|
WHO WE ARE...
The Independent Insurance Agents of
America (IIAA) is a national alliance of 300,000 small business owners and
their employees who sell all types of
insurance.
Unlike company-employed agents, IIAA
members represent more than one insurance company, so they can offer
clients a wider choice of auto, home, business, life and health insurance
products.
IIAA members not only advise clients
about insurance, they recommend loss-prevention ideas that can cut costs.
If a loss occurs, the independent agent stands with the client until the
claim is settled.
IIAA was founded in 1896 as the
National Local Association of Fire Insurance Agents. With the expansion of
property-casualty business and coverages, the organization’s name was
changed to the National Association of Insurance Agents in 1913. To
emphasize its members’ ability to work with a variety of insurance
companies, the organization became the Independent Insurance Agents of
America in 1975.
IIAA is a voluntary federation of
state associations and local boards. Its members are politically astute
and are involved both locally and nationally. They monitor and affect
insurance agent issues in Washington through IIAA’s active, professional
staff on Capitol Hill. Their willing support has made IIAA’s political
action committee—InsurPac—one of the largest federal trade association
PACs in the nation.
FEDERAL ISSUES
FINANCIAL SERVICES/PRIVACY
STATE INSURANCE REGULATION
NATURAL
DISASTER INSURANCE
TAXES
MANAGED CARE REFORM
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE
OSHA ERGONOMICS STANDARDS
E-SIGNATURE LEGISLATION
LIABILITY REFORM
INSURPAC
IIAA GRASSROOTS PROGRAM
IIAA GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS STAFF
FINANCIAL
SERVICES/PRIVACY
After more than 20 years of working on financial
services reform legislation, IIAA and its 300,000
members scored a
significant victory last year when Congress passed and President Clinton
signed the Financial Services Modernization Act (S. 900) into
law.
This new financial services law repeals Depression-era restrictions
on the merging of banking and securities entities as well as restrictions
in the National Bank Act on the commingling of banking institutions and
insurance companies and agencies. More importantly from the perspective of
independent insurance agents, the law contains significant functional
regulation provisions that bolster state insurance regulation of all
insurance providers—including banks—and protect the competitiveness of the
insurance marketplace.
The law includes a reaffirmation of state insurance regulation, 13
safe harbors that protect selected types of state bank-insurance laws from
preemption by federal regulatory bodies, and a requirement that all
providers of insurance be licensed by the state insurance departments. It
also contains a provision mandating equal treatment of state and federal
regulators’ views in legal proceedings contesting state laws enacted after
S. 900’s passage into law. However, as with all laws, this one is not
perfect. There are gray areas and ambiguities regarding state insurance
regulation that need to be clarified by Congress in the future.
S. 900 also contains a privacy section
that requires all financial services entities, including independent
agents, to inform customers of their privacy policies and how they plan to
use confidential information. These regulations will be promulgated and
put into effect by each of the 50 state insurance departments and federal
regulatory agencies by November.
Differing privacy bills have been offered in state legislatures and
it’s clear that the country could end up with a convoluted patchwork
system that would be confusing to consumers and small business customers
as well as all financial services providers. IIAA is working with the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), state legislators
and the insurance industry to ensure uniformity in privacy laws and
regulations. Simplicity for consumers and protection of agent proprietary
information and confidential consumer information is a paramount goal.
IIAA wants to ensure that agency privacy disclosure forms are simple and
straightforward. Lastly, the Administration is unveiling a bipartisan
privacy bill that it expects to push this year on Capitol Hill.
On another issue related to the new financial services law, several
bills are being debated on the state level that purport to implement the
tenets of S. 900. But in fact these proposals would severely restrict
states’ rights and the authority of insurance commissioners to oversee
every entity engaged in insurance sales. IIAA strongly opposes such
measures and is working to identify and defeat such proposals.
IIAA POSITION:
IIAA is working toward uniformity and simplicity in state privacy
laws and regulations. Independent insurance agents believe privacy laws
and the implementing regulations must be consumer friendly and easy to
understand and protect agent proprietary information and confidential
consumer information. IIAA is opposing proposed state laws that purport to
implement S. 900 requirements but actually will restrict state regulatory
authority.
