<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
>
<channel>
<title>May 8 | Insurance Advocate</title>
<atom:link href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/category/2017/may-8/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com</link>
<description>Since 1889</description>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2019 09:21:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-US</language>
<sy:updatePeriod>
hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>
1 </sy:updateFrequency>
<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
<item>
<title>May 8 2017 Cover</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/12/may-8-2017-cover/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Insurance Advocate]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2017 20:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Covers]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8029</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1857" height="2560" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled.jpg" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled.jpg 1857w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled-600x827.jpg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-218x300.jpg 218w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-768x1059.jpg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024.jpg 743w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-500x689.jpg 500w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-200x275.jpg 200w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-720x992.jpg 720w" sizes="(max-width: 1857px) 100vw, 1857px" /></p>]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1857" height="2560" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled.jpg" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled.jpg 1857w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled-600x827.jpg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-218x300.jpg 218w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-768x1059.jpg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024.jpg 743w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-500x689.jpg 500w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-200x275.jpg 200w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-720x992.jpg 720w" sizes="(max-width: 1857px) 100vw, 1857px" /></p><!--themify_builder_content-->
<div id="themify_builder_content-8029" data-postid="8029" class="themify_builder_content themify_builder_content-8029 themify_builder tf_clear">
</div>
<!--/themify_builder_content-->The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/12/may-8-2017-cover/">May 8 2017 Cover</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>D.C. or Not D.C.? That is the Question.</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/d-c-or-not-d-c-that-is-the-question/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Insurance Advocate]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 16:22:22 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Cover Story]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7985</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1857" height="2560" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled.jpg" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled.jpg 1857w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled-600x827.jpg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-218x300.jpg 218w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-768x1059.jpg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024.jpg 743w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-500x689.jpg 500w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-200x275.jpg 200w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-720x992.jpg 720w" sizes="(max-width: 1857px) 100vw, 1857px" /></p><p>State Regulatory System Defended by PCI as House Hears Viewpoints The insurance industry again has its periodic task at hand, i.e., the defense of state regulation. The House seems to be getting the point, having just held a hearing entitled “A Legislative Proposal to Create Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers, and Entrepreneurs,” which itself […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/d-c-or-not-d-c-that-is-the-question/">D.C. or Not D.C.? That is the Question.</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1857" height="2560" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled.jpg" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled.jpg 1857w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-scaled-600x827.jpg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-218x300.jpg 218w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-768x1059.jpg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024.jpg 743w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-500x689.jpg 500w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-200x275.jpg 200w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Cover-5-8-17-743x1024-720x992.jpg 720w" sizes="(max-width: 1857px) 100vw, 1857px" /></p><h4><strong><em>State Regulatory System Defended by PCI as House Hears Viewpoints</em></strong></h4>
<p>The insurance industry again has its periodic task at hand, i.e., the defense of state regulation. The House seems to be getting the point, having just held a hearing entitled “A Legislative Proposal to Create Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers, and Entrepreneurs,” which itself earned the praise of at least one major trade association, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI). PCI is composed of nearly 1,000 member companies, representing a broad cross-section of insurers. PCI members write more than $183 billion in annual premiums, 35 percent of the nation’s property casualty insurance, 42 percent of the U.S. automobile insurance market, 27 percent of the homeowners’ market, 32 percent of the commercial property and liability market, and 34 percent of the private workers’ compensation market.</p>
<p>“PCI strongly supports the Financial CHOICE Act, which would benefit consumers, uphold proven effective state-based insurance regulation, strengthen the financial marketplace, and at the same time reduce federal regulatory overreach,” said Nat Wienecke, senior vice president, federal government relations at PCI. “Dodd-Frank has created extra layers of federal banking-related regulation that have spilled over into insurance, which often duplicate or undermine consumer-focused state regulation,” continued Wienecke. “The Financial CHOICE Act includes several provisions that could reduce unproductive regulatory duplication and overreach and thereby support more financial activity and economic growth. At the same time, however, it assures the continued viability of our proven effective state-based system of insurance regulation.”</p>
<p>“If enacted, the legislation will better focus regulatory efforts, better protect state-based consumer protections and better support a competitive U.S. insurance market. PCI applauds Chairman Hensarling and the House Financial Services Committee for their leadership,” concluded Wienecke.</p>
<p>PCI’s statement below on the subject is worth a read and possible modification/adoption by other groups—it is a clear statement of the industry’s generally-held view.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * * *</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Statement for the Record</strong><br />
<strong>Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI)</strong><br />
<strong> Hearing on the Financial CHOICE Act</strong><br />
<strong> House Committee on Financial Services</strong><br />
<strong> April 26, 2017</strong></p>
<p>The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) strongly supports the Financial CHOICE Act, which would benefit consumers, uphold proven effective state-based insurance regulation, strengthen the financial marketplace, and at the same time reduce Federal regulatory overreach. PCI is composed of 1,000 member companies, representing the broadest cross-section of insurers of any national trade association. PCI members write over $200 billion in annual premium in the U.S. and around the world, including 35 percent of the nation’s property casualty insurance. Member companies write 42 percent of the U.S. automobile insurance market, 27 percent of the homeowners’ market, 33 percent of the commercial property and liability market, and 34 percent of the private workers’ compensation market.</p>
<p>Regulatory compliance costs for insurers have been skyrocketing, increasing 19% over the last two years.<sup>1</sup> Over 13,000 pages of new Dodd-Frank Act regulations have been imposed since 2009, and the burden has been especially taxing for small insurers who have to reallocate three times as much of their revenue on compliance costs as large financial companies.<sup>2</sup> While insurance has been successfully regulated at the state level for over 160 years, Dodd-Frank has created extra layers of federal banking related regulation that have spilled over into insurance that often duplicate or undermine consumer-focused state regulation. PCI greatly appreciates the Committee’s work in the last Congress to enact the Policyholder Protection Act, which reaffirmed that state regulators have primary authority to resolve failing insurers and to protect insurance consumers where the insurer is affiliated with a bank or thrift that is subject to federal regulation.</p>
