DOCSLIB.ORG

'All Sums'' and the Allocation of Deductibles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'All Sums'' and the Allocation of Deductibles Is ‘‘Fair’’ Fair?: ‘‘All Sums’’ and the Allocation of Deductibles by Lorelie S. Masters and Jerold Oshinsky concept should also be used to benefit policyholders in Mr. Oshinsky is a partner at Jenner & the allocation of liability to deductible periods or SIRs. Block LLP in Los Angeles. He is co-author of ‘‘Fair’’ should be fair. Practitioner’s Guide to Litigating Insurance In addressing the allocation of deductibles issue, Coverage Actions (2d ed. Aspen Law & Busi- courts inevitably need to address the related issue of ness 2009) and often called the ‘‘Dean of the what constitutes ‘‘insurance’’ for purposes of alloca- Policyholder Bar.’’ tion. Cases generally use the term ‘‘deductibles’’ to Ms. Masters is a partner at Jenner & Block LLP include fronting policies, SIRs, and deductibles; for that reason, this article generally uses the term in Washington, DC. She is co-author of two ‘‘deductibles’’ in the same fashion. treatises, Insurance Coverage Litigation and Liability Insurance in International Arbitration: SUMMARY The Bermuda Form. She is a past policyholder Chair of the Insurance Coverage Litigation Cases addressing the allocation of deductibles can be Committee. divided into three general categories: First, some courts have correctly interpreted ‘‘all sums’’ or similar policy language to Many articles and seminars dissect the issue of allo- preclude any allocation to insurance policies cation, analyzing the allocation of a policyholder’s containing deductibles, even in circumstances liability across policy limits under comprehensive in which the courts have found that the policy- and commercial general liability (CGL) insurance holder has deductibles or other arrangements policies. Much less has been written about the issue under which the policyholder is responsible to of allocation of a policyholder’s liability to policies reimburse the insurance company for some or containing deductibles or self-insured retentions all of the insurance company’s policy limits. (SIRs), despite the fact that deductible allocation is This line of cases relies solely on the contract also a significant ‘‘dollars and cents’’ issue for both language, applying the standard-form language policyholders and insurance companies. Relatively drafted by the insurance industry. few cases have addressed this issue outright. In Second, some courts have prorated a liability to those that do, the courts have generally followed the deductibles contained in triggered policy law of the state in question on allocation of policy periods in the same manner that coverage is limits. Thus, if a state follows ‘‘all sums’’ joint and prorated, employing the ‘‘fairness’’ rationale several liability on the allocation of policy limits, it is used to support proration in standard allocation likely that a court in that state will apply the same cases. Courts prorating liability to deductible rationale to the issue of allocation of deductibles. periods in this fashion typically have done so ‘‘All sums’’ allocation of deductibles is the result in situations in which the policyholder’s liability required by ‘‘all sums’’ or similar language in stan- is triggered by one occurrence. Thus, a complete dard-form general liability policies. Some courts, analysis of this issue also requires an analysis of however, have adopted pro-rata approaches, ignoring the ‘‘number of occurrences’’ issue. the public policy upholding the sanctity of contract Third, courts in some states that prorate liability language and instead imposing erroneous concepts of across policy periods nevertheless have incor- ‘‘equity’’ and ‘‘fairness.’’ In the most extreme versions rectly required policyholders to pay a full of pro-rata allocation, however, courts refuse to apply deductible in each triggered policy year even if those same concepts of fairness to deductible alloca- liability is prorated. Thus, these courts have tion. If ‘‘fairness’’ is used to extra-contractually refused to limit the policyholder’s liability to allocate liability on a pro-rata basis across policy pay deductibles to a proportionate share. The limits on behalf of insurance companies, the ‘‘fairness’’ most extreme of these approaches is ‘‘horizontal Coverage–18 Volume 20, Number 2, March/April 2010 allocation,’’ which requires the policyholder to deductibles. State courts in Washington have speci- exhaust the fronted policies or deductibles in all fically held that insurers are jointly and severally triggered years before any ‘‘real’’ insurance liable under CGL insurance policies for the policy- applies. These courts have rejected the ‘‘sauce holder’s liability in cases in which damage for the goose, sauce for the gander’’ application continuing over a period of years constitutes a of the ‘‘fairness’’ argument that is used to justify ‘‘single injury’’ or occurrence and triggers multiple proration