Bill provides added protections should insurance firms fail – Sentinel and Enterprise

We’ve all seen the devastating destruction of property, and in some cases, the loss of life, due to violent weather events, most notably the unusually potent number of tornadoes that raked the Plains and Midwest this past spring.

Under that rubble, there’s a residential or commercial structure covered by an insurance policy, issued for just those types of catastrophic losses.

But under the weight of so many claims, less capitalized insurers face the prospect of going under, leaving policyholders without the protection they paid for.

Unlike “Tornado Alley” states like Texas, Nebraska and Iowa, funnel clouds in Massachusetts remain few and far between.

But that doesn’t mean we’re immune to extreme weather events that could strain the ability of insurers to make good on policyholders’ claims.

To protect against such an eventuality, a bill gaining late-session momentum on Beacon Hill would provide Massachusetts residents and businesses stronger protections if their property and casualty insurance carriers were to go bankrupt.

Without fanfare, the House last week quietly passed a bill that aims to update the guidelines for an insurance social safety-net fund, and raise the limits on property and casualty claims, caps that haven’t been revised in decades.

The Senate then sent the redrafted bill, originally sponsored by Rep. Daniel Cahill, to the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Monday.

The bill would ensure that the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund aligns with a framework promoted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in 2009, said Barbara Law, MIIF administrator and CEO of Guaranty Fund Management Services. The bill also clarifies that MIIF covers cybersecurity insurance claims.

All insurance companies licensed to provide property and casualty coverage in the commonwealth are members of MIIF, and they contribute to the fund to help pay out claims, according to GFMS.

Created by the Legislature in 1970, “the Massachusetts version of the statute was one of the oldest in the country — it has not been updated from time to time over the years,” Law told the State House News Service. That lapse could have costly consequences, which this bill would prevent.

“… So individuals, particularly on the property side, we would be able to ensure that there was enough coverage allowed by the law so they would have a greater likelihood of having the entirety of their claims covered.”

Law said weather-related events in recent years have caused property insurance insolvencies in Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina.

“We wanted to be prepared if those insolvencies started to have a greater effect on Massachusetts, and we also wanted to make sure that if we start to experience that type of weather up here, that we were prepared,” Law said.

The bill would boost the existing claims cap, such as for car accidents and environmental cases, from $300,000 to $500,000, a level already enacted in Connecticut and Rhode Island, according to testimony Law sent last fall to the Financial Services Committee co-chairs.

The new limit wouldn’t apply to workers’ compensation claims, which don’t have a cap and are paid by the fund for life, Law said.

And aiming to provide a safety net for Massachusetts home and property owners, the bill also proposes a $1 million limit for residential or commercial property, a policy that Law said California implemented after a wildfire caused an insurer to go bankrupt.

“We do recognize that Massachusetts has high reconstruction values for property, so we recommend a $1 million limit for property claims just to ensure that we keep pace with the time,” she said.

The Massachusetts Association of Insurance Agents supports the bill, particularly the special real property cap provision due to the “increased severity and frequency of these claims,” said CEO Nick Fyntrilakis.

“This bill would enhance benefits to Massachusetts residents affected by insurer insolvencies, and reduce costs to the property and casualty insurance guaranty fund framework in the Commonwealth with no tax increases or increased appropriations if enacted,” Fyntrilakis said.

Law said MIIF, regulated by the Division of Insurance, has paid roughly half a billion dollars in claims to policyholders throughout its history due to insolvencies of small and large insurance companies.

Workers’ compensation claims have largely driven activity in the fund, though Law said MIIF has also seen bursts of activity tied to insolvencies from asbestos-related claims in the late ’80s and early ’90s and the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Given this state’s soaring – and unaffordable – cost of living, it makes sense to raise the dollar values on some insurance claims and institute a cap on others, especially since property values continue to appreciate at a gravity-defying clip.

With no apparent opposition, there’s no reason why this bill shouldn’t receive the Legislature’s approval.