<p>Many community financial institutions are being hit particularly hard. For example, one PCI member insurer has a very small community depository institution with only $30.5 million in assets—less than 0.2 percent of the assets of the holding company. Since the beginning of its regulation under the Federal Reserve, this company has had significantly increased administrative burdens on their compliance and regulatory staff. In fact, twenty-five percent of its regulatory and compliance staff time is now spent communicating with the Federal Reserve on regulation of an entity that comprises only 0.2 percent of the company’s assets. Federal Reserve Board Governor Jerome Powell just last week acknowledged that “In too many cases new regulation has been inappropriately applied to small and medium-sized institutions. We need to go back and broadly raise thresholds of applicability and look for other ways to reduce burdens on smaller firms.”<sup>3</sup> Board Chairman Janet Yellen similarly stated in testimony for the Financial Services Committee that “rules and supervisory approaches should be tailored to different types of institutions.”<sup>4</sup> Despite the increasing recognition of the suffocating regulatory burden on particularly smaller insurers and other community financial institutions, relief is unlikely unless and until Congress can clarify its regulatory priorities and eliminate Fed supervision of insurers, or at a minimum make that supervision more proportional to the risk.</p>
<p>The Financial CHOICE Act includes several provisions that could reduce unproductive regulatory duplication and overreach and thereby support more financial activity and economic growth. At the same time, however, it assures the continued viability of our proven effective state-based insurance regulation.</p>
<p>In particular, the redesign of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) would be a helpful start in refocusing federal involvement in insurance to become more supportive of existing state insurance regulation by requiring it to advocate on behalf of the proven effective U.S. insurance system against harmful international threats that would actually undermine our consumer protection and our competitive markets. PCI suggests several additional amendments to this portion of the CHOICE Act to further support state regulatory efforts to protect consumers and strengthen private competitive markets. PCI also strongly supports changes to the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s (FSOC) authority that recognize the consensus of insurance regulators and experts that traditional insurance is not systemically risky, and state-regulated insurers should not be forced under an additional layer of banking regulation merely because they are large and well-diversified. PCI would suggest further amendments to the ongoing bank-like supervision of community insurers by the Federal Reserve Board to require more proportionality and risk-based supervision, with deference to insurance functional regulators.</p>
<p>PCI strongly supports provisions of the CHOICE Act that: (1) subject the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s (FSOC) funding to the appropriations process, and reforming FSOC’s authority to designate firms as systemically important financial institutions; (2) requiring greater transparency in the federal agencies’ participating in international insurance standard-setting negotiations; and (3) clarifying priorities of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and requiring it to consult with state regulators (as part of the restructuring of FIO and FSOC’s Independent Member with Insurance Expertise). The following will summarize several key amendments to the CHOICE Act, which we believe would improve an already excellent bill.</p>
<p><strong><em>Redefine and Limit the Role of the Federal Insurance Office </em></strong></p>
<p>The CHOICE Act already limits the role of FIO and merges it with the Office of the Independent Member with Insurance Expertise. However, PCI recommends that FIO’s role be further limited to international functions only and that its domestic functions be eliminated entirely. The primary reason Congress created FIO was to work with the states to provide a stable and consistent voice for the U.S. to support our regulatory system in international insurance discussions. That is still an appropriate role for FIO (or a successor entity).</p>
<p>But additional domestic mandates that were not included in initial FIO proposals were subsequently layered on that can undermine, conflict with, or duplicate core activities of state insurance regulators. For example, state insurance departments have conducted numerous studies on auto insurance rates. Every state has extensive laws and regulations governing auto insurance underwriting accompanied by rate approval authority and antidiscrimination laws. The auto insurance marketplace is one of the most competitive commercial sectors with almost no availability problems. However, even though the states are continuing to vigorously monitor the marketplace and issue periodic data calls, FIO duplicated state efforts, imposed its own studies, triggered a series of data calls in addition to what states already were requesting, and created a conflicting Federal definition of affordability.</p>
<p>FIO issued several other reports that gratuitously criticized state regulation, ignoring such metrics and the large amount of competition, the extensive consumer protection laws, and the few consumer complaints. FIO has also initiated similar dueling data calls with the states on terrorism insurance, despite specific statutory direction to coordinate data collection through the state regulators. FIO is not a regulator, but its subpoena authority to compel responses to data calls implies regulatory authority that is not in FIO’s mandate and that is appropriately the purview of state regulators and other law enforcement entities. State insurance commissioners rely on 11,300 staff to protect insurance consumers and regulate insurance market activities and should not be undermined by a Treasury office with fewer than a dozen.<sup>5</sup> The states collectively spend in excess of $1 billion regulating insurers<sup>6</sup> and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has a 2017 budget of $101.9 million and a staff of roughly 490 on top of that.<sup>7</sup></p>
<p>In addition to refocusing FIO (or a successor entity) on international activities, Title V of Dodd-Frank should further be amended to: (1) eliminate FIO’s authority to issue duplicative data calls and its unprecedented subpoena authority; (2) limit FIO’s headcount to its international staff; and (3) require FIO to consult with and represent the views of the state insurance regulatory community in international negotiations and discussions, and provide greater congressional oversight of and transparency on international insurance standards-setting processes.</p>
<p><strong><em>Require Targeted and Proportional Regulation of Insurance Companies Subject to Federal Reserve Board Supervision </em></strong></p>
<p>The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) was granted jurisdiction over insurance companies that are affiliated with thrift institutions. Only 14 remain, of which many only have tiny depository institutions. Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve supervision is quite onerous. Legislation is needed to provide for more tailored and proportional supervision of the depository institution—and not the business of insurance, which has robust holding company supervision run by state-led supervisory colleges. As noted above, current Federal Reserve regulation is often not proportional and results in tremendous costs to the affected insurer. Consumer costs are unnecessarily increased as a result of companies having to expend and often waste significant resources for inside and external counsel to interpret and respond to requests for information or interpretation of rules, some of which are duplicative to their current OCC and state regulatory requirements.</p>
<p>The CHOICE Act should therefore explicitly require more targeted and proportional Federal Reserve regulation of insurance companies only to the extent necessary to regulate the affiliated depository institution. This would be entirely consistent with recent comments from high-level Federal Reserve officials that supervision should be appropriately tailored. PCI will be pleased to work with Committee and its staff on suggested legislative language.</p>
<p><strong><em>Restrict Federal Reserve Ability to Conduct Examinations of Insurers Controlled by Banks or Thrifts </em></strong></p>
<p>The Federal Reserve Board should not be permitted to conduct examinations of, or require reports from, any insurance company that is controlled by a bank or savings and loan holding company or of a company (and its subsidiaries) that simply holds the shares of the insurance companies. Under current law, the Federal Reserve may obtain information about the financial condition and activities of insurance companies that are subsidiaries of bank and savings and loan holding companies from state insurance authorities, who have complete authority to examine insurance companies and obtain reports regarding their activities. The Federal Reserve can avoid duplicating state efforts by obtaining information directly from state insurance authorities rather than imposing additional burdens on insurance companies and their consumers.</p>
<p>Within the insurance sector, regulatory overreach and duplication limits insurers’ ability to grow their business and invest in innovation. Unnecessary or duplicative regulatory requirements imposed on insurers add costs that are ultimately paid by personal and commercial consumers through higher premiums. These costs in turn reduce productivity and prevent more beneficial expenditures such as businesses investing in research, offering new products or services, and related job creation.</p>
<p>Rising regulatory costs that create higher costs for consumers restrict their ability to buy more beneficial coverage. PCI, in conjunction with the Ward Group (AON Hewitt), conducted a corporate/regulatory compliance cost survey in 2016 which showed these expenses continue to increase annually, including a 19 percent overall increase from 2013 to 2015. In addition, because regulatory costs disproportionately impact small and medium-sized insurers, they can force consolidation and reduce competition.</p>