concepts. ‘‘Fair’’ in these cases is policy years.3 The Washington Supreme Court’s really not fair. reasoning in holding that CGL insurers are jointly A number of cases have stated that rejecting pick and severally liable for years of continuing damage and choose or joint and several allocations and later provided crucial support for a Washington federal court’s decision not to treat fronting policies imposing liability on the policyholder even for self- 4 insured deductibles is contrary to clear policy and SIRs as primary insurance. That subsequent language and violates the principle forbidding equi- federal decision rejected the insurance companies’ table contribution between a policyholder and its argument that the policyholder’s decision to use fronting policies and SIRs required application of insurer. Although few courts have explicitly 5 addressed this issue, the ‘‘all sums’’ rationale that pro-rata allocation. California courts have likewise has persuaded courts to reject proration of policy rejected insurer arguments that fronting policies, limits continues to apply in the context of deductible SIRs, and deductibles should be treated as ‘‘insur- allocation. By contrast, the pure ‘‘horizontal alloca- ance,’’ and thus do not require the policyholder to shoulder a share of its own liability if it otherwise tion’’ option contravenes the ‘‘all sums’’ contract 6 language and relies instead on misguided extra- has sufficient insurance coverage. contractual notions of fairness and equity that These courts construe the ‘‘all sums’’ policy should not govern issues of contract interpretation. language to require the insurer to pay the limits of its policy or policies, without proration to the policy- holder, even for deductibles or periods of ‘‘self- Courts adopting this approach have rejected insurance.’’ They find no ‘‘unfairness’’ or ‘‘inequity’’ the argument that SIRs should be considered in holding insurers to the terms of the standard-form primary coverage and, instead, have adopted a policy language that the insurers themselves drafted. ‘‘vertical exhaustion’’ approach, treating SIRs In refusing to assign liability to policyholders based like deductibles, with only a policy’s own SIR on the existence of fronting arrangements, these needing to be exhausted before its coverage courts rely on principles of policy interpretation becomes available and reasoning that mirror those used by the courts adopting ‘‘all sums’’ allocation of policy limits. The Washington and California decisions are thus compelling authority for the argument that the ‘‘all ANALYSIS sums’’ language should be applied as written to allow the policyholder to pick and choose the year or years I. Law on Allocation of ‘‘Deductibles’’ that will apply to a claim. This result will allow a policyholder to avoid liability, to the extent possible, A. Application of ‘‘All Sums’’ or Joint and under fronting policies and other kinds of ‘‘deducti- Several Liability to Deductibles bles’’ found in the standard-form CGL policies. Many cases provide authority for ‘‘all sums’’ alloca- tion, and policyholders have an unequivocal basis to 1. Washington State Court Cases: Gruol argue under the law of many states, and under general and B&L Trucking principles of policy interpretation, that the all-sums In Gruol Construction Co. v. Insurance Co. of North language allows the policyholder to select a policy 1 America, the Washington Court of Appeals found year or years that provide optimum coverage. Courts that continuing damage from dry rot triggered all adopting this approach have rejected the argument insurance policies covering the risk during the years that SIRs should be considered primary coverage of damage.7 The court held that both Insurance and, instead, have adopted a ‘‘vertical exhaustion’’ Company of North America and Northwestern approach, treating SIRs like deductibles, with only Mutual Insurance Company were liable because a policy’s own SIR needing to be exhausted before 2 continuous damage took place during their policy its coverage becomes available. periods.8 Moreover, the court specifically rejected The case law in Washington and California the insurers’ effort to place the burden of proof of appears to be the most developed on the issue of apportionment on the policyholder.9 Instead, the non-allocation to CGL insurance policies containing court required the insurers to show that the policy Volume 20, Number 2, March/April 2010 Coverage–19 language supported apportionment to the policy- In reaching its ‘‘all sums’’ decision, the court in holder, holding that ‘‘in a dispute between an B&L Trucking cited Insurance Co. of North insured who has sustained damages of a continuing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020-2022 What-Comm Guild Public Safety Dispatch (PDF)
