NAIC Committee Approves NOLHGA Request
On March 6, 2025, the NAIC Blanks (E) Working Group (which, among other things, considers improvements and revisions to the various annual and quarterly statements that insurance companies are required to file) approved a request from NOLHGA to add a contact information field to quarterly e-filings made by insurance companies that are subject to guaranty association assessments.
NOLHGA made the request in November 2024, on behalf of NOLHGA and NCIGF members. The new field will include the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person responsible for managing and paying the company’s guaranty association assessments.
NOLHGA anticipates the change will be approved by the full NAIC later this month at the Spring National Meeting, which would make it effective starting in 2026. Once the information is available, NOLHGA plans to incorporate it into AssessConnect, our new assessment and company contact information database.
Staff Contact - Jennifer WebbFSB Appoints New Leadership
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) appointed new Chairs for two of its key committees that were previously led by U.S. representatives:
- Resolution Steering Group (ReSG): Dominique Laboureix (Chair of the Single Resolution Board) replaces Martin Gruenberg (former Chair of the U.S. FDIC) as ReSG Chair. The ReSG is the global forum for the discussion and development of standards and guidance for resolution regimes and recovery and resolution planning for systemically important financial institutions.
- Standing Committee for the Assessment of Vulnerabilities (SCAV): Tiff Macklem (Governor of the Bank of Canada) replaces Nellie Liang (former U.S. Treasury Under Secretary for Domestic Finance) as SCAV Chair. The SCAV is responsible for monitoring and assessing global financial stability vulnerabilities and proposing how to address them.
NAIC Updates
The Receivership and Insolvency Task Force (RITF) met on March 4 in lieu of meeting at the NAIC’s Spring National Meeting. Here are the highlights from the discussion:
- Update on International Recovery & Resolution Matters: Bob Wake (ME) reminded the task force of recently adopted updates to recovery and resolution planning Insurance Core Principles (ICPs) 12 and 16 and the corresponding ComFrame sections. Wake sits on the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) Resolution Working Group (ReWG), which has established a drafting group to update the IAIS’s Recovery Planning Application Paper and Resolution Powers and Planning Application Paper. The drafting group has completed initial drafts of its updates to the two papers, and the working group will meet the second week of April in Washington, D.C., to discuss. Wake mentioned that resolution planning has been a significant issue during the current round of Targeted Jurisdictional Assessments (TJA), which determines whether a specific jurisdiction’s insurance supervisors have and exercise the legal authority and supervisory practices to effectively perform the requirements of the Holistic Framework. The IAIS completed its second TJA of the United States last year.
- Update on Other Receivership Matters: Jane Koenigsman (NAIC) provided an update on other receivership matters, including recent recovery and resolution planning updates to the Supervisory College guidance in the NAIC’s Financial Analysis Handbook. Koenigsman also reported that new state contacts will be added to the Global Receivership Information Database this week. The NAIC also plans to maintain a list of states that adopted the 2023 revisions to the Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Model Act related to cybersecurity coverage and restructuring mechanisms and hopes to post this tracker on the RITF website by the end of March. Finally, Koenigsman highlighted the Directory of Receivership and Run-Off Resources.
The Reinsurance Task Force discussed several items during its March 4 call, its first meeting with Monica Macaluso (CA) as Chair:
Asset Adequacy Testing: The task force heard several perspectives on the Life Actuarial Task Force’s efforts to develop an Actuarial Guideline (AG) on the asset adequacy of reinsured business. Notably, in his introduction of the AG, Life Actuarial Task Force (LATF) Chair Fred Andersen (MN) highlighted that the 2025 filing will be “disclosure only,” while emphasizing that domestic regulators can always require additional reserves, as necessary. He outlined the current work plan, which anticipates full adoption by the Summer National Meeting in August.
After Andersen’s report, the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA) urged LATF to address whether the current draft AG would conflict with the Covered Agreements—a topic Andersen has deferred to date, emphasizing the disclosure-only nature of the AG. RAA representatives suggested that as drafted, the current version of the AG may impose duplicative obligations on European reinsurers, which would conflict with the Covered Agreements. NAIC legal suggested that any discussion of whether there is a violation of the Covered Agreements likely would occur at the U.S./EU joint group that works on, among other things, Covered Agreement implementation. Andersen requested specific information from industry on this topic.
The ACLI raised concerns about the current draft AG, emphasizing the need to give appointed actuaries the flexibility to make professional determinations and to give domestic regulators discretion regarding scope. The ACLI also called for a narrowing of the treaties subject to the AG to those entered into after 2020 and discouraged LATF from adopting the concept of “Associated Party” in the current draft. Conversely, Tricia Matson (Risk & Regulatory Consulting) urged regulators to move away from a disclosure-only framework to something more prescriptive.
ReFAWG Update: Rolf Kaumann (CO) provided an update on the work of the Reinsurance Financial Analysis Working Group (ReFAWG), which meets in regulator-only sessions. The group has met twice since the last meeting, approving several reciprocal jurisdiction reinsurer and certified reinsurer applications. To date, 97 reciprocal jurisdiction reinsurers and 40 certified reinsurers have been approved for passporting, and 49 states and territories have passported at least one such reinsurer.
Other Workstream Updates: Jake Stultz (NAIC) provided an update on other NAIC workstreams that touch on reinsurance issues. After recounting several updates from 2024 (e.g., the reinsurance worksheet, Macroprudential Working Group efforts on cross-border reinsurance, etc.), Stultz previewed a new Schedule S, Part 8 that will be exposed at the Statutory Accounting Principles and Blanks working groups. This schedule would require companies to report detailed information regarding assets backing funds withheld or modified coinsurance reinsurance agreements.