<p>PCI recommends that the Bank Holding Company Act and the Home Owners’ Loan Act should be amended to more appropriately target the Federal Reserve’s examination authority for insurers controlled by a bank or thrift to focus on systemic risks or risks to the federal deposit insurance fund. PCI will be pleased to work with the Committee and its staff on suggested legislative language.</p>
<p><strong><em>Elimination of Federal Reserve Authority over Insurers That Are Holding Companies</em></strong></p>
<p>Some insurance holding companies now supervised by the Federal Reserve have an insurance company as the controlling entity. In this case the primary functional regulator, the insurer’s state insurance department, is supervising the entire group, and Federal Reserve supervision risks duplication and conflict. The Bank Holding Company Act and the Home Owners’ Loan Act should be amended to provide that an insurance company that (1) controls a bank or another bank holding company is not a bank holding company for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act, or (2) controls a savings association or another savings and loan holding company is not a savings and loan holding company for purposes of the Home Owners’ Loan Act if it is principally engaged in the business of insurance. A company should be deemed to be principally engaged in the business of insurance if the company’s assets attributable to the company’s insurance activities are more than 50 percent of the consolidated assets of the company. If the insurance company is not a bank holding company, a subsidiary of the company (such as an intermediate company that directly or indirectly controls the bank or savings association) also will not be a bank or savings and loan holding company.</p>
<p>The Bank Holding Company Act and the Home Owners’ Loan Act should be amended to eliminate Federal Reserve authority over controlling insurers. PCI will be pleased to work with the Committee and its staff on suggested legislative language.</p>
<p><strong><em>Reform the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), Eliminate Non-Bank Systemic Risk Designations and Strengthen the Independent Insurance Expert</em></strong></p>
<p>FSOC has designated multiple insurance companies as SIFIs (systemically important financial institutions) over the objection of its insurance expert and state regulators. In addition, it has failed to create uniform criteria for designation of a clear and unambiguous exit ramp, and its procedures lack fundamental transparency.</p>
<p>There may continue to be a role for FSOC in “looking over the horizon” and coordinating with functional regulators, including state insurance commissioners. For these reasons, PCI supports CHOICE Act provisions that retain the FSOC, but limit its ability to designate systemically important financial institutions. If FSOC is continued, however, the Independent Insurance Expert’s office should be enhanced with employees that are selected and managed by the Independent Expert, not by Treasury, and the office should be funded independent of the Treasury Department. The Independent Insurance Expert’s office is disadvantaged in comparison with other FSOC members by its lack of independent staff and resources. PCI also recommends that a representative of the state insurance regulatory community should be added as a voting member of FSOC. In addition, PCI has recommended the creation of a State-Federal Insurance Coordination Partnership to provide a structure under which FIO (or a successor agency) can coordinate with states and better represent state regulators’ views in international discussions.</p>
<p><strong><em>Other CHOICE Act Provisions </em></strong></p>
<p>PCI also strongly supports several non-insurance-specific provisions of the CHOICE Act, including (1) requiring federal financial regulators to conduct a cost-benefit analysis before issuing rules; (2) increasing the accountability of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), including repealing the CFPB’s authority to ban financial products it finds “abusive,” and clarifying that insurance is beyond the CFPB’s jurisdiction and (3) elimination of the Chevron deference doctrine under which the courts defer to agency interpretations in judicial review of federal financial agencies’ rules.</p>
<p><strong><em>Conclusion </em></strong></p>
<p>PCI strongly supports the regulatory improvements embodied in the Financial CHOICE Act, which could be further strengthened by the recommended amendments. If enacted, the legislation will better focus regulatory efforts, better protect state-based consumer protections and better support a competitive U.S. insurance market.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>___________</p>
<p><sup>1</sup> Property-Casualty Insurance Association of America and Aon Hewitt Ward Group, <em>Corporate and Regulatory Compliance Practices</em>, 2016, p. 8.</p>
<p><sup>2</sup> Id.</p>
<p><sup>3</sup> Jerome Powell, Governor, Federal Reserve Board, Brief Remarks before the Global Finance Forum, Washington, DC, April 20, 2017.</p>
<p><sup>4</sup> Statement by Janet L. Yellen, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, September 28, 2016.</p>
<p><sup>5</sup> National Association of Insurance Commissioners, <em>Insurance Department Resources Report</em>, 2016.</p>
<p><sup>6</sup> Id.</p>
<p><sup>7</sup> NAIC Budget, 2017.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/d-c-or-not-d-c-that-is-the-question/">D.C. or Not D.C.? That is the Question.</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Winners’ Circle … and Then Some</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/winners-circle-and-then-some/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Acunto]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 16:19:50 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Foreword]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7982</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>When Always Dreaming crossed the finish line first to win the Kentucky Derby convincingly, he carried more than a talented jockey with him. The horse’s owners, joined together as Brooklyn Boys with a formidable stable of race horses, are two wealthy men well known in New York: Vincent Viola, recently offered the post of Secretary of […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/winners-circle-and-then-some/">Winners’ Circle … and Then Some</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When <strong>Always Dreaming</strong> crossed the finish line first to win the <strong>Kentucky Derby</strong> convincingly, he carried more than a talented jockey with him. The horse’s owners, joined together as Brooklyn Boys with a formidable stable of race horses, are two wealthy men well known in New York: <strong>Vincent Viola,</strong> recently offered the post of Secretary of the Army, and <strong>Anthony Bonomo</strong>, an insurance leader who has appeared in these pages many times as head of PRI, insurer of 13,000 New York doctors and scores of healthcare facilities. While both, evidently, are risk takers of a high magnitude, both heads of accomplished families, both fond of their roots, and both philanthropists, the important link, to me, is that wealth and good fortune have not compromised either man. This is not about two Italian-Americans and their Brooklyn roots, working class families, Sunday dinners <em>en famille,</em> or any of the other “local boy makes good” stories—it is that, but more.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/INA-5-8-174.jpg"><img decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-7983 alignright" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/INA-5-8-174-212x300.jpg" alt="" width="212" height="300" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/INA-5-8-174-212x300.jpg 212w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/INA-5-8-174.jpg 291w" sizes="(max-width: 212px) 100vw, 212px" /></a>The ethnic clichés are easy. “Giving back” to one’s community is easy, especially for men of means, but what is <strong>not </strong>easy is doing it with real affection and without that pasted smile condescension that marks so many “returning” sons. For years this writer has watched Anthony Bonomo in action. He helps everyone—generous, no strings, no worship needed, no “ask back” and no secondary agenda. Each year he and his brother <strong>Carl</strong> have supported the largest Italian Festival in Brooklyn , maybe New York, the famous <strong>Giglio Festival</strong>, and Anthony has been there actually assisting in the carrying of the giglio and helping the local parish materially and through that reliable spiritual bond that is ever ineffable. Anthony has supported local colleges, universities, creative individuals writing plays, films, and books and, all the while, he has never asked for his name to be plastered on anything or exalted. Viola is the same way—service first, good before self.</p>
<p>As head of the company that has operated <strong>PRI </strong>for better than 25 years, Bonomo’s sometimes-stressful gamble on one of the most difficult lines of insurance has paid off for the insureds—providing the one real alternative market for medical practice in New York, for the staff of 300-plus employed in Roslyn, and for the risk taker himself. It is a formula that has worked, despite an often insane trial bar, usually unbridled awards from activist judges, often unappreciative regulators, a legislature that never seems to catch up with the realities of the marketplace, and from some unduly well-publicized predators who have taken advantage of a generous friend’s willingness to offer help to some who proved quite mal-intending. It is the mark of a good man that he never suspects evil in others, never dreams that a friend would saddle him with the weight of deceit. It is the mark of one who is always dreaming of a better condition for those he cherishes and for what he cherishes.</p>