STATE INSURANCE REGULATION
Enacted to offset a Supreme Court opinion declaring the business of
insurance to be interstate commerce subject to federal antitrust laws, the
McCarran-Ferguson Act has stood since 1945 as the insurance industry’s
Magna Carta, asserting as a matter of public policy state insurance
regulation and the industry's limited exemption from antitrust laws.
While Congress can explicitly legislate federal jurisdiction over
areas of insurance and antitrust law should a need arise (i.e. the 1986
Risk Retention Act), direct Congressional intervention until recently has
been rare. The McCarran-Ferguson Act has endured, with both Congress and
the courts repeatedly reaffirming the public benefit of the Act’s
fundamental policy prescriptions.
In recent years, the McCarran-Ferguson Act and state insurance
regulation have been under attack by the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency (OCC). Via regulatory fiat, the OCC is attempting to free
national banks from state insurance oversight. All facets of state
insurance law are threatened if the OCC deems they “significantly
interfere” with the ability of national banks to sell insurance. The OCC’s
rulings contravene federal law and Congressional intent and undermine the
states’ authority to regulate a significant part of the nearly
$600-billion insurance market. If the OCC continues unchecked by Congress,
many basic state laws and important consumer protection measures could be
preempted.
Following on the heels of enactment of comprehensive financial
services reform legislation last year, non-insurance industry groups led
by the American Bankers Association Insurance Association have begun
advocating creation of a federal insurance regulator, similar to the
banking system’s dual federal-state oversight structure.
IIAA is opposing this dual regulatory
proposal for several reasons. First, Congress should allow all
regulators—both federal and state—to put into place regulations that will
implement the functional regulation tenets of the Financial Services
Modernization Act (S. 900) that was enacted last year. It is
inappropriate, and premature at best, to consider a federal insurance
regulation proposal before the new law has been fully implemented. Second,
Congress has already settled the insurance regulatory issue when it chose
functional regulation as part of the new financial services law. Third,
creation of a federal insurance regulator will lead to a disjointed,
bifurcated regulatory system, with insurance entities—an insurance
company, agent or bank—with different charters being regulated
differently. There is the potential under a bifurcated system for
differently chartered insurance entities to be regulated very
disparately.
IIAA
POSITION:
IIAA strongly supports state insurance regulation and the
enhancement of state regulation when necessary. IIAA opposes any changes
to the McCarran-Ferguson Act that would reduce competition, disrupt
markets or prohibit the ability of insurance companies and agents to
conduct pro-consumer activities. IIAA opposes the OCC’s efforts to preempt
state insurance laws and regulations. IIAA opposes efforts to establish a
federal insurance regulator. Congress should allow the functional
regulation tenets in S. 900 to be implemented before considering any
changes that would preempt state insurance regulation and damage
competitiveness in the insurance marketplace.
NATURAL DISASTER
INSURANCE
The high cost of natural disasters and fear of future catastrophes
have restricted homeowners’ insurance availability in disaster-prone
regions. Multi-billion-dollar disasters, such as Hurricane Andrew and the
Northridge Earthquake, demonstrate that insurance companies could become
insolvent if overly concentrated in disaster-prone areas. As a result,
many insurance companies have limited new business in or withdrawn from
at-risk markets, making it difficult for residents to purchase homeowners
coverage.
Florida, California and Hawaii have created programs to prevent or
forestall an insurance availability crisis. Several states are considering
similar proposals. While states should address availability problems,
there is a financial limit to their programs. Some large disasters could
exceed the financial capacity of even the most carefully constructed state
program. The Florida and California programs have a $10 billion maximum
capacity and the Hawaii program has only a $1.5 billion capacity. Each
state could experience a catastrophe that will greatly exceed their
program’s capacity.
Rep. Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.) and over 110
bipartisan cosponsors have offered the Homeowners Insurance Availability
Act (H.R. 21), which was approved by the Banking Committee by a 34-18
bipartisan vote last November. The proposal would assure the continued
availability of homeowners insurance in disaster-prone areas by allowing
the Treasury Department to sell up to $25 billion of reinsurance directly
to qualified state programs and indirectly—via an auction process—to
insurance companies. H.R. 21 is a hybrid of two bills offered by Lazio and
Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.). During Housing Subcommittee consideration in
the last Congress, Lazio merged elements of his state program reinsurance
proposal with McCollum’s plan for an auction of reinsurance to insurance
and reinsurance companies.
