Here’s a link to the House Insurance Committee hearing of April 30, 2013. My extensive fan network can skip to minute 10 and watch until minute 26 as I take on the Bonnen Brothers and discuss H.B. 3622 with the rest of the committee. Actually, it’s worth watching the whole thing, particularly the dance around the issue of whether H.B. 3622 mandates “actuarially sound rates.” Answer: it does not.
A few quick observations:
- Unconfirmed, but there is apparently a major change in H.B. 3622 that makes the bill worse than I thought. In fact, if what I am hearing is true, I might now answer the question posed to me by Representative Greg Bonnen yesterday somewhat differently about which was better, his bill, which I did not like, or the status quo, which I also do not like. If it is true, as I heard after the meeting, and as Beamon Floyd, a lobbyist for major Texas insurers suggested during his testimony, that a modified version of the bill relieves TWIA policyholders from the obligation of actually paying for the reinsurance that protects them but foists that $100 millionish burden onto insurers statewide, that makes H.B. 3622 even more problematic. If that’s true — and I hope to find out later today — my better answer might then be: “I can’t say: they are both awful in different ways. The status quo is awful because it does not create a high enough stack to protect TWIA policyholders from insolvency. HB 3622 is awful because it makes non-coastal residents pay even more of the burden of insuring on the coast and thereby sends even worse signals about development patterns and hurts the poor off the coast even more.”
- It is apparently very common practice in the Texas legislature for there to be proposed changes to a bill — a “Committee Substitute” that are not posted to the otherwise wonderful Texas legislative website. As a result, “outsiders” such as me find themselves testifying about provisions that have either been replaced or supplemented. Apparently, one can usually get the committee substitute by asking the bill proponent, but it might enhance democracy — and make testimony more relevant — if these substitutes were available electronically or in some regularized procedure.
- I think I now understand Representative Craig Eiland’s ideas on trying to assess insurers for Hurricane Ike. He doesn’t want to assess under the old law. What he seems to suggest is a new law that would assess insurers for anything up to $600 million “for Ike” and to justify that assessment on grounds that the insurers “escaped” that responsibility under the old law when TWIA messed up and failed to assess adequately. It’s an interesting idea and I too am troubled by the failure to assess under the old law. It is partly responsible for the current deficiency in the Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund. But it is not an idea without legal risks. Although the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution applies only to retroactive imposition of criminal liability, Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 594 (1952), that rule has some qualifications (Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U.S. (7 Otto) 381, 384 (1878)). Moreover, although what Representative Eiland is proposing isn’t quite a classical taking, it is a little disturbing. The idea of taking money, even if for the public good, not as a condition of continuing to have an insurance business in Texas but as punishment for having previously done business in Texas and legally escaping what some wanted you to pay, may come close to constitutional prohibitions. Make that assessment heavy enough and its relation to prior conduct or past legislative advocacy for the repeal of the old assessment law clear enough, and it might inspire the insurance industry to go out and find a good lawyer.
- The Bonnen Brothers are both clearly intelligent people. The absence of bombast in their tone is refreshing.
There will be more later today or tomorrow on the whole TWIA situation. Stay tuned as we head into the homestretch.