<p>And so in this year’s Kentucky Derby two good men won deservedly. As <strong><em>Insurance Advocate</em></strong> and as advocates ourselves, we cannot help but take pride in Anthony Bonomo’s win in particular, especially after the uphill, muddy track race he has run in medical malpractice insurance, and in the defense of a company and a market that will never really repay him fully for the stamina and determination he has shown throughout the race. When he was in the Winner’s Circle that Saturday afternoon, he had his customary self-possession and actually apologized on national TV to his grandniece for missing her First Communion party back on Long Island.</p>
<p>That was no staged anything; that is who he is and why he has run his race so admirably<strong>. SA</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/winners-circle-and-then-some/">Winners’ Circle … and Then Some</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Independence Requires Expertise</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/independence-requires-expertise/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Deapo]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 16:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[On the Level]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7979</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Technology…it’s invaded nearly every aspect of our lives today. It’s almost impossible to function without it. Did anyone ever dream the time would come where you would actually take time off to avoid using technology? There is no business more affected by technology than insurance. It’s changing the way we operate our business. It’s creating […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/independence-requires-expertise/">Independence Requires Expertise</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Technology…it’s invaded nearly every aspect of our lives today. It’s almost impossible to function without it. Did anyone ever dream the time would come where you would actually take time off to avoid using technology?</p>
<p>There is no business more affected by technology than insurance. It’s changing the way we operate our business. It’s creating new risks and exposures. It’s changing how we market and sell coverage. The ability to gather, analyze and use data has caused some insurance providers to believe they can offer insurance protection without asking the applicant any underwriting questions. It is truly a game changer.</p>
<p>Any agency that doesn’t have the knowledge and resources to understand and apply technology in every aspect of their operation will be unable to remain viable and grow going forward. Don’t misunderstand me—I still believe the real value of an agency lies in the insurance knowledge, expertise and commitment of its people. The problem is you can’t attract and retain new clients, as well as effectively and efficiently retain and service all clients, without the significant use of technology in every facet of your business.</p>
<p>I think the day has come where an agency of any size is going to have to employ a dedicated person or persons in charge of analyzing and implementing various forms of technology to assure agency effectiveness. Currently many agencies have someone who holds primary responsibility for the agency management system, however that is just one piece of the overall needs of today’s successful independent agency.</p>
<p>Social media, digital marketing, SEO, mobile technology, cyber security, agency systems support, disaster preparedness, customer contact and relationship building, electronic claims handling, live chat, remote employees, virtual employees, data analysis, artificial intelligence and chatbots are just some of the technological features being used in agencies today.</p>
<p>Researching, planning and successfully implementing these various areas takes the skills of someone with significant background in technology. Even if an agency intends to outsource many of these items, it needs someone on staff who understands today’s technology and can evaluate and implement the most cost effective option.</p>
<p>With today’s commission structure and the cost of ever-improving hardware and software, the last thing any agency wants to deal with is an additional staff position dedicated to guiding the agency in the effective use of technology. Unfortunately, I don’t see how any agency can expect to grow and flourish today and in the future without having such a person. It’s very possible that staffing needs like this are partially contributing to the increased mergers and acquisitions we are seeing as agencies search for ways to meet the increased costs and changing needs of operation.</p>
<p>If the technology position is filled with a skilled and effective person, their work and decisions should have a positive impact on the revenue of the agency. Excelling in social media, digital marketing, SEO and mobile technology will help the agency market itself by attracting new clients as well as retaining existing clients. Cyber security, agency systems support, customer contact and relationship building, and electronic claims handling make the customer delivery system more effective and efficient—cutting costs and improving customer satisfaction. Data analysis allows for a better understanding of clients that can lead to more effective marketing and handling of their needs. Live chat, remote employees, virtual employees and chatbots cut costs and improve service for those clients looking for 24/7 service capabilities.</p>
<p>So what’s the point? The point is that with the significant invasion of technology into the independent agency system, most agencies have a need for a dedicated person who understands today’s technology and can make sure the agency is using it effectively. They need to be able to explore the options, selecting the best one for the agency based on need and cost. Agencies that don’t integrate such a position will struggle and eventually fall behind in effectiveness and revenue. To stay relevant and effective an agency must have the leadership necessary to keep them at the forefront of where our business is going.</p>
<p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/independence-requires-expertise/">Independence Requires Expertise</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Catching Fire with your Content</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/catching-fire-with-your-content/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Paradiso]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 16:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[The Social Notebook]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7975</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>What exactly do we mean by “catching fire” in terms of your agency’s digital content marketing? Well, simply put, to get more visibility in the social world, your agency is going to need shares, and a lot of them. So the million-dollar question is this: how can you get more people to share more of […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/catching-fire-with-your-content/">Catching Fire with your Content</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What exactly do we mean by “<strong><em>catching fire</em></strong>” in terms of your agency’s digital content marketing? Well, simply put, to get more visibility in the social world, your agency is going to need shares, and a lot of them. So the million-dollar question is this: how can you get more people to share more of your insurance agency’s content? Well, first and foremost, I’m going to tell you that social media is the number one tool when it comes to getting shares in the digital space, as we reviewed in our <em>Paradiso Presents </em>article on social media vs. email marketing. Before we get into how you can get your content to “catch fire” with more shares on social media, first let’s observe why this should be a key factor to every agency’s digital marketing strategy.</p>
<p>First and foremost, more shares mean more traction online, and we are always looking to be bigger and better. Each time someone clicks the “share” button on your content, you have the ability to reach an entire new network of people. Even if you aren’t directly connected with that individual’s friends or network, they can still see your content and your posts through the power of shares. Overall, this means more visibility for your insurance agency online. That’s critical when it comes to things like branding and the customer experience, and with more shares, you can capitalize on both. Not to mention we are in a business of renewals, and social media is a great way to nurture your existing customer and client relationships. They say that “great minds think alike,” and if people see their friends and family sharing your content, they’ll be more apt to stick with you for the long haul as well. Let’s look at the three key psychological triggers that will make your audience more apt to hit the share button, and how your agency can capitalize on this strategy.</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>People Like to Interact in Groups</strong></li>
</ol>