Without H.R. 21’s backstop, state residential programs and
insurance companies could fail after a major catastrophe, leaving
policyholders without the protection they paid for when they need it most.
This federal backstop will provide states and companies with financial
resources over their capacity to cover losses. H.R. 21 has been scored
revenue-neutral by the Congressional Budget Office.
In the Senate, Sen. Ted Stevens
(R-Alaska) introduced largely similar legislation called the Natural
Disaster Protection and Insurance Act (S. 1361), which is pending before
the Commerce Committee.
The Clinton Administration has indicated a desire to work on
disaster reform legislation, saying there is a “strong case for prudent
participation of the federal government in the market for disaster
insurance in a way that reduces both the private costs of these events and
the costs to society as a whole.”
IIAA
POSITION: IIAA strongly supports H.R. 21/S.
1361. The legislation will help make homeowners insurance available and
ensure that state-run catastrophe programs and individual companies will
be able to fully pay claims following a major catastrophe. Passage of H.R.
21/S. 1361 will lessen the need for federal emergency appropriations and
ensure residents of disaster-prone areas will voluntarily pay to pre-fund
much of future disaster costs. H.R. 21/S. 1361 will provide reinsurance
protection against losses that are likely to occur less than once every
100 years, meaning that 99 percent of catastrophes will continue to be
covered by the private insurance market.
TAXES
For 2000, the top tax issues for
independent agents are repeal of the installment sales ban and elimination
of estate and gift taxes.
The ban prohibits the use of the installment sales method by
accrual-basis taxpayers and forces payment of capital gains taxes upfront,
instead of when the installment payments are received. The provision was
part of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (Public Law
106-170) enacted last year. A significant number of small business
transactions use the installment sales method. It offers sellers
flexibility in structuring the sale and enables them to get a higher
price, and allows buyers to purchase a business that normally would not
qualify for bank financing. The ban is driving down the price of small
businesses by up to 20 percent, complicating many sales and collapsing
others. The ban was targeted at larger, accrual-basis businesses, but
instead has reduced the value of small businesses and hampered
family-business perpetuation.
IIAA is supporting two repeal proposals
offered earlier this year. They are the Installment Tax Correction Act
(H.R. 3594) introduced by Reps. Wally Herger (R-Calif.), John Sweeney
(R-N.Y.) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and cosponsored by 114 bipartisan
members; and S. 2005 offered by Sen. Conrad Burns and cosponsored by
Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles (R-Okla.), and Sens. Wayne Allard
(R-Colo.), Rod Grams (R-Minn.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and 29 bipartisan
senators.
Estate and gift tax repeal could aid
the survival of family-owned independent insurance agencies following the
principal owner’s death. IIAA supports the Family Heritage Preservation
Act (H.R. 86) introduced by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), House
Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
and cosponsored by 202 bipartisan members. IIAA also is supporting the
bipartisan Death Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 8) introduced by Reps. Jennifer
Dunn (R-Wash.) and Tanner. A Joint Economic Committee study found that
estate taxes absorb between 37 percent and 55 percent of a business’s net
worth. It also found that small businesses that pay huge estate tax bills
use resources that could have grown the business and created jobs.
The House voted to repeal the
installment sales ban and provide estate tax relief when the chamber
approved the Small Business Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 3832) in March by a
257-169 bipartisan vote. H.R. 3832 was merged with a minimum wage increase
bill (H.R. 3846).
IIAA is opposing an Administration
proposal to tax nonprofit trade associations. The Administration’s budget
proposes to raise $1.5 billion over five years by taxing association’s
interest, dividend, royalty and rental income that exceeds $10,000
annually. This plan would
amend tax code sections that exempt 501(c) organizations’ investment
income from taxation. This tax increase could force associations to
abandon many endeavors that make them valuable to the government—setting
safety standards, providing job training, and offering volunteer services
to the needy. This proposal comes as the Congressional Budget Office is
projecting record 10-year surpluses of as much as $4.2 trillion.
IIAA POSITION: Repeal of the
installment sales ban and elimination of estate and gift taxes are top
IIAA priorities. IIAA is calling on Congress to reject the
Administrations’ proposed tax on the passive income of associations.
