

•provides grounds for department to deny an application, or suspend or revoke approval of mediator or certification of neutral evaluator;

•authorizes department to adopt rules;

•authorizes electronic transfer of unearned premium under specified circumstances; revises date by which title insurance agencies & certain insurers must annually submit specified information to OIR;

•Requirements relating to contractual liability policies that insure warranty associations; and,

•provides effective dates.

So, We Blinked Twice, Cleared the Tears, and Re-Focused on “What’s Next”

With great anticipation of the week ahead and the continued movement of the bills we are hoping and praying for, we will keep our eyes clear and not succumb to the attack of the pollen demons.  We are excited to see the momentum increase each and every day in the halls of our capitol.  We’ll stay strong for you and keep you up-to-date.

Respectfully, Lisa