​ Big I NY Priority Excess Lines Affidavit Bill Signed Into Law

On December 30th, Governor Hochul signed into law legislation that will reduce paperwork burdens on brokers placing coverage in the excess market and allow them to better serve their customers. The bill, which Big I NY strongly supported, streamlines the affidavits that brokers must submit upon placing excess coverage. Prior to the bill's signature, the form required a total of twenty-one data elements in total for three declinations. The new law is effectively immediately and removes name of declining representative, affiliation of the representative, and reason for the declination from the affidavits.We thank Assemblywoman Pam Hunter and Senator Neil Breslin for sponsoring this important bill…

Continue Reading​ Big I NY Priority Excess Lines Affidavit Bill Signed Into Law

​ Our Photo Inspection Reform Bill Was Vetoed: Here’s What Happens Next

What Happened:On November 21st, Governor Hochul vetoed our bill, S.6028/A.6877, which would have allowed insurance companies to waive CARCO inspections. In her veto message, the Governor cited concerns that the bill would remove protections against fraud, increase insurance rates, and harm the businesses that perform photo inspections. What's Next:While we are deeply disappointed the bill was vetoed, we remain confident there is a path forward. In her veto message, Governor Hochul stated that “with modern technology the [photo inspection requirement] could be updated in a responsible way," and that “I am willing to work with the legislature, the insurance industry, and the automotive industry during…

Continue Reading​ Our Photo Inspection Reform Bill Was Vetoed: Here’s What Happens Next

Regulation 187: A Fight Worth Fighting, Despite a Disappointing Ruling

​What Happened:For the past four years, Big I NY has been fighting a legal challenge against the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS") concerning Amended Insurance Regulation 187. The Amended Regulation 187 requires the “Producer" to act in the “Best Interests" of the customer. It also requires that the Producer make a “suitability" “recommendation" based on an analysis of their “needs." In our view, the regulation is unfairly vague and extremely challenging for producers to comply with. We remain concerned that this will lead to reduced access to the trusted advice consumers deserve. In 2021, the Appellate Court, 3rd Department, unanimously ruled in our…

Continue ReadingRegulation 187: A Fight Worth Fighting, Despite a Disappointing Ruling