MANAGED CARE REFORM
For the last several years, broad-based
health care reform was a marquee issue on Capitol Hill. This Congress, the
focus is on more limited managed care reform. There are two leading
proposals, each with similar, yet different approaches to making managed
health care more user friendly. Republicans and Democrats agree to a
large extent on a number of different sub-issues, generally in alignment
on emergency-room coverage, a ban on “gag clauses,” direct access to
obstetrician-gynecologists and pediatricians, and broader disclosure of
information.
However, the dividing line is over whether people can sue health
plans—or possibly their employer—for denied or delayed benefits. Democrats
and the Administration support lawsuits, while Republicans generally favor
external review processes and other arbitration measures. There has been a
softening in the House GOP’s opposition to medical plan liability, raising
hopes for passage of legislation in 2000.
The House passed the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act
(H.R. 2990) by a 227-205 vote last October. Sixty-eight Republicans voted
with Democrats to allow patients to sue health plans. Linked to H.R. 2990
is an “access” provision that IIAA supports. This provision proposes to
help uninsured people obtain coverage through creation of association
health plans, expansion of medical savings accounts, and full
deductibility for health insurance premiums, including coverage purchased
by self-employed individuals. Even with these positive access provisions,
IIAA opposes this bill because of its liability concerns. In the Senate, a
bill—also called the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act (S.
1344)—was approved by a 53-47 vote in July, with only two Republicans
opposing the measure. IIAA supports S. 1344, which does not raise
liability issues.
Independent agents also are concerned about health plan liability.
IIAA wants to ensure agents are not held liable for medical care decisions
they were not involved in and to make certain that any managed care reform
bill does not impact their errors & omissions coverage.
A House-Senate conference committee is working to
reconcile the two divergent proposals. Many Senate Republicans still
oppose allowing patients to sue their health plan. However, with the
changing dynamic in the House, the Senate may have to accept some level of
liability. One possible compromise mentioned by House Majority Leader Dick
Armey (R-Texas) is allowing patients to sue only after they have exhausted
internal and external reviews of care decisions.
IIAA
POSITION: While IIAA
supports health care reform, legislation must be carefully crafted to
avoid increasing costs, raising the number of uninsured, or damaging the
role of the private sector. IIAA is supporting the Senate’s Patients’ Bill
of Rights Act (S. 1344). IIAA does not believe patients should be allowed
to sue health plans because lawsuits could hinder the delivery of care and
drive up the cost of health insurance, causing many people to lose
coverage and employers to discontinue offering health insurance to
employees. IIAA favors a strong expedited external appeals process to
settle patient appeals quickly without burdening the health care system
with additional costs that usually are passed onto consumers.
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE
For independent agents, the crop insurance reform debate revolves
around two important issues. The first centers on whether most of the $6
billion of increased funding provided in the fiscal year 1999 federal
budget should be used for raising premium subsidies or direct payments to
farmers. The second is whether state anti-rebating laws should be
preempted to allow nonprofit cooperatives to engage in questionable
insurance sales practices that, in many instances, run counter to state
law.
IIAA supports raising premium levels
for crop insurance policies as a way to encourage farmer participation in
the agriculture risk management program. The Association is adamantly
opposing proposals to allow farm cooperatives to purchase crop insurance
and rebate part of the premium to farmers, and believes such a provision
would run counter to state anti-rebating and sales and solicitation
laws.
IIAA’s overriding objective in the overhaul of the crop insurance
program is to ensure that farmers are well-served and protected, and that
independent agents continue to be the most effective distribution channel
for crop insurance. Any reforms must continue to use the expertise of
independent agents. It is imperative that free-market incentives remain to
ensure maximum coverage of farms.
IIAA is supporting a Senate bill—the Risk Management for the
21st Century Act (S. 1580)—approved by the Agriculture
Committee in March. This proposal would use most of the increased program
funding to raise premium levels for the purchase of higher coverage levels
by farmers. Also, S. 1580 does not include language permitting farm
cooperatives to purchase coverage for their members and give them
rebates.
On the other side of the Capitol, IIAA opposes a provision in a
reform bill approved by the House last July, the so-called “cooperative
selling” section. While the bill—the Agricultural Risk Protection Act
(H.R. 2559)—provides increased premium subsidy funding, it also includes
an onerous provision that would enable cooperatives to purchase bare-bones
catastrophe policies for farmers and rebate part of the premium to the
farmer.
