Colodny Fass Featured in Federation of Regulatory Counsel June 2012 Update
Jul 2, 2012 | By Colodny Fass
Colodny Fass attorneys were featured contributors to the Florida section of the Federation of Regulatory Counsel’s (“FORC”) June 2012 “FORC Alert.” To view the publication, click here. The articles are reprinted below.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Colodny Fass.
Florida Office of Insurance Regulation Seeks to Expand Credit for Reinsurance From Eligible Reinsurers to Apply to Life Insurance
The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation is seeking to amend Rule 69O-144.007, F.A.C, entitled “Credit for Reinsurance From Eligible Reinsurers” to apply to life insurance and not just property and casualty insurance. The Rule was initially adopted to implement provisions of Section 624.610(3)(e), F.S., which give the Florida Insurance Commissioner authority to allow credit for reinsurance that does not meet criteria established in Sections 624.610(3)(a)-(d), if the assuming insurer holds surplus in excess of $250 million and has a secure financial strength rating from at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations deemed acceptable by the Commissioner.
Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Insurance Fee Schedule Issue Certified to Florida Supreme Court –
In the case of Geico v. Virtual Imaging, No. 3D11-581, the Third District Court of Appeal has certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as being one of great public importance: “WITH RESPECT TO PIP POLICIES ISSUED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2008, MAY THE INSURER COMPUTE PROVIDER REIMBURSEMENTS BASED ON THE FEE SCHEDULES IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 627.736(5)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES, EVEN IF THE POLICY DOES NOT CONTAIN A PROVISION SPECIFICALLY ELECTING THOSE SCHEDULES RATHER THAN ‘REASONABLE MEDICAL EXPENSES’ COVERAGE BASED ON SECTION 627.736(1)(a)?” To view the Court’s full opinion, click here.
Florida Office of Insurance Regulation Establishes Speed-to-Market Property Casualty Personal Lines Form Filings Review
The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (“OIR”) issued an Executive Order on June 25, 2012, in which it established “speed-to-market” review of all property and casualty personal lines forms except workers’ compensation. OIR officials indicated that, while approximately 1,200 commercial form filings are eligible for the speed-to-market initiative, insurers have utilized the process for only 36 of these filings to date. To view the Order, click here.
Florida Office of Insurance Regulation: Workers’ Compensation Excessive Profits Reporting Form (OIR-B1-15) Not Required Under CS/HB 941
The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation issued an Informational Memorandum on May 9, 2012, advising insurers that the Workers’ Compensation Excessive Profits Reporting Form (Form OIR-B1-15) is not required to be filed this year due to changes under CS/HB 941, which was recently enacted. To view the Informational Memorandum, click here.
Finally, Definitie Answers from The Florida Supreme Court on Bad Faith and the Effect of Non-Compliant Notice Provisions in Policies
On May 31, 2012, in QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Ass’n., Inc., the Florida Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in response to questions certified from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit as being determinative of a case pending in that court for which there was no controlling Florida precedent. The case arises from a Hurricane Wilma insurance claim by a condominium association against its insurer, QBE. The condo association was dissatisfied with QBE’s investigation and processing of its claim and filed suit alleging various claims for breach of contract, declaratory relief, statutory policy violations and breach of implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing. A jury ultimately found QBE liable on all claims and the trial court entered a multi-million dollar judgment against QBE. QBE posted a bond and appealed the judgment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court that it believed the Florida courts had not definitively answered. To view the opinion, click here.