Thu, Nov 27, 2014 / Updated 5:20 AM EST
Have you considered becoming an
See Your Ad Here
Property & Casualty
A DAY AGO
Most of us say "thanks" without thinking.
The Annuitized Future is Another Step Closer
GOP Lawsuit Would Take Out Vital Leg of ACA
Why FIA Producers See A Silver Lining In 3Q
Jackson Retains Top Spot In 3Q Annuity Sales
Millennials Are Overwhelmed By Retirement Saving
Penn Mutual Plans To Grow, Broaden Its Producer Base
LTCi Sales In 2015 Will Equate To $5B In Benefit Payments
Lincoln Financial Enhances Life Portfolio
How To Feel Old Before Your Time
MetLife Launches Second Variable Annuity This Month
W.Va. Supreme Court Blasts Ruling In Teachers' Annuity Contract Dispute
Symetra Settles Death Master File Claim
February 04, 2009
Surplus Lines Courting Trouble
Copyright 2009 The
Company Florida Underwriters
FEATURE STORY; Pg. 12
Surplus Lines Courting Trouble
By Fred E. Karlinsky and Richard J. Fidei; Fred E. Karlinsky is a shareholder in the law firm of Colodny, Fass, Talenfeld, Karlinsky, Abate. Richard J. Fidei is a partner in the firm. Karlinksy may be reached in the Ft. Lauderdale office at 954-332-1749 or by e-mail at
. Fidei may be reached in the Ft. Lauderdale office at 954-332-1758 or by e-mail at
. The firm also has offices in Tallahassee. The firm specializes in insurance, legislative, regulatory and transactional law, commercial and civil litigation, governmental consulting and administrative law. Its litigation practice group handles commercial, civil rights, employment discrimination and child advocacy matters in both trial and appellate levels. More information is available at
Issues Abound Related to Judges' Decisions
Significant issues have arisen in Florida's surplus lines industry that have their genesis in two recent decisions by the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11<th> Circuit. Based upon these decisions, it appears an argument could be made that surplus lines insurers have to file their policy forms with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) and comply with other standards under Florida law that heretofore were not considered to be applicable to surplus lines insurers.
Essex Insurance Company v. Meriades Zota
decision, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether certain statutory provisions found in Chapter 627, Part II of the Florida Insurance Code applied to surplus lines insurers. These provisions related to the delivery of insurance policies and the award of attorney's fees to plaintiffs under certain circumstances. Relying upon prior case law and its interpretation of legislative intent, the Supreme Court in
ultimately indicated that the provisions relating to the delivery of insurance policies and the awarding of attorney's fees set forth within Chapter 627, Part II of the Florida Insurance Code applied not only to admitted insurance companies, but also to surplus lines insurance carriers. The Supreme Court made this determination in spite of a statute that exempts surplus lines insurance from compliance with certain provisions in the Insurance Code, including those set forth in Part II of Chapter 627.
In addition to the specific provisions, which were at issue in the
decision, Part II of Chapter 627 relates to a variety of standards pertaining to insurance contracts and the filing and approval of policy forms.
In this context, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11<th> Circuit addressed in
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company
the issue of whether a surplus lines insurance company could enforce certain exemptions within a policy endorsement in order to deny a claim for legal fees previously paid to class-action counsel in a prior matter. The surplus lines insurer argued that it was exempt from the standard Florida insurance policy approval process. Traditionally, in Florida as well as nationwide, surplus lines insurers have not been required to have their policy forms filed and approved by the applicable regulatory authority. The Court, relying upon the Florida
Supreme Court's decision
indicated that there was no exemption applicable to surplus lines insurers and that the lower court needed to consider whether the policy endorsement sought to be enforced by the surplus lines insurer had been filed and approved by the OIR. If not, the court determined that the endorsement sought to be enforced by the insurer would be void and unenforceable.
In connection with a Petition for Rehearing filed by the surplus lines insurer after this decision was issued, the OIR filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the position that surplus lines policy forms do not need to be filed with and approved by the OIR. In response to the Petition for Rehearing and the OIR's amicus curiae brief, the Court denied the Petition, thereby reinforcing its initial decision on this issue.
More Court Cases
These decisions have created significant confusion within the surplus lines marketplace and have resulted in regulatory, legislative, and litigation activity.
With regard to litigation, several cases have been filed based on the
decisions. At the time of this writing, the authors are not aware of any final decisions that have been issued by the courts pertaining to the arguments raised in those cases that the subject policy forms are void and unenforceable because they were not approved by OIR.