On “association selling,” IIAA believes
state laws barring rebating should not be preempted to allow cooperatives
to rebate policies for their members. Any bill approved by Congress should
respect state law. To preempt state anti-rebating laws would threaten the
states’ ability to ensure a level playing field for all licensed agents
selling crop insurance policies. IIAA strongly believes that all groups—a
cooperative, association or independent agent—should be subject to
relevant state laws. State regulators, not Congress or unelected
bureaucrats, should determine what is illegal in insurance sales.
IIAA
POSITION: IIAA supports the general tenets of
reforming federal crop insurance to provide a greater safety net for
farmers, as long as private sector agents remain the most effective
delivery channel and funding for such expansion does not come at the
expense of program delivery costs. IIAA strongly urges Congress to support
the licensing, sales and solicitation laws of their states so consumers
will continue to be protected from deceptive sales practices and the crop
insurance marketplace remains competitive. IIAA is calling on Congress to
increase funding of premium subsidies to spur farmer participation.
IIAA is strongly opposing workplace ergonomics standards
released last year by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) because they threaten to escalate compliance costs for millions of
businesses—small and large alike—and impinge on the state-based workers’
compensation system.
OSHA released standards for remediation
of workplace repetitive stress injuries despite an admonition from
Congress against action—setting the stage for a showdown between the
Administration and Congress. OSHA says the standards will protect the
nation’s workers from repetitive stress injuries, while Congress charges
that the standards are not based on scientific discovery and should be
delayed until an ongoing in-depth study is completed.
In 1998, Congress and the President
agreed to authorize a $1 million study by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)—due January 2001—to examine the relationship that may exist between
workplace tasks and repetitive stress injuries. Congress called on OSHA to
wait for the NAS study results before implementing ergonomics regulations.
Congress and small business groups like
IIAA are scrutinizing implementation costs. OSHA claims the standards
could save $9 billion each year. However, a conflicting estimate comes
from the Small Business Administration, which says the rules would cost
businesses $18 billion annually. Also, the House Committee on Education
and the Workforce has noted in a report adopted by the chamber that OSHA’s
estimates are significantly underestimated. IIAA believes the disparity
over compliance costs is reason enough to delay implementation until after
the NAS study. This study will definitively establish any relationship
between workplace tasks and repetitive stress injuries and the appropriate
corrective steps.
IIAA also is concerned that OSHA’s
proposed medical-care and wage-replacement requirements overlap existing
state-based workers’ compensation systems and present a significant and
unwarranted intrusion into a successful social insurance program. The
standard’s compensation requirements could raise job injury compensation
costs for employers—opposite the intended effect.
OSHA’s intrusion in the state-based
workers’ compensation system also would greatly expand the scope of
employer liability. The proposed ergonomics standards could lead workers
to file claims for injuries not resulting from workplace tasks. Claims
could be filed alleging injury due to multiple causes not exclusive to the
workplace, yet employers will bear the cost and burden of these new
claims. IIAA believes the current workers’ compensation system has worked
well for both employers and employees and there is no need to reinvent
this successful program merely to provide federal regulators a toe-hold in
an area long regulated by the states.
IIAA is supporting the Workplace
Preservation Act (H.R. 987) introduced by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and
passed by the House, and a companion Senate measure (S. 1070) offered by
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.). Both
proposals require OSHA ergonomics regulations to be grounded in sound
science (i.e. the NAS study) and attempt to stop OSHA from expanding its
jurisdiction into the state-based workers’ compensation system.
IIAA POSITION: IIAA supports the Workplace Preservation Act (H.R.
987/S. 1070) because it will ensure that proposed ergonomics standards are
based on sound scientific data. IIAA believes OSHA should wait for the NAS
study before implementing these standards.
E-SIGNATURE
As the dot-com business world continues to expand at a breakneck
pace, both Congress and the states are seeking to establish the legal
acceptance of electronic signatures to bind contracts—called electronic
records—consummated online between parties. While agents support the goal
of this legislation, IIAA has liability concerns that must be addressed
before it can support the legislation.
An e-signature is defined as information or data, or an electronic
sound, symbol or process attached to or logically associated with an
electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to
sign the electronic agreement.
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has
adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) that a number of
states either have adopted or are debating. UETA creates a comprehensive
statutory scheme that would be established in each state to regulate all
aspects of contract formation, execution and retention in an electronic
environment.
