By: Gary Fineout, Florida Tribune
March 4, 2010
A contentious meeting of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee on Wednesday ended without a vote on a sweeping property insurance bill. But the rancorous debate shows that the legislation may already be in trouble early during the session.
The panel, however, did kill by a 5-4 vote an attempt to give more power to Insurance Consumer Advocate Sean Shaw. The amendment was scuttled with help by three Democratic senators – Sen. Chris Smith, Sen. Jeremy Ring and Sen. Al Lawson – even though giving more authority to Shaw is a priority of Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink. If approved the insurance consumer advocate would have more discretion to intervene in rate cases and review rate hikes requested by insurers.
The amendment to help Shaw was first submitted by Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton. But Bennett withdrew it after saying that he had been promised by bill sponsor Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, that the issue would be discussed during a workshop in two weeks. But then Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, resubmitted the amendment under his name.
Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Brandon, said she did not want wait until later in the session to consider giving more authority to the insurance consumer advocate.
“This train is leaving the station and now is time to make sure this rides on the train,’’ said Storms.
The four senators who voted for the amendment were all Republicans: Fasano, Storms, Sen. Joe Negron, R-Jupiter and Sen. Alex Villalobos, R-Miami. Bennett and Richter joined with the Democrats.
Sink earlier this year said she wanted Shaw’s office to get additional power especially if legislators go ahead and give insurers the ability to impose limited rate hikes without a review by state regulators.
We can’t get back into an unbalanced situation where all the power is in the hands of the insurance companies,’’ said Sink.
Richter said his legislation was another step to help stabilize the state’s fragile insurance market. Many carriers lost money last year even though there were no hurricanes. Insurers have blamed items such as wind mitigation discounts – or credits handed out to homeowners who fix their roofs or put in shutters – for their financial problems.
Richter’s bill, SB 2044, contains several provisions, including beefing up the surplus requirements for insurers and keeping the ban on “use or file” until 2013. Previously insurers could enact rate hikes before state regulators had completed their review. The bill also allows insurers to increase rates if it can be shown they are losing too much due to wind mitigation discounts.
It wasn’t clear on Wednesday, however, whether Richter even has the votes to get this bill out of his own committee.
“When you take a look at this bill, you will find many things in this bill that is pro insurance industry and anti-consumer,’’ charged Fasano.
The committed did agree on Wednesday to tack an amendment on the bill that would exempt medical malpractice insurance policies from Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund assessments until 2013. That exemption is currently set to expire this year. Jack Nicholson, director of the Cat Fund, wanted the amendment defeated in order to expand the assessment base utilized by the reinsurance fund in case it is unable to pay off hurricane claims.