    2020-2022 AGREEMENT Between THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON And THE WHAT-COMM DISPATCHERS GUILD INDEX Article 1: Recognition ......................................................................................... 1 Article 2: Guild Security ..................................................................................... 1 Article 3: Management Rights............................................................................ 1 Article 4: Non-Discrimination............................................................................. 2 Article 5: Duty To Bargain .................................................................................. 2 Article 6: Labor Management Committee ......................................................... 3 Article 7: Definitions ........................................................................................... 3 Article 8: Master Dispatcher Program ............................................................... 4 Article 9: Job Share Program............................................................................. 6 Article 10: Quality Assurance Program ............................................................ 9 Article 11: Hours Of Work And Working Conditions ..................................... 10 Article 12: Overtime And Compensatory Time ............................................... 13 Article 13: Involuntary Recall To Duty ............................................................ 16 Article 14: Shift Rotation Bidding And Vacation Bidding ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Progressive Damage Construction Defect Cases
    CONSTRUCTION LAW Allocation of Risk Among Multiple Progressive Damage Insurers Construction By R. Michael Ethridge Defect Cases and Katherine W. Sullivan The landscape Deciding whether a construction defect claim is covered surrounding these issues by a contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) pol- is constantly changing icy is always a sticky proposition. Among the most vexing and never boring. problems for coverage and defense counsel alike, in a case involving a progressive injury, is which Hypothetical Scenario insurance policy is implicated. Unlike the A general contractor builds a multimil- typical personal injury case that would lion dollar oceanfront home in 2005. At implicate only one CGL policy because the time of construction the general con- the injury would “occur” during one pol- tractor is insured under a standard CGL icy period, a progressive damage construc- policy, ISO Form CG 00 01 10 01. The anni- tion defect case creates a unique situation, versary date of the policy is January 1. Con- and depending on the state, multiple pol- struction began on June 1, 2005, and was icies can be triggered. Courts around the completed on April 1, 2006, with the certif- country have struggled with how to allo- icate of occupancy issued on May 1, 2006. cate damages among multiple insurers in Because of the collapse of the real estate these progressive damage cases. market, the general contractor goes out of This article will briefly attempt to business on December 31, 2008. address the different approaches that the In 2007, the homeowners notice water states have used to determine coverage coming into their home around windows triggers in construction cases as well as and doors and also begin to experience a the methods used by the states to allocate serious problem with mold growth on the risks among multiple insurers.
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Law Alert December 2009
    INSURANCE LAW ALERT DECEMBER 2009 elcome to the inaugural Simpson Thacher Insurance Law Alert. This Alert and the Weditions to follow aim to provide timely reports on insurance law and litigation developments of interest to our friends and clients. We hope you find them useful. —Barry R. Ostrager, Chair of the Litigation Department from Houdaille Industries, Inc. Thereafter, Warren and Allocation Alert: Viking faced numerous asbestos bodily injury claims Delaware Chancery Court Rules arising from asbestos exposures that took place during That New York Law Requires Houdaille’s ownership. Warren and Viking sought to access Houdaille’s insurance coverage, including “All Sums” Method Of Allocation forty-five excess insurance policies issued by twenty On October 14, 2009, different insurers. After determining that Warren Vice Chancellor Strine and Viking were entitled to insured status under of the Delaware Court Houdaille’s excess insurance policies, the court turned of Chancery issued to the allocation issue. a lengthy opinion on The excess insurers argued that controlling New allocation under New York precedent requires a pro rata allocation across York insurance law. In policy years, as set forth in the Consol. Edison v. Allstate a surprising departure Ins. Co., 774 N.E.2d 687 (N.Y. 2002) decision from from what is viewed New York’s highest court. The insureds argued for an to be well-established “all sums” approach. Vice Chancellor Strine ultimately New York law, the court decided that New York’s principles of contract held that coverage for interpretation, the language of the insurance policies asbestos-related injuries at issue, and extrinsic evidence all favor application spanning multiple policy years should be allocated on of the all sums allocation methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Pub 100-01 Medicare General Information, Eligibility, and Entitlement