Both congressional chambers have adopted e-signature measures
designed to recognize online contract acceptance. The House approved the
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (H.R. 1714) by a
356-66 bipartisan vote in November. Also that month, the Senate adopted
the Millennium Digital Commerce Act (S. 761) by unanimous consent. Both
bills create a federal rule that would permit the substitution of
electronic records and e-signatures for “pen-and-paper” contracts, albeit
through different means that have little effect on independent
agents.
For agents, the issue centers on their
agency’s liability when there is a deficiency in the agreed-upon
e-signature or e-record procedures resulting in damage to one of the
parties to the agreement. Both H.R. 1714 and S. 761 contemplate that the
parties to a contract may use any electronic mechanism that they see fit
to execute a contract. The problem for independent insurance agents, and
anybody else acting in an agency capacity, is that they are not parties to
the contract. Agents will be required to use whatever e-signature
procedure insurance companies dictate, but agents and brokers may still be
required to assume liability for any shortcomings in those procedures. For
example, an insurance agent who believes he or she is properly binding an
insurance contract through e-signature procedures that turns out to be
deficient may have liability exposure if the company subsequently denies
coverage for a claim that should have been valid.
To remedy this problem, IIAA advocates adoption of an amendment by
the conference committee that would make clear any agent acting under the
direction of a contracting party would not be liable for any deficiency in
the e-signature and e-record procedures agreed to by the parties. Failure
to do so could create uncertainty and a liability concern for anyone
serving in an agency capacity.
IIAA POSITION: While IIAA
supports the overall objectives of e-signature legislation, agents are
concerned that they could be exposed to undue liability created by
shortcomings in e-signature and e-record procedures. IIAA urges Congress
to include in the House-Senate conference agreement on e-signature
legislation a provision that expressly makes clear that any agent acting
under the direction of a contracting party would not be liable for any
deficiencies in e-record procedures.
LIABILITY REFORM
Unlike previous Congresses, when broad product liability reform was
the focus on Capitol Hill, the 106th Congress instead is
focusing its energies on more targeted liability reform proposals. Reform
proponents shifted their focus after an unsuccessful effort last
Congress.
Despite the lack of interest in broad-based liability reform
legislation, a national, uniform product liability law is still needed to
address the inherent problems of an unfair and inefficient civil justice
system that hurts American consumers and entrepreneurs. Repeated
legislative failures have left Congress, consumers and businesses with a
disjointed system.
The vast array of product liability laws that manufacturers,
businesses and consumers encounter has suppressed entrepreneurial
creativity, hampered business development and stagnated job growth due to
fear of frivolous “get-rich-quick” lawsuits. Without national uniformity,
it has become virtually impossible for insurers to offer a predictable and
marketable liability policy.
Both the House and Senate are
considering companion legislation—the Small Business Liability Reform Act
(H.R. 2366/S. 1185)—offered respectively by Rep. Jim Rogan (R-Calif.) and
Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.). The legislation would limit small business
exposure to punitive damages and joint-and-several liability for
non-economic damages in any civil action. Punitive damages would be
limited to the lesser of two times the amount for economic and
non-economic damages, or $250,000. In cases of joint-and-several
liability, small business product sellers would no longer be financially
responsible for product-related injuries except in cases where the seller
is directly responsible for the harm.
Neither of these provisions applies to lawsuits involving egregious
misconduct and states could opt out. The measure does not shut off
people’s ability to sue. It does not limit a plaintiff’s ability to sue a
small business for an act of negligence and it does not prevent a
plaintiff from recovering from product sellers when those sellers are
responsible for harm. A small business is defined in the proposal as an
entity or organization with 25 or fewer employees. IIAA is supporting H.R.
2366/S. 1185 because it will deter unwarranted, frivolous, and wasteful
litigation against small businesses. The House passed H.R. 2366 in
February, while the Senate has yet to debate the companion bill.
On another targeted liability reform measure, IIAA is supporting
the Class Action Fairness Act (S. 353), which would allow litigants in
class action suits to move cases involving interstate issues into federal
courts, which generally have been more protective of consumers’ and
defendants’ rights in such litigation. Also, federal courts are better
equipped to deal with these complex cases. The bill’s provisions would not
change anybody’s rights to sue.
IIAA
POSITION:
IIAA supports a national, uniform product liability law in order to
provide a predictable and marketable product liability insurance policy.