<p>When it comes to social media, everyone wants to be a part of the “in” crowd, or get a sense that they are well connected with their network. By nature, people would rather be part of a group of like-minded individuals than to take our journeys alone, and there’s no questioning it. The thing is that digital avenues have pushed the envelope when it comes to building connections. Previously, we’d only really become social when we went out, such as going to work, church, a restaurant, a party, and so on. Now, with social media, we can connect from anywhere and in real time. The way we connect has changed slightly, because now it’s through a <em>like</em>, <em>comment</em>, or <em>share</em>. Some people even interact with posts for the sole purpose of being more social. For that reason, we can’t think directly about how we can earn a like or share, but instead focus on how we can help people connect with their friends and family. Importantly, if someone were to share content with their friends and family and tag them, then you could potentially have a warm lead when it comes time for that individual’s renewals. So how exactly can we focus our content on helping our audiences’ friends and families? Well, the answer lies within the next two psychological triggers.</p>
<ol start="2">
<li><strong>People Like to Make Themselves Look Good </strong></li>
</ol>
<p>This shouldn’t be news to anyone, but to be frank, people like to make themselves look good. This is one of the more common reasons why people like to share content online. Jonah Berger, the author of <em><u>Contagious: Why Things Catch On</u></em>, wrote that “Before people share a piece of content, they evaluate its social currency. The better it makes them look, the more likely they’ll be to pass it on,” and he’s absolutely right. One thing that people often overlook is that simply discovering content doesn’t make you awesome, but we are competitive, and that is how it makes us feel in the moment. People are even more apt to share content that they haven’t already seen in the news feed from one of their other friends, because that has the mental stimulation of “look what I found first,” or “look what I know about before you do.” Either way, they are sharing something that they found to be interesting. In fact, Buffer cited in <a href="https://blog.bufferapp.com/psychology-of-facebook">one study</a> that 61% of shares online come from content that people find helpful and interesting, even ahead of content that folks find funny or important. If your content is interesting or helpful, then people think that sharing it will make them look good, and that’s critical—which actually leads us to our last psychological trigger.</p>
<ol start="3">
<li><strong>People Naturally Want to Support or Help Others </strong></li>
</ol>
<p>Naturally, it feels great to help others, or watch them succeed. That is why it makes so much sense that people are most prone to sharing content from which they feel their network will benefit. This also works in multiple ways: If they feel as though they are helping you by sharing your content, such as sharing content ab<a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/For-Social-Article_Shared-on-facebook.jpg"><img decoding="async" class="size-medium wp-image-7969 alignright" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/For-Social-Article_Shared-on-facebook-300x175.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="175" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/For-Social-Article_Shared-on-facebook-300x175.jpg 300w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/For-Social-Article_Shared-on-facebook-600x349.jpg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/For-Social-Article_Shared-on-facebook-768x447.jpg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/For-Social-Article_Shared-on-facebook.jpg 893w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></a>out a cause that you support, then they will be more likely to get behind it with you. This is especially important to your visibility on social media, because if there are causes that your agency cares about, then you should certainly post about them. In the screenshot below, you can see our agency’s number one most-shared piece of content on Facebook, which is supporting our troops, a cause we care dearly about.</p>
<p>We saw many shares on social media due to the nature of this content, and because this was a cause we care deeply about, our audience wanted to support us. This shared content was also great for our agency, because it spoke to our agency’s brand as well. By sharing this post, we were able to reach a wide audience while supporting our brand, and that is what social media is all about. When it comes to getting more shares, you just have to <strong>stand for something</strong>. All too often, insurance agencies are trying not to take stances, or just post simply about insurance products or services. Frankly, that will not get you much traction. A wise man, Winston Churchill, once said, “You have enemies? Good. That means you stood up for something sometime in your life.”</p>
<p>All in all, it is critical for your agency to focus on shares when it comes to your social media strategy. Your content will have more visibility, engagement, it will help strengthen your brand, and overall you’ll see more client/customer retention when it comes time for renewals. Be sure to focus on producing content that will either make someone feel like they looked good sharing it, that they helped someone, or simply provide a place for people with common interests to collaborate, and I guarantee that you will see more shares in the social world. To all agents and brokers out there, I wish you the very best with your social media strategy as we move forward in 2017.</p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/catching-fire-with-your-content/">Catching Fire with your Content</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>IIABNY Heads Off Draconian Penalty Increases in State Budget</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/iiabny-heads-off-draconian-penalty-increases-in-state-budget/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Insurance Advocate]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 15:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[In The Associations]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7973</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Budget agreement also includes IIABNY-supported ride-sharing measures Dewitt, New York—Thanks to the efforts of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of New York (IIABNY), insurance producers have been spared drastically larger penalties for violating the state’s insurance law. The state budget the New York Legislature adopted over the weekend dropped the governor’s proposal for increased […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/iiabny-heads-off-draconian-penalty-increases-in-state-budget/">IIABNY Heads Off Draconian Penalty Increases in State Budget</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><strong> Budget agreement also includes IIABNY-supported ride-sharing measures</strong></em></p>
<p><strong>Dewitt, New York</strong>—Thanks to the efforts of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of New York (IIABNY), insurance producers have been spared drastically larger penalties for violating the state’s insurance law. The state budget the New York Legislature adopted over the weekend dropped the governor’s proposal for increased penalties.</p>
<p>Current law permits the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) to fine violators up to $1,000 per offense. Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s proposed budget would have allowed DFS to assess fines up to the greater of:</p>
<ul>
<li>$10,000 per offense</li>
<li>Double the aggregate damages attributable to the violation</li>
<li>Double the aggregate economic gain the individual made from the violation</li>
</ul>
<p>IIABNY lobbied extensively over the past couple months against the measure, calling it unwarranted. It told the Legislature that an agency that forgets to renew one of its four licenses may face a $10,000 fine for each policy it sells while the license is lapsed. Fines of this size could put a small agency out of business because of an oversight. Insurance agencies are busy counseling clients and helping them obtain the right coverage at a reasonable cost. Disproportionate penalties like these hurt consumers and business owners by reducing the number of trusted advisors they may have.</p>
<p>IIABNY Interim President and CEO Lisa K. Lounsbury, CAE, AAI, AIS said, “We are very pleased that the State Assembly and Senate rejected these onerous proposals. Driving well-meaning insurance agencies out of business over simple mistakes would do no favors for New York’s small businesses and households, who rely on their advice. The Legislature’s decision requires those who break the law to pay penalties that are proportionate to the offense, but no more than that.”</p>
<p>The final budget does not include any increase or change in the current penalties under the Insurance Law. It also leaves out other proposals IIABNY opposed. These included expanded DFS authority to sue violators of the insurance law and authority to ban people from the insurance business for life.</p>
<p>The budget also includes approval of ride-sharing services in upstate New York. IIABNY has been involved in discussions to allow ride-sharing, also known as transportation network companies (TNCs), to operate in areas outside of New York City. The group’s primary concern has been potential ambiguities or gaps in the insurance covering TNC drivers and their passengers.</p>
<p>The budget agreement sets minimum amounts of liability insurance that TNC drivers must carry while they are available to give rides, and higher amounts when they have passengers. They can obtain the insurance themselves or rely on coverage the TNC provides. The TNC must also provide $1.25 million in Supplementary Uninsured / Underinsured Motorists Coverage, which covers drivers’ and passengers’ bodily injuries caused by other drivers with no or insufficient liability insurance.</p>
<p>The budget agreement makes it clear that a personal automobile insurance policy does not have to cover a driver’s TNC activities. TNCs must inform drivers about the insurance coverages they provide and that the driver’s own personal insurance may not provide any coverage for the driver’s TNC activities.</p>