    Department of Health & CMS Manual System Human Services (DHHS) Pub 100-01 Medicare General Information, Centers for Medicare & Eligibility, and Entitlement Medicaid Services (CMS) Transmittal 89 Date: November 21, 2014 Change Request 8982 SUBJECT: Update to Medicare Deductible, Coinsurance and Premium Rates for 2015 I. SUMMARY OF CHANGES: This recurring CR provides instruction for Medicare Contractors to update the claims processing system with the new CY 2015 Medicare rates. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2015 *Unless otherwise specified, the effective date is the date of service. IMPLEMENTATION DATE: January 5, 2015 Disclaimer for manual changes only: The revision date and transmittal number apply only to red italicized material. Any other material was previously published and remains unchanged. However, if this revision contains a table of contents, you will receive the new/revised information only, and not the entire table of contents. II. CHANGES IN MANUAL INSTRUCTIONS: (N/A if manual is not updated) R=REVISED, N=NEW, D=DELETED-Only One Per Row. R/N/D CHAPTER / SECTION / SUBSECTION / TITLE R 3/10/10.3/Basis for Determining the Part A Coinsurance Amounts R 3/20/20.2/Part B Annual Deductible R 3/20/20.6/Part B Premium III. FUNDING: For Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs): The Medicare Administrative Contractor is hereby advised that this constitutes technical direction as defined in your contract. CMS does not construe this as a change to the MAC statement of Work. The contractor is not obliged to incur costs in excess of the amounts allotted in your contract unless and until specifically authorized by the Contracting Officer.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 1 DOCUMENT New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide
    Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide Copyright 2009, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. Volume 3: Separate Insurance Lines Chapter 39 UNDERSTANDING MULTIPLE INSURER SITUATIONS IV. UNDERSTANDING HOW COURTS ALLOCATE LIABILITY AMONG CONSECUTIVE INSURERS. 3-39 New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide 39.12 AUTHOR: by Alan S. RutkinRobert TuganderJohn W. Egan 39.12 Examine Approaches to Allocation. Jurisdictions vary as to how to apportion a loss among multiple insurers, and insureds, where a progressive injury extends across multiple policy periods. Courts typically subscribe to one of two allocation theories: (1) pro rata apportionment; or (2) joint and several liability. The method selected may dramatically affect allocation results. The key differences to these two approaches concerns how loss is apportioned to impaired years, sometimes referred to as ''orphan shares.'' Policyholders prefer the joint and several approach because it allows the policyholder to maximize its coverage and avoid having to pay for self-insured or impaired years. Conversely, insurers prefer pro rata allocation because the responsibility to pay for impaired years remains with the insured. Legal Topics: For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics: Insurance LawClaims & ContractsCoinsuranceGeneral OverviewInsurance LawGeneral Liability InsuranceCoverageTriggersContinuous TriggersInsurance LawGeneral Liability InsuranceCoverageTriggersMultiple TriggersInsurance LawGeneral Liability InsuranceMultiple Insurers Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide Copyright 2009, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. Volume 3: Separate Insurance Lines Chapter 39 UNDERSTANDING MULTIPLE INSURER SITUATIONS IV. UNDERSTANDING HOW COURTS ALLOCATE LIABILITY AMONG CONSECUTIVE INSURERS. 3-39 New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide 39.13 AUTHOR: by Alan S.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 6 Five-Year Review of Certain Uniform Standards Effective on Or Before December 31, 2010
    SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE ITEMS 5-Year Review, Phase 6 (Certain Uniform Standards Effective On or Before December 31, 2010) Substantive Change Items Substantive change items are proposed amendments to the Uniform Standards that would change or alter the meaning, application or interpretation of the provision. Substantive change items would likely impact not only the Uniform Standards but product filings submitted to the IIPRC and would be the equivalent to a change in an individual state’s laws or regulations. When looking at the substantive change items, the scope of review should consider whether circumstances or underlying assumptions have changed since the last time the rule was adopted, amended or reviewed. List of Substantive Change Items 1. Revision of Misstatement of