A Brief Introduction to Captive Insurance

Over the past 20 years, many small businesses have begun to insure their own risks through a product called “Captive Insurance.” Small captives (also known as single-parent captives) are insurance companies established by the owners of closely held businesses looking to insure risks that are either too costly or too difficult to insure through the traditional insurance marketplace. Brad Barros, an expert in the field of captive insurance, explains how “all captives are treated as corporations and must be managed in a method consistent with rules established with both the IRS and the appropriate insurance regulator.”

According to Barros, often single parent captives are owned by a trust, partnership or other structure established by the premium payer or his family. When properly designed and administered, a business can make tax-deductible premium payments to their related-party insurance company. Depending on circumstances, underwriting profits, if any, can be paid out to the owners as dividends, and profits from liquidation of the company may be taxed at capital gains.

Premium payers and their captives may garner tax benefits only when the captive operates as a real insurance company. Alternatively, advisers and business owners who use captives as estate planning tools, asset protection vehicles, tax deferral or other benefits not related to the true business purpose of an insurance company may face grave regulatory and tax consequences.

Many captive insurance companies are often formed by US businesses in jurisdictions outside of the United States. The reason for this is that foreign jurisdictions offer lower costs and greater flexibility than their US counterparts. As a rule, US businesses can use foreign-based insurance companies so long as the jurisdiction meets the insurance regulatory standards required by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

There are several notable foreign jurisdictions whose insurance regulations are recognized as safe and effective. These include Bermuda and St. Lucia. Bermuda, while more expensive than other jurisdictions, is home to many of the largest insurance companies in the world. St. Lucia, a more reasonably priced location for smaller captives, is noteworthy for statutes that are both progressive and compliant. St. Lucia is also acclaimed for recently passing “Incorporated Cell” legislation, modeled after similar statutes in Washington, DC.

Common Captive Insurance Abuses; While captives remain highly beneficial to many businesses, some industry professionals have begun to improperly market and misuse these structures for purposes other than those intended by Congress. The abuses include the following:

1. Improper risk shifting and risk distribution, aka “Bogus Risk Pools”

2. High deductibles in captive-pooled arrangements; Re insuring captives through private placement variable life insurance schemes

3. Improper marketing

4. Inappropriate life insurance integration

Meeting the high standards imposed by the IRS and local insurance regulators can be a complex and expensive proposition and should only be done with the assistance of competent and experienced counsel. The ramifications of failing to be an insurance company can be devastating and may include the following penalties:

1. Loss of all deductions on premiums received by the insurance company

2. Loss of all deductions from the premium payer

3. Forced distribution or liquidation of all assets from the insurance company effectuating additional taxes for capital gains or dividends

4. Potential adverse tax treatment as a Controlled Foreign Corporation

5. Potential adverse tax treatment as a Personal Foreign Holding Company (PFHC)

6. Potential regulatory penalties imposed by the insuring jurisdiction

7. Potential penalties and interest imposed by the IRS.

All in all, the tax consequences may be greater than 100% of the premiums paid to the captive. In addition, attorneys, CPA’s wealth advisors and their clients may be treated as tax shelter promoters by the IRS, causing fines as great as $100,000 or more per transaction.

Clearly, establishing a captive insurance company is not something that should be taken lightly. It is critical that businesses seeking to establish a captive work with competent attorneys and accountants who have the requisite knowledge and experience necessary to avoid the pitfalls associated with abusive or poorly designed insurance structures. A general rule of thumb is that a captive insurance product should have a legal opinion covering the essential elements of the program. It is well recognized that the opinion should be provided by an independent, regional or national law firm.

Risk Shifting and Risk Distribution Abuses; Two key elements of insurance are those of shifting risk from the insured party to others (risk shifting) and subsequently allocating risk amongst a large pool of insured’s (risk distribution). After many years of litigation, in 2005 the IRS released a Revenue Ruling (2005-40) describing the essential elements required in order to meet risk shifting and distribution requirements.