<p>The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of New York, Inc. has represented the common business interests of independent insurance professionals since 1882. More than 1,750 agencies and their 13,000 plus employees currently rely on the DeWitt, New York-based not-for-profit trade association for legislative advocacy, continuing education and other means of industry support. In addition, most IIABNY members proudly identify themselves as Trusted Choice® agents and brokers, a national consumer brand uniting more than 21,000 independent agencies across the United States.</p>
<p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/iiabny-heads-off-draconian-penalty-increases-in-state-budget/">IIABNY Heads Off Draconian Penalty Increases in State Budget</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Home Appliances — Helps or Hazards?</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/home-appliances-helps-or-hazards/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guest Author]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 15:42:55 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[MSO Inc.]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7971</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1600" height="1066" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire.jpg" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire.jpg 1600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-1024x682.jpg 1024w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-1024x682-500x333.jpg 500w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-1024x682-720x479.jpg 720w" sizes="(max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px" /></p><p>By Sue C. Quimby, CPCU, AU, CIC, CPIW, DAE – Assistant Vice President/Media Editor Home appliances have drastically changed how people live over the last century. They are great time savers and convenience items, as well as providing entertainment. However, these gadgets and products that are meant to make life easier are also responsible for […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/home-appliances-helps-or-hazards/">Home Appliances — Helps or Hazards?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1600" height="1066" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire.jpg" class="attachment-full size-full wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire.jpg 1600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-1024x682.jpg 1024w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-1024x682-500x333.jpg 500w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Kitchen-Fire-1024x682-720x479.jpg 720w" sizes="(max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px" /></p><p><small>By Sue C. Quimby, CPCU, AU, CIC, CPIW, DAE – Assistant Vice President/Media Editor</small></p>
<p>Home appliances have drastically changed how people live over the last century. They are great time savers and convenience items, as well as providing entertainment. However, these gadgets and products that are meant to make life easier are also responsible for millions of dollars in insured and uninsured losses each year. The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) estimates that major appliances are involved in over 150,000 fires in residences per year, causing over $547 million in damage, 150 deaths and 3,670 injuries. Helping clients understand the potential drawbacks and hazards of home appliances is another sign of the true insurance professional.</p>
<p>Contrary to what might be assumed, cooking and heating equipment is not the only source of these fires. Any type of appliance, including clothes washers/dryers, refrigerators, dishwashers, and air conditioners, can be involved. For example, in the kitchen, fires caused by non-cooking appliances—mainly refrigerators, freezers, separate ice makers and dishwashers—resulted in $75 million in direct property damage from 2006-2010. In addition, approximately 234 fires per year are confined to the cooking vessel, incinerator or trash bin, and therefore not included in the home structure fire statistics (<a href="http://www.nfpa.org">www.nfpa.org</a>).</p>
<p>In 2010, clothes dryers and washing machines were the cause of an estimated 16,800 structure fires, resulting in $236 million in damage to property. This represents 4.5% of all reported home structure fires, 1.9% of associated civilian deaths, 2.8% of associated civilian injuries, and 3.1% of associated direct property damage (<a href="http://www.nfpa.org">www.nfpa.org</a>).</p>
<p>More complex technology means more things that can go wrong. Think of a blender. No longer do they have only an on-off switch. Some have over a dozen settings including programming capabilities and microprocessors. Coffeepots have timers to allow them to have a pot ready first thing in the morning.</p>
<p>Clothes dryers are implicated in 2,900 home fires each year, resulting in 5 deaths, 100 injuries and $35 million in damage. The most common reason for clothes dryer fires is maintenance—failure to clean them. Outside vents should be covered to prevent dirt, rain and snow from entering, as well as nest building. Clean lint filters before and after use, and also check the back of the dryer where lint can also accumulate. Be sure the connections are not crushed when dryer is pushed against the wall.</p>
<p>Rigid metal dryer ducts are preferable to ones that can sag and allow lint to collect. Care should be taken when moving the dryer to avoid crushing the duct. Maintenance of ducts is also important to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning, a deadly combustion byproduct. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that all gas appliances should be inspected on an annual basis by professionals to ensure that all connections are intact, and that cords are not frayed or worn.</p>
<p>Microwave ovens have been alleged to turn on by themselves and cause fires so often that a class action suit was brought against one manufacturer in 2009. Toasters and ranges can also self-start. Toasters should be checked regularly and crumbs removed. Never leave such appliances unattended while they are operating. Unplug appliances when traveling away from home. Although it might seem like a great idea to run washers, dryers and dishwashers while nobody is home, this is not recommended.</p>
<p>Over 15 million appliances were recalled from 2007-2011. From 2007-2009, nearly seven million dishwashers alone, from several manufacturers, were recalled due to fire hazard. Causes of the fires included wiring and improper maintenance or product design. The CPSC website (<a href="http://www.cpsc.org">www.cpsc.org</a>) lists over 4,500 recalled appliances. In addition to the CPSC, there are companies that offer a notification service to consumers if any of their registered appliances are recalled. Some home inspection companies offer a check for recalled appliances as part of their service. At the minimum, consumers should register their purchases with the manufacturer so they may be notified of any recalls.</p>
<p>Appliances make our lives easier, but they are not without their dangers. Helping clients understand and avoid potential losses is another value-added service of the professional insurance agent.</p>
<!--themify_builder_content-->
<div id="themify_builder_content-7971" data-postid="7971" class="themify_builder_content themify_builder_content-7971 themify_builder tf_clear">
</div>
<!--/themify_builder_content-->The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/home-appliances-helps-or-hazards/">Home Appliances — Helps or Hazards?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Simple American Solution for Today’s Government-Caused Health Care Crisis</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/a-simple-american-solution-for-todays-government-caused-health-care-crisis/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Guest Author]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 15:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Guest Opinion]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7967</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Where words are many, sin is not wanting.” Proverbs 19:10 By: Dr. W. Scott Magill, Executive Director, ViDoL, USMC/USArmy-Med.Corps The 2016 platform to repeal the worst healthcare law in American history resulted in one-party control of executive and legislative branches of the federal government in 2017. But voters soon re-learned that campaign promises are simple […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/a-simple-american-solution-for-todays-government-caused-health-care-crisis/">A Simple American Solution for Today’s Government-Caused Health Care Crisis</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Where words are many, sin is not wanting.” Proverbs 19:10</em></p>
<p><em>By: Dr. W. Scott Magill, Executive Director, ViDoL, USMC/USArmy-Med.Corps</em></p>
<p>The 2016 platform to repeal the worst healthcare law in American history resulted in one-party control of executive and legislative branches of the federal government in 2017. But voters soon re-learned that campaign promises are simple to make, yet hard to keep. It’s all so much more complicated and difficult, we are told, than repealers would have us believe.</p>
<p>Really? Perhaps rather than asking how government can repeal the monstrous law it created, we should first look back in time, a time most of us still remember well, and ask a simpler question:</p>
<p>QUESTION: How did America create the greatest healthcare system in the world?</p>
<p>ANSWER: The Free Market. The free market is simply people doing what they feel is in their best interest, without having to consider what the government wants. In healthcare, that means a person who wants to be healthy seeks the services of specialists who want to be paid to keep them that way. Insurance companies added another benefit people wanted—preventing financial ruin in the event of serious illness or disability—and competed for Americans’ dollars in the Free Market. This created the worst healthcare system in the world, except for all the others.</p>
