Compact Commission Fine-Tuning In Hope Of Getting First Filings

The ‘mix and match’ of policy forms was just one of several points examined by the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Commission in an effort to get companies to begin filing products through the centralized product approval body.

Discussions took place during the summer meeting of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners here.

During its development and as work on filling in details continues, life insurers say they are committed to using it, but have questions about its operations that are giving them pause.

The commission wants to see products starting to be filed soon so the IIPRC will become self-sustaining, said Fran Arricale, IIPRC executive director. IIPRC Chair and West Virginia Insurance Commissioner Jane Cline noted that while “this is a start-up and there may be some bumps in the road,” there is interest among companies in using the commission.

Michael Lovendusky, a representative of the American Council of Life Insurers, Washington, noted that a number of companies have devoted “tremendous resources” to making the commission’s operation a reality.

Indeed, the commission approved a motion to expose policy standards for a 60-day exposure. These include individual joint last-to-die survivorship endowment, individual single premium joint last-to-die survivorship endowment, and the individual flexible premium deferred variable annuity (with separate and general accounts).

But Lovendusky said there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered, including the commission’s fee schedule and its examination and actuarial staff. Additionally, he said a motion to amend the ‘mix and match’ provisions would have “tremendous implications” for insurers.

["Mix and match" would allow insurers to use state product filings and commission filings in different combinations.]

That motion, which was adopted unanimously by the commission’s product regulation committee, was advanced by the Pennsylvania and Washington departments.

In a May 11 memorandum used as part of the discussion, it was noted that Pennsylvania and Washington were joined by Ohio and Vermont, which indicated that “they have no objection to these changes in substance.”