For those who are self-insured, the use of the captive structure approved in Rev. Ruling 2005-40 has two advantages. First, the parent does not have to share risks with any other parties. In Ruling 2005-40, the IRS announced that the risks can be shared within the same economic family as long as the separate subsidiary companies ( a minimum of 7 are required) are formed for non-tax business reasons, and that the separateness of these subsidiaries also has a business reason. Furthermore, “risk distribution” is afforded so long as no insured subsidiary has provided more than 15% or less than 5% of the premiums held by the captive. Second, the special provisions of insurance law allowing captives to take a current deduction for an estimate of future losses, and in some circumstances shelter the income earned on the investment of the reserves, reduces the cash flow needed to fund future claims from about 25% to nearly 50%. In other words, a well-designed captive that meets the requirements of 2005-40 can bring about a cost savings of 25% or more.

While some businesses can meet the requirements of 2005-40 within their own pool of related entities, most privately held companies cannot. Therefore, it is common for captives to purchase “third party risk” from other insurance companies, often spending 4% to 8% per year on the amount of coverage necessary to meet the IRS requirements.

One of the essential elements of the purchased risk is that there is a reasonable likelihood of loss. Because of this exposure, some promoters have attempted to circumvent the intention of Revenue Ruling 2005-40 by directing their clients into “bogus risk pools.” In this somewhat common scenario, an attorney or other promoter will have 10 or more of their clients’ captives enter into a collective risk-sharing agreement. Included in the agreement is a written or unwritten agreement not to make claims on the pool. The clients like this arrangement because they get all of the tax benefits of owning a captive insurance company without the risk associated with insurance. Unfortunately for these businesses, the IRS views these types of arrangements as something other than insurance.

Risk sharing agreements such as these are considered without merit and should be avoided at all costs. They amount to nothing more than a glorified pretax savings account. If it can be shown that a risk pool is bogus, the protective tax status of the captive can be denied and the severe tax ramifications described above will be enforced.

It is well known that the IRS looks at arrangements between owners of captives with great suspicion. The gold standard in the industry is to purchase third party risk from an insurance company. Anything less opens the door to potentially catastrophic consequences.

Abusively High Deductibles; Some promoters sell captives, and then have their captives participate in a large risk pool with a high deductible. Most losses fall within the deductible and are paid by the captive, not the risk pool.

These promoters may advise their clients that since the deductible is so high, there is no real likelihood of third party claims. The problem with this type of arrangement is that the deductible is so high that the captive fails to meet the standards set forth by the IRS. The captive looks more like a sophisticated pre tax savings account: not an insurance company.

A separate concern is that the clients may be advised that they can deduct all their premiums paid into the risk pool. In the case where the risk pool has few or no claims (compared to the losses retained by the participating captives using a high deductible), the premiums allocated to the risk pool are simply too high. If claims don’t occur, then premiums should be reduced. In this scenario, if challenged, the IRS will disallow the deduction made by the captive for unnecessary premiums ceded to the risk pool. The IRS may also treat the captive as something other than an insurance company because it did not meet the standards set forth in 2005-40 and previous related rulings.

Private Placement Variable Life Reinsurance Schemes; Over the years promoters have attempted to create captive solutions designed to provide abusive tax free benefits or “exit strategies” from captives. One of the more popular schemes is where a business establishes or works with a captive insurance company, and then remits to a Reinsurance Company that portion of the premium commensurate with the portion of the risk re-insured.

Typically, the Reinsurance Company is wholly-owned by a foreign life insurance company. The legal owner of the reinsurance cell is a foreign property and casualty insurance company that is not subject to U.S. income taxation. Practically, ownership of the Reinsurance Company can be traced to the cash value of a life insurance policy a foreign life insurance company issued to the principal owner of the Business, or a related party, and which insures the principle owner or a related party.

1. The IRS may apply the sham-transaction doctrine.

2. The IRS may challenge the use of a reinsurance agreement as an improper attempt to divert income from a taxable entity to a tax-exempt entity and will reallocate income.

3. The life insurance policy issued to the Company may not qualify as life insurance for U.S. Federal income tax purposes because it violates the investor control restrictions.

Investor Control; The IRS has reiterated in its published revenue rulings, its private letter rulings, and its other administrative pronouncements, that the owner of a life insurance policy will be considered the income tax owner of the assets legally owned by the life insurance policy if the policy owner possesses “incidents of ownership” in those assets. Generally, in order for the life insurance company to be considered the owner of the assets in a separate account, control over individual investment decisions must not be in the hands of the policy owner.