Age Provision 2. Allowance for Non-Duplication of Benefits 3. Rate Requirements for Dollar-for-Dollar Long-Term Care Benefits 4. Scope of Partnership Certification or Approval of Compact-approved Policy 37 | P a g e SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE ITEMS 5-Year Review, Phase 6 (Certain Uniform Standards Effective On or Before December 31, 2010) 1. REVISION OF MISSTATEMENT OF AGE PROVISION APPLIES: §3.S. Misstatement of Age or Sex of the Core Standards for Individual Long-Term Care Insurance Policies CURRENT PROVISION: (1) The policy shall contain a misstatement of age provision or, if the policy is written on a sex distinct basis, a misstatement of age or sex provision, providing that the amount payable as a benefit shall be such as the premium paid would have purchased at the correct age or the correct age and sex. COMMENTS: Industry Comment: The IAC requested that the IIPRC amend the Misstatement of Age or Sex provision to provide that a company may terminate coverage and refund premiums if the correct issue age of the insured is misstated at the time the policy is issued and is outside the issue age ranges of the policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Cooperative Interest Appraisal Report
    Lic #: 48000040179 Main File No. 1250027 Page #1 Individual Cooperative Interest Appraisal Report File # 1250027 The purpose of this summary appraisal report is to provide the lender/client with an accurate, and adequately supported, opinion of the market value of the subject property. Property Address CENTRAL PARK WEST Unit # City NEW YORK State NY Zip Code 10025-7659 Borrower *REMOVED* Current Owner *REMOVED* County NEW YORK Legal Description BLOCK : 1205 Project Name ARDSLEY TENANTS CORP. Phase # 1 Map Reference 3 Z 11 Census Tract 0177.00 Occupant Owner Tenant (Market Rent) Tenant (Regulated Rent) Vacant Monthly Maintenance Fee $ *REMOVED* per year per month Property Rights Appraised Cooperative Other Expiration Date of Proprietary Lease *REMOVED* Special Assessments $0.00 Assignment Type Purchase Transaction Refinance Transaction Other (describe) SUBJECT Lender/Client *REMOVED* Address Is the subject property currently offered for sale or has it been offered for sale in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal? Yes No Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s). I did did not analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the results of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not performed. N/A Contract Price $ REFINANC Date of Contract N/A Is the property seller the current owner? Yes No Data Source(s) N/A Is there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or downpayment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower? Yes No CONTRACT If Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe the items to be paid.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Risk Management and Insurance
    GLOBAL EDITION Principles of Risk Management and Insurance Rejda • McNamara Rejda THIRTEENTH EDITION George E. Rejda • Michael J. McNamara The Pearson Series in Finance Berk/DeMarzo Keown Corporate Finance†* Personal Finance: Turning Money into Wealth* † Corporate Finance: The Core * Keown/Martin/Petty Berk/DeMarzo/Harford Foundations of Finance: The Logic and Practice of Fundamentals of Corporate Finance†* Financial Management†* Brooks Madura Financial Management: Core Concepts†* Personal Finance* Copeland/Weston/Shastri Marthinsen Financial Theory and Corporate Policy Risk Takers: Uses and Abuses of Financial Derivatives Dorfman/Cather McDonald Introduction to Risk Management and Insurance Derivatives Markets Fundamentals of Derivatives Markets Eakins/McNally Mishkin/Eakins Corporate Finance Online* Financial Markets and Institutions† Eiteman/Stonehill/Moffett Moffett/Stonehill/Eiteman Multinational Business Finance†* Fundamentals of Multinational Finance† Fabozzi Nofsinger Bond Markets: Analysis and Strategies Psychology of Investing Foerster Pennacchi Financial Management: Concepts and Applications†* Theory of Asset Pricing Frasca Rejda/McNamara Personal Finance Principles of Risk Management and Insurance† Gitman/Zutter Smart/Gitman/Joehnk Principles of Managerial Finance†* Fundamentals of Investing†* † Principles of Managerial Finance—Brief Edition * Solnik/McLeavey Haugen Global Investments The Inefficient Stock Market: What Pays Off and Why Titman/Keown/Martin Modern Investment Theory Financial Management: Principles and Applications* Holden Titman/Martin Excel Modeling in Corporate Finance Valuation: The Art and Science of Corporate Investment Excel Modeling in Investments Decisions Hughes/MacDonald Weston/Mitchell/Mulherin International Banking: Text and Cases Takeovers, Restructuring, and Corporate Governance Hull Fundamentals of Futures and Options Markets† Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives† * Denotes titles with MyFinanceLab. Log onto www.myfinancelab.com to learn more. † Denotes availability of Global Edition.