However, based upon the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court in
and the U.S. Court of Appeals in
it is not inconceivable that the courts could hold that exclusions or other beneficial language in policy forms not approved by OIR may not be enforced by the surplus lines insurer unless they have been filed with and approved by the OIR.
From a regulatory perspective, the OIR did state its position both informally around the time of the original
decision and later in the amicus curiae brief it filed with the court in the
case in connection with the Petition for Rehearing. Furthermore, the OIR has submitted affidavits in connection with certain litigation stating its position that it does not interpret Florida law as requiring surplus lines insurers to file their policy forms for OIR approval.
This position appears to be based on the fact that, from a traditional point of view, surplus lines insurers have not been subject to the same regulation as admitted insurers, not only in Florida but throughout the country. Furthermore, the nature of surplus lines insurance, which involves unique risks, unusual coverages and insurance that may not be otherwise available within the admitted market, does not make it conducive to standardized review of policy forms.
In view of the uncertainty that currently exists with regard to these court decisions, the OIR has considered the possibility of issuing formal direction or other guidance pertaining to the filing of surplus lines policy forms. However, as of the date of this writing, OIR has not issued any directive or guidance in this regard.
Finally, efforts are underway within the industry to address this issue from a legislative perspective. Many interested industry participants have proposed possible legislative solutions in an effort to address the issues raised in the
decisions. The OIR has been involved in this process.
Different legislative solutions have been proposed and are being considered, with an overall approach of defining the scope of the exemption from compliance with Florida's Insurance Code that should apply to surplus lines insurers, including, importantly, an exemption from having to file and obtain approval of their policy forms.
Florida convened a special legislative session to address budget issues in January. This special session did not address the surplus lines issue. It is expected that this issue will be raised with the Legislature during its regular legislative session, which is to commence on March 2.
The decisions, which have been issued by the Florida Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals, have raised significant concerns within the industry that could implicate the viability of the surplus lines insurance market in Florida. Industry stakeholders would need to seriously consider whether to continue to do business in Florida on a surplus lines basis if they are required to comply with all of the laws applicable under the Florida Insurance Code, including those laws requiring approval of their policy forms. Any resultant losses in market capacity within the surplus lines industry could have a severe impact upon Florida's insurance market, particularly its property insurance market.
As a result, the ramifications and possible solutions to address the issues raised by these decisions have been subject to much consideration by industry stakeholders. While there are many concerns to address, all should agree that a quick and definitive solution to the issues raised would be most appropriate.
Photo 1, Fred Karlinsky; Photo 2, Richard Fidei
January 30, 2009
Copyright © 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms and Conditions
comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top
More Property & Casualty
Riot Damage To Ferguson Businesses Could Be Covered With Insurance
Iowa Woman Gets 10 Years For Conspiracy
Tea Company Insures Blender's Taste Buds For $1.5M
Five Arrested In Staged Accident Scheme In Florida
Don’t Drive Like Turkeys Over Thanksgiving
Wayward Cat Triggers Power Station Outage, Fries Equipment
At Thanksgiving, There's Always A Chance For Disaster
Appeals Court Overrules Insurance-Fraud Acquittal
Judge Puts Prior Conviction On Hold In $2M Crop Insurance Fraud
4 Directors To Leave Kansas Insurance Department
Survey Shows Most Drivers Distracted By Phones
New Year's Day Is Auto Thieves' Favorite Holiday
Fixing Chips: The Business Of Windshield Repair
Owners Have Little Recourse When A Pet Is Killed
Insurance Losses From 2014 Winter Storms Likely To Reach $2.5B
More Property & Casualty
Most Popular Property & Casualty
Fed Assures Congress that U.S. Controls its Reserve Standard
Personal Lines Rates Moderate
Small Business Insurance Poised For Significant Change
Commercial Rates Continue Slow Slide
3 Sentenced For Running International Car Theft Network
More Popular Property & Casualty
Hot off the Wires
Congress Turns Pro-Life! Senate Joins House: Offers Historic Opportunity To Protect Women And Children From Abortion Industry Abuses
Farm Bill safety-net provisions require careful planning
DataPath Unveils RenewCard
Allianz Life Selects Kari Hainlin as Senior Director of Operations Demand and Portfolio Management
Cigna Dental Insurance Study: Americans Need to Pay More Attention to Preventive Dental Care
More Hot News
Denotes premium content. Learn more about becoming an Insider
No thanks, continue to article.
Life & Health
Property & Casualty
Mergers & Acquisitions
Subscription to Magazine
Advertise with Us
Top Insurance News
InsuranceNewsNet.com , Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms & Conditions of Service
. Not an Insider?
Advertise with Us