The IRS prohibits the policy owner, or a party related to the policy holder, from having any right, either directly or indirectly, to require the insurance company, or the separate account, to acquire any particular asset with the funds in the separate account. In effect, the policy owner cannot tell the life insurance company what particular assets to invest in. And, the IRS has announced that there cannot be any prearranged plan or oral understanding as to what specific assets can be invested in by the separate account (commonly referred to as “indirect investor control”). And, in a continuing series of private letter rulings, the IRS consistently applies a look-through approach with respect to investments made by separate accounts of life insurance policies to find indirect investor control. Recently, the IRS issued published guidelines on when the investor control restriction is violated. This guidance discusses reasonable and unreasonable levels of policy owner participation, thereby establishing safe harbors and impermissible levels of investor control.

The ultimate factual determination is straight-forward. Any court will ask whether there was an understanding, be it orally communicated or tacitly understood, that the separate account of the life insurance policy will invest its funds in a reinsurance company that issued reinsurance for a property and casualty policy that insured the risks of a business where the life insurance policy owner and the person insured under the life insurance policy are related to or are the same person as the owner of the business deducting the payment of the property and casualty insurance premiums?

If this can be answered in the affirmative, then the IRS should be able to successfully convince the Tax Court that the investor control restriction is violated. It then follows that the income earned by the life insurance policy is taxable to the life insurance policy owner as it is earned.

The investor control restriction is violated in the structure described above as these schemes generally provide that the Reinsurance Company will be owned by the segregated account of a life insurance policy insuring the life of the owner of the Business of a person related to the owner of the Business. If one draws a circle, all of the monies paid as premiums by the Business cannot become available for unrelated, third-parties. Therefore, any court looking at this structure could easily conclude that each step in the structure was prearranged, and that the investor control restriction is violated.

Suffice it to say that the IRS announced in Notice 2002-70, 2002-2 C.B. 765, that it would apply both the sham transaction doctrine and §§ 482 or 845 to reallocate income from a non-taxable entity to a taxable entity to situations involving property and casualty reinsurance arrangements similar to the described reinsurance structure.

Even if the property and casualty premiums are reasonable and satisfy the risk sharing and risk distribution requirements so that the payment of these premiums is deductible in full for U.S. income tax purposes, the ability of the Business to currently deduct its premium payments on its U.S. income tax returns is entirely separate from the question of whether the life insurance policy qualifies as life insurance for U.S. income tax purposes.

Inappropriate Marketing; One of the ways in which captives are sold is through aggressive marketing designed to highlight benefits other than real business purpose. Captives are corporations. As such, they can offer valuable planning opportunities to shareholders. However, any potential benefits, including asset protection, estate planning, tax advantaged investing, etc., must be secondary to the real business purpose of the insurance company.

Recently, a large regional bank began offering “business and estate planning captives” to customers of their trust department. Again, a rule of thumb with captives is that they must operate as real insurance companies. Real insurance companies sell insurance, not “estate planning” benefits. The IRS may use abusive sales promotion materials from a promoter to deny the compliance and subsequent deductions related to a captive. Given the substantial risks associated with improper promotion, a safe bet is to only work with captive promoters whose sales materials focus on captive insurance company ownership; not estate, asset protection and investment planning benefits. Better still would be for a promoter to have a large and independent regional or national law firm review their materials for compliance and confirm in writing that the materials meet the standards set forth by the IRS.

The IRS can look back several years to abusive materials, and then suspecting that a promoter is marketing an abusive tax shelter, begin a costly and potentially devastating examination of the insured’s and marketers.

Abusive Life Insurance Arrangements; A recent concern is the integration of small captives with life insurance policies. Small captives treated under section 831(b) have no statutory authority to deduct life premiums. Also, if a small captive uses life insurance as an investment, the cash value of the life policy can be taxable to the captive, and then be taxable again when distributed to the ultimate beneficial owner. The consequence of this double taxation is to devastate the efficacy of the life insurance and, it extends serious levels of liability to any accountant recommends the plan or even signs the tax return of the business that pays premiums to the captive.

The IRS is aware that several large insurance companies are promoting their life insurance policies as investments with small captives. The outcome looks eerily like that of the thousands of 419 and 412(I) plans that are currently under audit.

All in all Captive insurance arrangements can be tremendously beneficial. Unlike in the past, there are now clear rules and case histories defining what constitutes a properly designed, marketed and managed insurance company. Unfortunately, some promoters abuse, bend and twist the rules in order to sell more captives. Often, the business owner who is purchasing a captive is unaware of the enormous risk he or she faces because the promoter acted improperly. Sadly, it is the insured and the beneficial owner of the captive who face painful consequences when their insurance company is deemed to be abusive or non-compliant. The captive industry has skilled professionals providing compliant services. Better to use an expert supported by a major law firm than a slick promoter who sells something that sounds too good to be true.