    [Show full text]
  • DB MF PW RCSTD 0314.Pdf
    DB/MF/PW/RCSTD/0314 10 things to do before you go Important 1. Check the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) travel Under the new travel directive from the European Union (EU), advice online at www.gov.uk/knowbeforeyougo. you are entitled to claim compensation from your airline if any of the following happen. 2. Get travel insurance and check that the cover is appropriate. 1. You are not allowed to board or your flight is cancelled. If you check-in on time but you are not allowed to board 3. Get a good guidebook and get to know the place you are because there are too many passengers for the number of going to. Find out about local laws and customs. seats available or your flight is cancelled, the airline operating the flight must offer you financial compensation. 4. Make sure you have a valid passport and any visas you need. 2. There are long delays. If you are delayed for two hours or more, the airline must 5. Check what vaccinations you need at least six weeks before offer you meals and refreshments, hotel accommodation you go. and communication facilities. If you are delayed for more than five hours, the airline must also offer to refund your 6. Check to see if you need to take extra health precautions ticket. (visit www.nhs.uk/travelhealth) 3. Your baggage is damaged, lost or delayed. 7. Make sure whoever you book your trip through is a If your checked-in baggage is damaged or lost by an EU member of the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) airline, you must make a claim to the airline within seven or the Air Travel Organisers' Licensing scheme (ATOL).
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Guidelines
    Conventional Cooperative Guidelines Contents Cooperatives...................................................................................................................................................2 Documentation Requirements.........................................................................................................................2 Eligibility Requirements .................................................................................................................................2 Ineligible Project ...........................................................................................................................................3 Amendments to Doc uments ...........................................................................................................................4 Ass ignment of Co-Op’s Lease/Occupancy Rights ..............................................................................................4 Appraisal .....................................................................................................................................................4 Blanket Mortgage .........................................................................................................................................4 Budget ........................................................................................................................................................5 Calculating LTV Ratio....................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Care Insurance Products and Addressing the 'Use It Or Lose It' Concern
    Issue Brief Long-Term Care Insurance Products and Addressing the ‘Use It or Lose It’ Concern FEBRUARY 2020 Key Points Introduction • Tax policy in the past has provided incentives for the purchase of long- Existing public programs do not provide financing for term care insurance (LTCI), but those long-term care (LTC) needs unless someone meets incentives have come with some the asset and income requirements of state Medicaid product design restrictions. • One restriction on tax-qualified programs. To fill that void, private long-term care LTCI products is that, other than a insurance (LTCI) has been offered to provide financing return-of-premium feature, they are for the LTC needs especially of importance given the not allowed to have any kind of cash value feature. This creates a “use it or growing elderly population. This coverage has taken lose it” concern for some consumers. many forms. Currently the stand-alone LTCI market has • Various life and annuity combination been contracting while the combination products market products have emerged that address the “use it or lose it” issue by has been expanding. This issue brief provides a brief providing value to consumers even if history of these products and explores how a cash value the LTC benefits are not needed. LTCI design might provide additional consumer options. • Tax law changes that allow cash values on qualified LTCI could address “use it or lose it” concerns for some consumers and provide An Evolving Marketplace and additional premium flexibility. Regulatory Environment Early versions of LTCI policies issued in the mid- to late-1980s primarily provided nursing facility coverage with limited coverage for home and community-based care.
    [Show full text]
  • Underwriting Requirements ______
    UNDERWRITING REQUIREMENTS _____________________________ Purpose: The purpose of the Underwriting Requirements is to conveniently set out all of the matters prescribed, issued or made by the Council or Franchise Board under the Underwriting Byelaw, the Intermediaries Byelaw, the Overseas Underwriting Byelaw, the Membership Byelaw and the Enforcement Byelaw. The Underwriting Requirements also contain links to Market Bulletins where they contain further relevant information. The headings for each of the parts of the Underwriting Requirements correspond with the headings for each of the parts in the relevant Byelaw. The headings for each of the paragraphs of the Underwriting Requirements also include references to the relevant paragraphs in the Byelaw under which the requirements were prescribed, issued or made. The headings and these notes are for guidance only and do not form part of the Underwriting Requirements. Words and terms shown in italics have the meaning set out in the Definitions Byelaw. With the exception of certain of the requirements in Chapter 1 and the requirements in Chapter 2, these requirements (version 6) were made by Council on 7 December 2005 when Council made the requirements contained at Chapter 4 (requirements made under the Membership Byelaw) and the requirements contained in Chapter 5 (requirements made under the Enforcement Byelaw). These requirements (version 6) came into force on 7 December 2005 and amend and supercede the Underwriting Requirements that came into force on 18 July 2005. The requirements made at Chapter 1 (requirements made under the Underwriting Byelaw) at paragraph 7(e) and paragraph 10A were made by the Council on 4 February 2008.
    [Show full text]