IIAA is supporting H.R. 2366/S. 1185 because it will deter unwarranted,
frivolous, and wasteful litigation against small businesses. Additionally,
to protect consumers’ and defendants’ rights IIAA is supporting S. 353,
which would not hinder an individual’s ability to sue.
INDEPENDENT INSURANCE
AGENTS OF AMERICA
POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE
InsurPac, the political action committee (PAC) of the Independent
Insurance Agents of America, was established in 1975 to complement IIAA’s
legislative program. It is the largest property-casualty insurance
industry PAC in the country.
By pooling the voluntary and individual financial contributions of
thousands of independent agents, InsurPac helps elect candidates and
re-elect members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate who
share IIAA’s business philosophy. IIAA’s government affairs department, in
conjunction with the appropriate state association, selects the federal
campaigns that are to receive InsurPac financial support.
InsurPac and IIAA are separate but affiliated organizations.
InsurPac’s governing board of trustees is appointed by IIAA’s Executive
Committee. All InsurPac disbursements are reported to the Federal Election
Commission (FEC). Copies of InsurPac reports are available for purchase at
the FEC office in Washington, D.C.
INDEPENDENT INSURANCE
AGENTS OF AMERICA
GRASSROOTS PROGRAM
HOW TO PROTECT AND
PROMOTE YOUR BUSINESS
The Independent Insurance Agents of America’s (IIAA) grassroots
program is the backbone of legislative advocacy on agent issues on Capitol
Hill and in state capitals. IIAA’s 300,000 agents and their employees is a
formidable grassroots constituency that ranks among the most respected on
Capitol Hill. These grassroots agents have played a key role in shaping
legislation, such as health care reform, the tax treatment of intangible
assets, natural disaster legislation and financial services
modernization.
IIAA’s grassroots strength lies in the number of concerned agent
activists that can be mobilized at a moment’s notice by an “Action Alert”
system. These calls to action are shared with all employees in an
independent agency, including support staff and producers, so they, too,
can have their voices heard on issues affecting their livelihood.
Additionally, IIAA always has encouraged its members to be active
in local and national politics. In fact, almost 40 former insurance
professionals currently hold seats in the U.S. Congress. With literally
hundreds of agents and their employees in every congressional district
nationally, IIAA grassroots activists not only play an important role in
their community as local business and civic leaders, but they also play a
critical role in supporting federal and local candidates for elective
office.
New challenges in Washington and in the financial services
marketplace necessitate that more IIAA members become informed and
involved in the political arena. With your help, IIAA’s grassroots program
will play a vital role in shaping and promoting the agency system in the
21st century. Call (202)
863-7000 to become actively involved in the Association’s grassroots
efforts or to obtain legislative information and political background
materials.
IIAA GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS STAFF
CAPITOL HILL
OFFICE
412 First Street, S.E.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone: (202)
863-7000
Fax: (202)
863-7015
http://www.independentagent.com/
Paul A. Equale
Chief Executive Officer—E-mail: pequale@iiaa.net
Robert A.
Rusbuldt
Executive Vice President—E-mail: brusbuldt@iiaa.net
LEGISLATIVE
STAFF
Maria L. Berthoud
V.P. of Federal Government Affairs—E-mail: mberthoud@iiaa.net
Thomas C. McCrocklin
Director of Federal Government Affairs—E-mail: tmccrocklin@iiaa.net
INSURPAC
Elizabeth E. Leger
Assistant Vice President of Political Affairs—E-mail: lleger@iiaa.net
Sally E. Downs
InsurPac Administrator—E-mail: sdowns@iiaa.net
COMMUNICATIONS
Jeffrey A. Myers
V.P. of Public Affairs—E-mail: jmyers@iiaa.net
GRASSROOTS/POLITICAL EDUCATION
Eric G. Rizzo
Manager of Grassroots Programs—E-mail: erizzo@iiaa.net
ADMINISTRATIVE
STAFF
Arlene F. Guy
Office Administrator—E-mail: aguy@iiaa.net
Kathleen M. Bilotta
Executive Assistant to the CEO—E-mail: kbillota@iiaa.net
Lene K. Stallings
Executive Assistant to the Exec. V.P.
—E-mail: lstallings@iiaa.net
Tabitha S.
Gass
Executive Assistant to the V.P. of Federal Government
Affairs—
E-mail: tgass@iiaa.net
| 