How an Insurance Policy Works

Insurance is synonymous to a lot of people sharing risks of losses expected from a supposed accident. Here, the costs of the losses will be borne by all the insurers.

For example, if Mr. Adam buys a new car and wishes to insure the vehicle against any expected accidents. He will buy an insurance policy from an insurance company through an insurance agent or insurance broker by paying a specific amount of money, called premium, to the insurance company.

The moment Mr. Adam pay the premium, the insurer (i.e. the insurance company) issue an insurance policy, or contract paper, to him. In this policy, the insurer analyses how it will pay for all or part of the damages/losses that may occur on Mr. Adam’s car.

However, just as Mr. Adam is able to buy an insurance policy and is paying to his insurer, a lot of other people in thousands are also doing the same thing. Any one of these people who are insured by the insurer is referred to as insured. Normally, most of these people will never have any form of accidents and hence there will be no need for the insurer to pay them any form of compensation.

If Mr. Adam and a very few other people has any form of accidents/losses, the insurer will pay them based on their policy.

It should be noted that the entire premiums paid by these thousands of insured is so much more than the compensations to the damages/losses incurred by some few insured. Hence, the huge left-over money (from the premiums collected after paying the compensations) is utilized by the insurer as follows:

1. Some are kept as a cash reservoir.

2. Some are used as investments for more profit.

3. Some are used as operating expenses in form of rent, supplies, salaries, staff welfare etc.

4. Some are lent out to banks as fixed deposits for more profit etc. etc.

Apart from the vehicle insurance taken by Mr. Adam on his new vehicle, he can also decide to insure himself. This one is extremely different because it involves a human life and is thus termed Life Insurance or Assurance.

Life insurance (or assurance) is the insurance against against certainty or something that is certain to happen such as death, rather than something that might happen such as loss of or damage to property.

The issue of life insurance is a paramount one because it concerns the security of human life and business. Life insurance offers real protection for your business and it also provides some sot of motivation for any skilled employees who decides to to join your organization.

Life insurance insures the life of the policy holder and pays a benefit to the beneficiary. This beneficiary can be your business in the case of a key employee, partner, or co-owner. In some cases, the beneficiary may be one’s next of kin or a near or distant relation. The beneficiary is not limited to one person; it depends on the policy holder.

Life insurance policies exist in three forms:

• Whole life insurance

• Term Insurance

• Endowment insurance

Whole Life Insurance

In Whole Life Insurance (or Whole Assurance), the insurance company pays an agreed sum of money (i.e. sum assured) upon the death of the person whose life is insured. As against the logic of term life insurance, Whole Life Insurance is valid and it continues in existence as long as the premiums of the policy holders are paid.

When a person express his wish in taking a Whole Life Insurance, the insurer will look at the person’s current age and health status and use this data to reviews longevity charts which predict the person’s life duration/life-span. The insurer then present a monthly/quarterly/bi-annual/annual level premium. This premium to be paid depends on a person’s present age: the younger the person the higher the premium and the older the person the lower the premium. However, the extreme high premium being paid by a younger person will reduce gradually relatively with age over the course of many years.

In case you are planning a life insurance, the insurer is in the best position to advise you on the type you should take. Whole life insurance exists in three varieties, as follow: variable life, universal life, and variable-universal life; and these are very good options for your employees to consider or in your personal financial plan.

Term Insurance

In Term Insurance, the life of the policy-holder is insured for a specific period of time and if the person dies within the period the insurance company pays the beneficiary. Otherwise, if the policy-holder lives longer than the period of time stated in the policy, the policy is no longer valid. In a simple word, if death does not occur within stipulated period, the policy-holder receives nothing.

For example, Mr. Adam takes a life policy for a period of not later than the age of 60. If Mr. Adam dies within the age of less than 60 years, the insurance company will pay the sum assured. If Mr. Adam’s death does not occur within the stated period in the life policy (i.e. Mr. Adam lives up to 61 years and above), the insurance company pays nothing no matter the premiums paid over the term of the policy.

