re: #246 garhighway

hypothetical:

State A requires that annual and lifetime policy limits have to be at least certain amounts, to be sure that the coverage is adequate. State B allows insufficient limits and further permits the policy to be marketed in a way that allows the carrier to avoid obvious disclosure of those inadequate limits.

One could say that state A has a regulation that “drives up the cost of coverage”. That statement would be accurate. But would you really want to encourage carriers to domicile in State B so they could sell the crapola deceptive policy? Would that be, in the grand scheme of things, a good idea?

I don’t understand this. NY would not allow an out of state insurer to sell a substandard policy in NY even if a federal regulation said the out of state insurer could legally sell there. The only way another state could sell in NY while ignoring NY regulations would be if a federal law allows them to do so, and at that point ALL state insurance regulations would be moot and we would have a single federal standard.