Florida insurers’ fees to affiliates questioned

Following are news articles published on March 28 and 29, 2010 on issues relating to payment of fees by Florida insurance companies to affiliates:

Florida insurers’ fees to affiliates questioned

Consumer advocates call for more scrutiny as insurers report losses and request rate hikes

By Julie Patel, Sun Sentinel
1:54 AM EST, March 29, 2010

Florida property insurers are pressing state legislators to allow them to raise rates without regulator approval, citing losses in recent years. But consumer advocates and regulators question the legitimacy of the losses after four hurricane-free years in Florida.

One key issue: fees paid by some insurance companies to affiliates – most with the same executives and shareholders. Critics say these payments may be inflated and instead could be used to bolster reserves.

A Sun Sentinel review of 26 Florida-based insurers found that the companies collectively reported a $87.8 million drop in claims-paying reserves last year and a $206.9 million underwriting loss, incurred when premiums don’t offset expenses.

Yet, all but four paid a total of nearly $300 million last year to managing general agents, or MGAs, that were affiliates.

Some of the money covers legitimate costs, such as administering policies and negotiating contracts. But unlike the insurers, their MGAs aren’t subject to regulatory restrictions on profit and dividends, and they aren’t required to file audited financial statements. Critics are also concerned about payments for shared office space and employees.

The 26 insurers accounted for nearly a third of Florida’s residential property insurance market last year and participated in state programs to bolster the private insurance market. Since 2006, they received more than $247 million in low-interest loans from the state and more than $52 million in bonuses for taking policies from state-backed Citizens Property Insurance Corp..

Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty cracked down this month on two of the insurers’ transactions with affiliates.

While MGAs have a legitimate role in the market, McCarty told the Florida Cabinet last week there can be abuse, especially when the MGA is an affiliate. With “some there’s little shenanigans … shell games where they can move money out through their MGA and upstream that to their holding company.” McCarty said lawmakers should pass legislation to make the industry’s use of MGAs more transparent. “If we could at least get notification in advance” that would help, he said.

Insurance industry representatives defend the use of MGAs as needed incentives for investors in Florida insurance companies. Representatives of the Florida Property & Casualty Association – a group of Florida-based insurers, including most of the 26 participating in state programs – said the companies, with help from MGAs, fill the gap left by major national insurers that scaled back in the state.

“The severity and frequency of claims are going up, rates are not keeping up with the risk, the big guys don’t want to be here, [a few] of the small guys went out of business. It’s not because it’s a great market and everyone is making a fortune,” said former State Sen. Locke Burt, who is on the group’s board.

Burt, president of Ormond Beach-based Security First Insurance Co., said companies use MGAs to take advantage of tax benefits, a state law that allows them to charge policyholders a fee of up to $25 per policy and in some cases, the ability to pay returns to shareholders not allowed by the insurers. “I have a hard time characterizing complying with state law as a loophole,” he said.

Insurers say their finances are precarious because rates haven’t increased enough to offset increases in claims costs, even without major storms. Rates have been offset by discounts for homes that are fortified against storms, or fraudulent discounts in cases where upgrades were not really done, they say.

Broad measures to tackle those concerns and allow rate hikes have been approved by insurance committees in both the state House and Senate.

But critics say MGAs allow insurers to hide profits, boosting the argument for rate hikes.

“Now we know how insurance companies with the highest rates in the country, expecting hurricanes, can [appear to] make no money even when hurricanes do not strike,” said Chip Merlin, a Tampa attorney who represents policyholders and was on a state task force last year to examine how to shrink Citizens. “We would have been better off just keeping those policies in Citizens if this is how the private market operates.”

State-appointed Insurance Consumer Advocate Sean Shaw plans to release a report on MGA fees. Part of his analysis found that Florida policyholders pay 50 percent more for overhead costs than the national average. They pay $434 per policy for operating expenses while the national average is $289. “Consumers don’t know exactly what the benefits are of these MGA agreements and if it’s true that these MGAs are a way for profits to be siphoned out,” he said.

McCarty recently threatened to suspend Southern Oak Insurance Co. in Jacksonville for “excessive” MGA fees that generated a $35 profit for the affiliate while the insurer “consistently” reported losses.

His office and the company recently agreed to limit fees to 8 percent for former Citizens policies and 22 percent for others.

Southern Oak President Tony Loughman said the company’s $12 million MGA fee last year was used to pay a variety of operational costs, including agent commissions, customer service and printing and mailing policies. Loughman added that the affiliate gave the insurer more than $5 million last year and it plans on being “a long-term player in the Florida insurance market.”

Julie Patel can be reached at 954-356-4667 and jpatel@SunSentinel.com.

Copyright © 2010, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

 

 

Florida rebukes insurer over transactions

By Paige St. John, Sarasota Herald-Tribune
March 29, 2010

SOURCE:  http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100329/ARTICLE/3291042

A Florida property insurer that bought hurricane protection from its own Bermuda company has been ordered to attempt to recover the money, following a Herald-Tribune report about the transaction.

State regulators gave Homeowners Choice Property and Casualty 21 days to seek the return of more than $9 million in premium it paid last year to Claddaugh, an offshore affiliate. Regulators could suspend Homeowners’ insurance license if it does not comply.

The insurer and Claddaugh are owned by Homeowners Choice Inc., a publicly traded holding company.

The self-insurance agreement was among $1.9 billion in self-dealing transactions by Florida property insurers detailed by the Herald-Tribune in stories appearing two weeks ago.

Through such transfers, property insurers diverted profits to their investors while declaring losses to regulators, the newspaper reported. Even as they collected profits, they argued for permission to raise insurance rates and put pressure on state lawmakers to deregulate premiums.

The Office of Insurance Regulation did not directly find fault with the terms of Homeowners’ self-insurance pact. Instead, it accused the company of failing to report the transaction, which reduced earnings for the insurance company while showing up as a profit for its holding company.

For that omission, the agency also has levied a $10,000 fine.

Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty signed the order against Homeowners Choice on March 15, but his office did not release a copy to the Herald-Tribune until Friday.

Company vice president Jay Mahdu did not respond to a request for comment.

The Clearwater-based company is the third insurer to be threatened with suspension of its license in two weeks.

Hillcrest Insurance earlier this week was ordered to recoup $600,000 it paid a company director for stock that became worthless. Southern Oak earlier this month was accused of using internal management contracts to collect $10 million in excess profit from its insurance operation.

The Office of Insurance Regulation refused to comment Friday on whether it was examining other such transactions reported by the newspaper.