Term assurance will pay the policy holder only if death occurs during the “term” of the policy, which can be up to 30 years. Beyond the “term”, the policy is null and void (i.e. worthless). Term life insurance policies are basically of two types:

o Level term: In this one, the death benefit remains constant throughout the duration of the policy.

o Decreasing term: Here, the death benefit decreases as the course of the policy’s term progresses.

It should be note that Term Life Insurance can be used in a debtor-creditor scenario. A creditor may decide to insure the life of his debtor for a period over which the debt repayment is expected to be completed, so that if the debtor dies within this period, the creditor (being the policy-holder) gets paid by the insurance company for the sum assured).

Endowment Life Insurance

In Endowment Life Insurance, the life of the policy holder is insured for a specific period of time (say, 30 years) and if the person insured is still alive after the policy has timed out, the insurance company pays the policy-holder the sum assured. However, if the person assured dies within the “time specified” the insurance company pays the beneficiary.

For example, Mr. Adam took an Endowment Life Insurance for 35 years when he was 25 years of age. If Mr. Adam is lucky to attain the age of 60 (i.e. 25 + 35), the insurance company will pay the policy-holder (i.e. whoever is paying the premium, probably Mr. Adam if he is the one paying the premium) the sum assured. However, if Mr. Adam dies at the age of 59 years before completing the assured time of 35 years, his sum assured will be paid to his beneficiary (i.e. policy-holder). In case of death, the sum assured is paid at the age which Mr. Adam dies.

ACORD Certificates of Insurance – What Certificate Holders and Providers Need to Know

The Certificate and Evidence of Insurance forms which ACORD made effective in late 2009/early 2010 have raised alarm among insurance certificate holders and the insureds that must provide them. Unless insurers issue manuscript endorsements to their policies (which is unlikely), insurers no longer make any pledge that they will even attempt to notify most certificate holders if the policies are cancelled. The new certificate forms have eliminated the assurance that the insurer would “endeavor to mail __ days written notice to the certificate holder.” They simply state that “…should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, notice will be delivered in accordance with the policy provisions.”

What does that mean to certificate holders under standard insurance policies?

  1. Liability and auto – Even if a certificate holder is an additional insured, it will not be notified if the policy is cancelled. Only the First Named Insured will be notified.
  2. Workers compensation – Certificate holders will not be notified of cancellation, since the policy requires the insurance company to notify only the covered employer.
  3. Property – Mortgagees and loss payees on standard property policies will be notified – 10 days before the insurer cancels for nonpayment, 30 days before it cancels for any other reason and 10 days before it nonrenews the policy (unless modified by state requirements). Other certificate holders, even additional insureds, will not be notified.
  4. All policies – Certificate holders, even additional insureds, will not be notified if the insured itself cancels the policy.

How should insurance requirements in contracts be changed in order to respond?

  • Contract language requiring insurance certificates to state that “__ days notice of cancellation be given” and requiring that the “endeavor to” language in the certificate be deleted, is no longer applicable. Even if changes are made to the certificate, ACORD has made it exceedingly clear that changes to the certificate do not change the policy.
  • The contract should require that the insured party provide immediate notice to the owner, lessor, etc. if the insured entity receives notice of cancellation or nonrenewal from its insurer. This provision is especially important since many insurers will not be willing to comply with the recommendations below, especially for smaller insureds. Unfortunately, this has the obvious drawback of depending on the very party who is non-performing to report the non-performance.
  • Contracts should require that the insured’s policies be endorsed to meet the certificate holder’s reasonable requirements. (However, as stated above, not all insurers will be willing to cooperate.) If the insurer is somewhat cooperative, it may be willing to extending the same notification rights to the certificate holder that it gives to the first Named Insured. Below is sample manuscript endorsement wording that would accomplish that end. Very large insureds may be able to obtain even broader notification rights.

“If we cancel or elect not to renew this policy, we will give written notice to ____________ at the following address __________________. We will provide the same notice of cancellation and nonrenewal that is required by this policy to the first Named Insured.”

So if the certificate holder is given the same notice of cancellation and nonrenewal as the first Named Insured, what does that actually mean with standard policies?