<p>In the last century the federal government complicated and ruined everything by forcing its own “experts” into that beautifully simple, mutually beneficial private relationship. Politicians and bureaucrats looked at Americans not as people or patients, but as “their citizens.” They saw healthcare not as a personal service, but as a limited commodity to be distributed according to the wisdom of government planners in collusion with insurance corporations and hospital chains.</p>
<p>This repugnant, anti-liberty government-insurance-hospital collusion culminated in ObamaCare, resulting in the guaranteed outcome of all corruption-driven rationing—higher costs, lower supply, falling quality. Will government bureaucrats ever learn? No. Which is why voters revolted at the polls, and must do so again now, by forcing government back into its constitutionally defined limits.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, the simple answer to restoring a fair and beneficial healthcare system in our country is right there in our Constitution and in our history.</p>
<p>Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (enumerated powers) gives Congress no authority to interfere in our healthcare. So the first action Congress must take is to repeal ObamaCare, thereby honoring the rule of law, their oath of office and the campaign promises of many.</p>
<p>And lest there be any confusion, the definition of repeal is: to revoke, rescind, cancel, reverse, annul, nullify, declare null and void, quash, abolish, vacate, abrogate and recall. Note the absence of the word “modify.”</p>
<p>Once repealed, the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce clause does give Congress authority to unleash the Free Market in support of consumers by allowing insurance sales across state lines. Long-overdue legislation could finally clear the way for the states’ insurance commissions to adjust their rules and regulations, increasing competition for better coverage at lower rates. Americans regain their ability to choose their doctors and buy insurance which best suits their needs, unencumbered by arbitrary government-mandated restrictions or requirements to purchase unwanted coverage.</p>
<p>Additionally, national legislation should allow patient co-ops, to which Americans have easy access to join. Through these large co-ops, Americans will be able to reap the benefits of the economies of scale provided by that Free Market solution.</p>
<p>So while the Constitution prohibits the government from intruding into our private personal healthcare, it does empower the Congress to unleash the power of the Free Market through the Interstate Commerce clause, all happily addressed in the Necessary and Proper Clause. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in <em>McCulloch v. Maryland</em>: “…Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”</p>
<p>Decades of increasingly complex government controls have made the health care system more expensive, less responsive, and set it on a path to failure. By applying the American values of free choice and free markets, Congress has an opportunity to return control of the health care system to the consumer—the patient—and governance of health care decisions will be returned to its proper position, the relationship between patients and their physicians.</p>
<p>How simple, how right, how American.</p>
<p>So let’s just do it. Let’s repeal ObamaCare, boot the federal government out of illegally meddling in our private bodily business, and open up the Constitutionally-sanctioned power of our marvelous Free Market to increase the quality and lower the cost of healthcare for all Americans.</p>
<p>It’s a solution so simple, even a Congressman can understand it!</p>
<p>_____________________</p>
<p><em><a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Magill-Dr.-William-Scott.png"><img decoding="async" class="size-full wp-image-7968 alignright" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Magill-Dr.-William-Scott.png" alt="" width="154" height="170" /></a>Dr. William Scott Magill served with the United States Marine Corps (1965-1971), the United States Army Medical Corps (1981-1988), and the Denver Police Dept. (1970-1976). He obtained his bachelors of Business Administration from the University of Denver, Masters of Health Care Administration Trinity University in San Antonio, and medical degree from the University of Health Sciences in Kansas City. Dr. Magill matriculated his residency in Ob/Gyn at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, and served as the Chief of Ob/Gyn at Irwin Army Hospital, Ft. Riley, Kansas. He was until recently a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist in Springfield, Missouri for 21 years.” As an author and lyricist, Dr. Magill has authored such pieces as “Here we go again,” “The Greatest Generation,” “The Requiem of the Brave,” “The Battle Hymn of the Americans,” “Seek ye the Bridge in the Forest,” “The Pledge of Allegiance, say it with pride, say it with understanding,” and “The Birth of A Great Nation.” His writings and/or interviews have appeared in the</em> Journal of Military Medicine<em>, the</em> Anglican Digest<em>, the </em>Chronicle Republican, Springfield News Leader<em>, the </em>Washington Times<em> and the </em>New York Times<em>, among others.</em></p>
<p><em>As a gallant warrior in the cause of liberty, Dr. Magill served as President and Executive Director of an organization, intent on returning the American culture to the beliefs and principles of those 56 men, our Founding Fathers, who pledged their “Lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” that liberty and justice might prevail throughout the ages.</em></p>
<p><em>Dr. Magill is the founder and executive Director of Veterans in Defense of Liberty (ViDoL). After 30 years of practice, including some 9000 deliveries, Dr. Magill closed his doors in order to devote all of his efforts to the survival of the U.S. Constitution. Dr. Magill stated at that time, “If we can establish, for the first time in American history, that vehicle for American veterans to fulfill their oath, which did not vanish when we took off our uniforms for the last time, this will be a full time effort.”</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/a-simple-american-solution-for-todays-government-caused-health-care-crisis/">A Simple American Solution for Today’s Government-Caused Health Care Crisis</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>PIACT Offers Testimony in Support of TNC Legislation, Voices Reservations about the Current Proposal</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/piact-offers-testimony-in-support-of-tnc-legislation-voices-reservations-about-the-current-proposal/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Insurance Advocate]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 15:33:28 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[In The Associations]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7965</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>HARTFORD, Conn.—In testimony before the state Senate Insurance & Real Estate Committee on April 18, Professional Insurance Agents of Connecticut President Kenneth A. Distel offered testimony supporting legislation that would create comprehensive legislation for transportation network companies. However, Distel noted the association’s concerns with insurance gaps that would be created by H.B.7126 to establish insurance […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/piact-offers-testimony-in-support-of-tnc-legislation-voices-reservations-about-the-current-proposal/">PIACT Offers Testimony in Support of TNC Legislation, Voices Reservations about the Current Proposal</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>HARTFORD, Conn.—</strong>In testimony before the state Senate Insurance & Real Estate Committee on April 18, Professional Insurance Agents of Connecticut President Kenneth A. Distel offered testimony supporting legislation that would create comprehensive legislation for transportation network companies. However, Distel noted the association’s concerns with insurance gaps that would be created by <a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB07126&which_year=2017">H.B.7126</a> to establish insurance requirements for taxicabs.</p>
<p>PIACT has advocated for the adoption of comprehensive regulations for TNCs in the state since 2015. One of the association’s primary goals for regulating these companies is to eliminate gaps in insurance, which can lead to nonpayment for injuries and damages caused by auto accidents, putting drivers, passengers, pedestrians and others at risk.</p>
<p>In his testimony, Distel explained that H.B.7126 would create a gap in insurance because it repeals existing statutory insurance requirements for taxicabs and liveries, leaving them without a suitable replacement.</p>
<p>“As drafted, the bill brings taxicabs and liveries under what is essentially the same insurance regulatory regime applicable to TNCs,” said Distel. “Specifically, the coverage requirements that apply to TNC drivers during period one (1) [when they are connected to an internet-software application, but not currently transporting a passenger] will now also apply to taxi and livery drivers. The bill does not define an internet-software application; require the taxi or livery driver to be connected to an internet application; or address the issue of coverage should the taxi or livery driver not be connected to such an application.”</p>
<p>Distel further explained how the lack of definitions in the bill creates a coverage gap when taxicabs and liveries engage in activity not covered under the TNC model (e.g., picking up street hails; being dispatched via radio to pick up passengers for hire).</p>
