Summary#
A-11724 would amend New York’s Insurance Law by adding a requirement for property/casualty insurance carriers to give the Department of Financial Services access to underwriting models or, if those models are unavailable, detailed claim data. Its stated goal is to let the department evaluate insurers’ underwriting practices and risk-assessment methods. The bill is at the introduced stage and is not law.
- When the superintendent requests access, each carrier authorized to do business in New York must provide access to its underwriting models to department staff designated by the superintendent and agreed upon with the carrier.
- If underwriting models are unavailable, the carrier must provide detailed, record-level claim data sufficient for the department’s evaluation.
- The bill requires department staff to use the information only for regulatory purposes and makes it subject to confidentiality protections under applicable state and federal law.
- Failure to comply would be a violation and may lead to penalties under another part of the Insurance Law, including fines, suspension, or loss of a license.
- The bill would take effect 90 days after it becomes law.
What it means for you#
- Property/casualty insurance carriers: A carrier authorized to do business in New York would have to provide access when the superintendent requests it. If its underwriting models are unavailable, it would have to provide sufficient granular claim data instead.
- Department of Financial Services: Department staff would gain access for regulatory evaluation, but the staff reviewing the information must be designated by the superintendent and agreed upon with the carrier.
- Policyholders and the public: The bill does not directly change insurance coverage, premiums, eligibility, or claim rights. It does not require the department to publish what it learns.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill could require department staff time and create costs for carriers to provide access or data, but it gives no estimates or funding.
- The bill allows penalties under existing Insurance Law for non-compliance; the available text does not state penalty amounts.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define when an underwriting model is “not available” or who decides that.
- It does not explain how the superintendent and carrier choose mutually agreed staff, or what happens if they cannot agree.
- It sets no timelines, review procedures, reporting requirements, or appeal process.
- It does not specify how the department must protect or store the information beyond requiring confidentiality consistent with applicable law and regulatory use.
- The supplied material does not include the existing Insurance Law provisions, so the exact current penalties under section 109 and how the new requirement fits with current confidentiality rules could not be verified.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to give the insurance regulator access to information it may need to evaluate how carriers assess risk, set premiums, and decide coverage eligibility.
- A possible argument for requiring claim data when models are unavailable is that it gives the department another source of information for its evaluation.
- The confidentiality and regulatory-use limits could help protect the information from uses outside the department’s regulatory work.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill does not set a clear process for agreeing on department staff. A carrier’s role in that agreement could affect whether or how quickly access is provided.
- It is unclear what counts as an unavailable model, which could affect when the data-access requirement applies.
- The bill does not specify safeguards or procedures for reviewing sensitive model or claim information, beyond referring to applicable confidentiality protections.
- The bill creates a compliance duty and possible penalties without stating the likely staff, technology, or carrier costs.