Standard commercial insurance policies provide the first Named Insured with 10 days notice of cancellation for nonpayment of premium. If the insurer cancels mid-term for any reason besides non-payment of premium, commercial general liability, automobile and property policies provide 30 days notice of cancellation. Workers compensation policies, however, provide only 10 days notice of mid-term cancellation. If an insurer nonrenews a policy versus cancelling it mid-term, it may nonrenew a commercial automobile or workers compensation policy without any advance notice at all. Property policies may also be nonrenewed without any advance notice to the insured, but if there is a mortgagee or loss payee on the policy, they must be given at least 10 days advance notice. General liability policies may be nonrenewed with just 30 days notice.

State laws in most states change the above requirements, requiring more notice in many situations. For instance, Florida requires that carriers provide the first Named Insured with 45 days notice of cancellation in some circumstances. The provisions of the different state laws are often complicated, differing not only by line of coverage but also by length of time the policy has been in force, the specific reasons for the cancellation or nonrenewal, etc. The specific state requirements can be accessed through the IRMI Insurance Cancellation Guide published by the International Risk Management Institute.

The larger the insured client, the more likely that it will be able to obtain additional concessions from its insurer. If possible, those additional provisions should require:

  1. Advance notice to the certificate holder even if the insured initiates the cancellation or nonrenewal and
  2. Minimum cancellation and nonrenewal provisions, regardless of what is provided by the standard policies or various state laws.

Why not just require the old form?

You may ask, “Why doesn’t the certificate holder simply require the insured and its insurance agent to provide the old certificate of insurance form?” What certificate holders and insureds should know is that if an agent does modify a standard certificate or signs a custom one that provides notice of cancellation, it is almost certainly doing so against the explicit direction of the insurance company. So while the certificate holder may have a paper in its hand which states that the insurance company will provide notice of cancellation, the insurer will not stand behind it. If coverage is cancelled, all that the certificate holder has probably gained is the right to sue the agent and its errors and omissions carrier. Since the agent is probably executing the modified certificate with the full knowledge that it is not authorized to do so, coverage under its errors and omissions policy is suspect. For a fuller understanding of why an agent executing modified certificates is engaging in a practice which may be unauthorized, deceptive and potentially illegal, please see the article written by Bill Wilson of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America at http://www.iiaba.net/eprise/main/VU/NonMember/WilsonCancellationNotice.htm.

Vendor solutions

I am aware of about 20 different vendors who provide some form of insurance certificate and verification service. I have found only one vendor that provides a certificate service that completely bypasses ACORD certificates and their problems. I pass on their information as a service to readers. Their name is Ins-Cert Corporation, and information on their services can be found by doing an Internet search under that name. Their system is Web-based and requires the agent/broker to agree to make a “good faith effort” to enter notices of cancellation into their system. The system then automatically sends cancellation notices to all certificate holders by email. Their system appears to offer a solution to both the problem of cancellation notices and also the problem of fraudulent ACORD certificates. From my investigation I believe they offer a legitimate service and are worthy of consideration. Readers of this paper who have found other workable solutions to this problem are asked to contact me.

Why the “Good Ol’ Days” Weren’t Really So Good –

Certificate holders certainly wish that the insurance industry would find a way to notify them when an insurance policy is cancelled. But in reality, they may not have lost much in this change besides the illusion that the insurer would notify them.

  • Many insureds have a “blanket additional insured” endorsement on their liability policies. That means that anyone that the insured agrees to name as an additional insured in a contract is automatically given that status in its insurance policy. But that also means that the insurance company does not obtain the names and addresses of those additional insureds, so the insurer does not know who they are or how to notify them.
  • Certificate holders would reasonably assume that as a matter of good faith, insurers would require that the agents/brokers send them a list of all of the certificates that they issued so that the insurer could “endeavor” to give notice of cancellation. Incredibly, that is not the case. Many carriers have explicitly told the agents/brokers not to send them copies of the certificates.

Since many insurance carriers have not made the good faith effort to comply with the notice requirements of the old certificate forms, not much is lost by eliminating the notice requirements altogether. At least false promises are no longer being made.

Closing thought

In writing about these changes on its own Website ACORD explained that it had to change its certificates because they sometimes contradicted or expanded the duties contained in the underlying insurance policies. Unfortunately, they were not able to cooperate with the other players in the insurance industry (the insurance companies, ISO and NCCI) to craft a solution which solved that problem while also meeting the legitimate business need of certificate holders to receive a cancellation notice. The outcry from the business community may need to get much louder before a better solution to this problem is reached.

The information presented here is necessarily general and is not intended as legal advice.