Question on Accounting Treatment of Reinsured Riders: Finally, the task force heard a question from the Connecticut Insurance Department regarding the accounting treatment of reinsured riders under Appendix A-791 (see Attachment 2 of the meeting materials). There was no discussion of the specific issue, and regulators were encouraged to share any feedback with Wanchin Chou (CT). This topic also will be discussed at the regulator-only Valuation Analysis Working Group.
The Life Actuarial Task Force (LATF) discussed comment letters received on the latest draft Actuarial Guideline (AG) on the asset adequacy analysis of reinsured business (see above; comment letters are available here). Following a short statement from each commenter on the main points from their notes, the task force walked through specific issues. As he has done in prior meetings, Fred Andersen (MN) kicked off the discussion on each topic with his reaction to the comment letters and a proposed path forward. Here are the main points from this discussion:
- Use of “New York 7” Treasury Rate Scenarios: Andersen noted that at least 95% of companies using asset-intensive reinsurance already perform this analysis and provide results for VM-30. He emphasized how efficiently these scenarios capture reinvestment and disintermediation risk. Brian Bayerle (ACLI) urged the task force to allow for more flexibility and provide the domestic regulator discretion on companies’ use of alternatives to the New York 7—especially because this will involve jurisdictions with significantly different regulatory regimes. Matt Cheung (IL) and Mike Yanacheak (IA) agreed, suggesting that if different scenarios provide regulators with the same substantive information, companies should not be required to perform similar tests multiple times. Andersen noted that he “had enough information” to draft revisions to this section.
- Use of Analysis Similar to Cash Flow Testing/VM-30 Memorandum: Andersen continues to request specific examples of what companies are doing in other jurisdictions that is similar to cash flow testing or the VM-30 memorandum. The goal is for regulators to analyze any informational gaps that would need to be addressed under those alternatives. Bayerle (ACLI) suggested that the domestic regulator would be able to request information to fill any gaps that regulators identified.
- Starting Asset Amount: In a brief discussion, Andersen conveyed his desire to keep the starting asset amount for cash flow testing as the post-reinsurance amount, noting that there is “generally a desire among regulators” to retain this concept.
- Associated Party Concept: In another brief discussion, Andersen noted that this concept is included, in part, to limit the number of companies that would be able to seek exemptions to the AG.
The Privacy Protections Working Group met on February 28 to walk through comments received on Article IV (related to privacy and opt-out notices for personal information) of the Chair’s Draft Amendments to Model #672. Most of the discussion centered around whether the model should include an opt-in provision. Consumer advocates and some states (CA and VA) favored an opt-in approach, while industry argued against it. Director Dwyer (Chair - RI) expressed uncertainty about how the working group would proceed, but regulators will meet again to consider comments and determine next steps. It is unclear when the next call will be scheduled. As of now, the working group is not scheduled to meet at the Spring National Meeting.
The Aggregation Method (AM) Implementation (G) Working Group will hold its first meeting in Indianapolis on March 25 at 10:00 am ET. The primary purpose of the working group is to address remaining issues identified in the IAIS’s AM Comparability Assessment to ensure convergence of the AM with the Insurance Capital Standard (ICS), specifically the treatment of interest rate risk, scalars, and supervisory intervention.
The Information Technology Examination Working Group met recently to discuss its 2025 workplan. A drafting group was created to develop a framework for the assessment of both general IT controls and more detailed cybersecurity procedures. Additionally, the working group heard from the Cybersecurity Working Group on its efforts to test for compliance with the Insurance Data Security Model Law. Michael Peterson (CA) noted that the Cybersecurity Working Group wants to avoid duplication of regulator efforts and overlapping obligations on companies. The two working groups will work together on compliance testing.
Staff Contact - Sean McKennaState Privacy Updates
The California Privacy Protection Agency held a public meeting on March 7, 2025, to discuss a new draft of the data broker regulations. The draft regulations contain additional definitions and changes to registration information requirements.
New consumer privacy bills were introduced in Vermont and West Virginia:
- The Vermont Data Privacy Act applies to a person who conducts business in, or produces products or services targeted to residents of, Vermont and who during the preceding calendar year: (1) controlled or processed the personal data of not fewer than 100,000 consumers, excluding personal data controlled or processed solely for the purpose of completing a payment traction; or (2) controlled or processed the personal data of not fewer than 25,000 consumers and derived more than 25% of the person’s gross revenue from the sale of personal data. Financial institutions and data subject to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and protected health information under HIPAA are exempt.
- West Virginia’s HB 2953 applies to a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or legal entity that (1) is organized or operated for the profit or financial benefit of its shareholders or owners; (2) does business or conducts sales in West Virginia, for money or other valuable consideration; (3) collects personal information about consumers, or is the entity on behalf of which the information is collected; (4) determines the purposes and means of processing personal information about consumers alone or jointly with others; and (5) satisfies one or more of the following thresholds: (a) has global annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million, as adjusted in January of every odd-numbered year to reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index; (b) annually buys, receives for the business’ commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; (c) derives 50% or more of its global annual revenues from selling or sharing personal information about consumers; or (d) any entity that controls or is controlled by a business and that shares common branding with the business. The act contains a private right of action and does not have exemptions for data or institutions regulated by HIPAA, the GLBA, or insurance laws.
- The West Virginia Consumer Privacy Act of 2025 applies to “all consumer transactions involving the harvesting of personal financial information.” “Consumer transaction” is defined as “a sale, lease, or offer of a line of credit to a natural person or persons for a personal, family, household, or agricultural purpose.” The act does not contain HIPAA, GLBA, or insurance-related exemptions.