Members Login
User Name :  
Password :
Gon't Relations Calendar
Public Affairs Fund | History | Purchasing Groups & Commercial Lines Deregulation
 :: Join NRRA
Membership brochure
Membership application
Who should join Nrra?
Benefits of Nrra Membership
What is your investment?
Membership categories
Legal Activities
:: NRRA GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND REGULATORY ACTIVITIES ::
Victory for ALAS, HARRG and NRRA in Michigan
By Phillip Olsson of Olsson, Frank and Weeda, P.C.

NRRA can share a piece of the credit for this victory because United States District Judge Enslen relies substantially on the precedent created by NRRA in its Louisiana litigation, National Risk Retention Association v. Brown 127F. Supp. 195 (N.D. La. 1996), affirmed without opinion, 114F. 3rd 1183 (5th Cir. 1997) and also cites the amicus curiae brief submitted by NRRA in this proceeding.

The Enslen decision holds that the fee imposed by Michigan on risk retention groups is a regulatory fee, not a tax, and is therefore barred by the Liability Risk Retention Act. In addition, the Court holds that the employee-related coverages issued by the two risk retention groups are not barred by the Risk Retention Act. The Court accepts the arguments put forward by ALAS, HARRG and NRRA that the statutory language only excludes risk retention groups from writing workers and compensation coverages.

The new decision from the Michigan court is extremely important to risk retention groups because it provides a second opinion, which accords with the 1996 decision in National Risk Retention Association v. Brown, holding that non-domiciliary states may not impose significant regulatory fees on risk retention groups.

In addition, the Court has now invited the plaintiffs to submit requests for reimbursement of their legal fees pursuant to Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code. The court relies on the recent Oregon risk retention litigation, National Warranty Ins. Co. v. Greenfield, 24F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1109-10 (D. Or. 1998) to support this ruling on fee reimbursement.


For a copy of the Court's Decision, CLICK HERE.
(PDF file, 1.4MB, requires Adobe Acrobat 3.0 or newer to read.)

Download A.L.A.S. v Michigan Amicus Curiae brief
(This is a PDF file; requires Acrobat Reader to open and read.)

NRRA Court Cases - Click a case recap link below.

Ninth Circuit (Oregon) Affirms Preemptive
Effect of the Liability Risk Retention Act

Fifth Circuit (Louisiana) Decision


Purchasing Groups and Commerical Lines Deregulation

A number of states have enacted legislation that would exempt insurers insuring sophisticated commercial entities from rate and form filing requirements.

NRRA is considering whether it would be feasible for Purchasing Groups to employ a master policy form to pre-empt policy form and rate filings in the various states that have enacted commercial de-regulation statutes.

NRRA members may review a recap of the requirements imposed on the insurers by various states which have enacted such legislation to date in the “Member Links” section.

Select a state link below.
Arizona Arkansas Colorado Georgia
Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana
Maine Maryland Missouri Nebraska
New Hampshire Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island
Virginia Washington    
4248 Park Glen Road, Minneapolis, MN 55416, U.S.A. Telephone: 952-928-4656 Fax: 952-929-1318
Home Sitemap Contact us