<p>“If the bill is legislated in its current form, there are presumably no minimum liability requirements for a taxi or livery vehicle that is not connected to an internet-software application during period one (1),” said Distel. “This creates a situation in which the mandatory commercial limits during this period could be interpreted as either being nonexistent or as permissible to be well below those required when they are connected.”</p>
<p>Distel recommended the following changes regarding H.B.7126: adjustments to regulations covering taxicabs and livery insurance should be made in separate legislation; if adjustments are made, gaps in insurance coverages should be avoided; and insurance policies should be priced based on the presented risk.</p>
<p>“PIACT appreciates the concern that the Senate Committee has demonstrated for our state’s ride-hailing public and those who will drive in that industry,” said Distel. “We want to make sure that they are safe and when accidents happen, they are adequately covered. PIA looks forward to working with the committee on H.B.7126 toward this mutual goal.”</p>
<p><strong><em>PIACT is a trade association representing professional, independent insurance agencies, brokerages and their employees throughout the state.</em></strong></p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/piact-offers-testimony-in-support-of-tnc-legislation-voices-reservations-about-the-current-proposal/">PIACT Offers Testimony in Support of TNC Legislation, Voices Reservations about the Current Proposal</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Qui Tam Action Takes the Profit Out of Fraud</title>
<link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/qui-tam-action-takes-the-profit-out-of-fraud/</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Zalma]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 15:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[2017]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[May 8]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[On My Radar]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=7961</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Judgment In Favor of Qui Tam Plaintiff Insurer Can Be Enforced In California an insurer can, on its own behalf and on behalf of itself and the state, bring a qui tam action. When the state does not join in the action the insurer may try the action alone. In People ex rel. Allstate Insurance […]</p>
The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/qui-tam-action-takes-the-profit-out-of-fraud/">Qui Tam Action Takes the Profit Out of Fraud</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h4><em><strong>Judgment In Favor of Qui Tam Plaintiff Insurer Can Be Enforced</strong></em></h4>
<p>In California an insurer can, on its own behalf and on behalf of itself and the state, bring a qui tam action. When the state does not join in the action the insurer may try the action alone. In <em>People ex rel. Allstate Insurance Company v. Dahan,</em> California Court of Appeal — Cal.Rptr.3d, 2016 WL 4917188 (9/15/2016), Allstate obtained a judgment against fraud perpetrators and tried to collect.</p>
<p>A private party who brings a qui tam action for insurance fraud under Insurance Code section 1871.7, where the district attorney and the Insurance Commissioner decline to intervene, is entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the action plus fees and costs.</p>
<p>The court was confronted with the novel question whether the judgment-debtor defendants in such an action have standing to challenge the trial court’s post-judgment order allocating the judgment amount between the prevailing plaintiffs, i.e., the private party and the State.</p>
<h4><span style="color: #3366ff;"><strong>FACTUAL BACKGROUND</strong></span></h4>
<p>Allstate Insurance Company, et al. (Allstate), as private-party plaintiff or “relator,” brought a qui tam action on behalf of itself and the State of California (together plaintiffs), against defendants Daniel H. Dahan and his affiliated corporation, Progressive Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. (together defendants), pursuant to the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (§ 1871.7 (IFPA)). Neither the district attorney nor the Insurance Commissioner opted to take over the lawsuit.</p>
<p>The trial court entered judgment against defendants, finding that plaintiffs had proven 487 claims for violation of Penal Code section 550 by defendants, and awarding a total of $7,010,668.40, comprised of $5,788,516.78 in civil penalties and assessments, and $1,222,151.62 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses of investigation. (The qui tam judgment.)</p>
<p>Following entry of the qui tam judgment, Allstate began efforts to collect it. During its investigation, Allstate learned of a series of real estate transactions conducted by defendants designed to transfer away their assets. Allstate, on behalf of the State, filed an action to set aside the fraudulent transfers of real and personal property.</p>
<p>Defendants demurred to the operative complaint on the ground that Allstate lacked standing to proceed with the fraudulent transfer suit, in part because the judgment in the qui tam action was never allocated between Allstate and the People pursuant to section 1871.7, subdivision (g)(2)(A), with the result that Allstate had no stake in the qui tam judgment or authority to pursue collection of that judgment from defendants.</p>
<p>The trial court in the instant qui tam action granted Allstate’s allocation motion and entered judgment.</p>
<h4><span style="color: #3366ff;"><strong>DISCUSSION</strong></span></h4>
<p><em><strong>The Qui Tam Procedure</strong></em></p>
<p>Anyone engaging in insurance fraud in violation of Penal Code sections 549, 550, or 551 is subject to penalties and assessments. (§ 1871.7, subd. (b).) Section 1871.7 provides for civil penalties of not less than $5,000 to $10,000 for each fraudulent claim presented to an insurance company, plus assessments of not more than three times the amount of each claim for compensation, and equitable relief.</p>
<p>Section 1871.7 authorizes “any interested persons, including an insurer” to bring a qui tam civil action “<em>for the person and</em> for the State of California” to recover penalties and equitable relief for fraudulent insurance claims. (Italics added.)</p>
<p>When the state declines to intervene, as in this case, the relator tries the action and is entitled by subdivision (g)(2)(A) of section 1871.7 to a “bounty” of between 40 and 50 percent of the proceeds of the action “for collecting the civil penalty and damages” along with “an amount for reasonable expenses that the court finds to have been necessarily incurred, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs,” which fees and costs are imposed against the defendant.</p>
<p>Defendants acknowledge that “this Appeal has no effect on that [qui tam] Judgment” and does not alter defendants’ obligation to pay the $7 million. Based on a plain reading of section 1871.7, subdivision (g)(2)(A), the bounty in cases in which the People do not intervene <em>is</em> for trying and collecting the judgment. When the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no need for statutory construction or resort to other indicia of legislative intent, such as legislative history.</p>
<p>The right to levy on the $7 million qui tam judgment was Allstate’s for the additional reason that the insurer was the direct victim of defendants’ insurance fraud. Unlike the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)), where the relators are people with knowledge of the fraud but not victims of that wrong, under California’s IFPA the direct victims of the fraud are the relator-insurers and their insureds.</p>
<p>Allstate, as the direct victim who prosecuted the action and prevailed without the People’s participation, necessarily had the right to collect the civil penalty and damages<em>.</em> To hold otherwise would be absurd given the California qui tam IFPA action is brought not merely on behalf of the People but “<em>for the person and</em> for the State of California” (§ 1871.7, subd. (e)(1), italics added), and where the qui tam judgment here, drafted by defendants, was written in favor of <em>all</em> plaintiffs, not just the People. Therefore, an allocation order is not a prerequisite to Allstate’s right to enforce the judgment; it neither “changed” nor “legitimized” Allstate’s legal right to <em>collect</em> the proceeds of the action from defendants, a right Allstate always had as relator.</p>
<p>As the allocation order is not a prerequisite to Allstate’s ability to levy on the qui tam judgment under section 1871.7, subdivision (g)(2)(A), and given defendants’ concession that the appeal has no effect on, and does not alter their obligation to pay the $7 million qui tam judgment, defendants are not aggrieved by the allocation order and have no standing to appeal from it.</p>
<p>In the absence of standing by defendants as appellants, the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.</p>
<h3><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>ZALMA OPINION</strong></span></h3>
<p>Allstate should be commended for expending the funds necessary to obtain a judgment against fraud perpetrators for itself and the state of California and for taking the steps necessary to collect that judgment. The defendants refuse to pay the judgment and Allstate has been forced to work through the court of appeal to even move to collect on the judgment and take the money from false transfers of assets made to avoid paying the judgment. The greatest deterrent to insurance fraud is taking the profits out of fraud and I can only hope that Allstate continues its efforts and actually collects the judgment.</p>
<p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/05/08/qui-tam-action-takes-the-profit-out-of-fraud/">Qui Tam Action Takes the Profit Out of Fraud</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>