Louisiana Senate Bill SB669

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/7/10
• Engrossed: 4/12/10
• Refer: 4/13/10
• Report Pass: 5/12/10
• Enrolled: 6/20/10
• Chaptered: 7/6/10
• Passed: 7/6/10

Caption

Provide for biannual renewal of surplus lines broker license, commissions and continuing education hours. (8/15/10)

Impact

If enacted, SB 669 would require insurance producers to complete a one-time training course to sell long-term care insurance. This policy change is designed to ensure that producers are adequately educated on the complexities of long-term care services and the various options available to consumers. Additionally, the bill specifies ongoing training requirements to maintain licensure, which seeks to improve the quality of information provided to insurance clients.

Summary

Senate Bill 669, sponsored by Senator Hebert, aims to amend and reenact several provisions of the insurance code in Louisiana, specifically relating to insurance producers. The bill introduces new regulations for the biannual renewal of surplus lines broker licenses, adjusts commission structures, and modifies the carry forward of continuing education hours. It is intended to enhance the professional requirements and improve standards for those selling insurance within the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 669 generally reflects a supportive stance among industry professionals who see the necessity for higher standards in insurance education and training. Supporters argue that such measures are essential for protecting consumers and maintaining the integrity of the insurance market. However, there are concerns about the feasibility of ongoing training requirements, particularly among smaller producers who may find the additional training burdensome.

Contention

Notable points of contention include discussions regarding the potential impact of increased training and licensing requirements on smaller insurance agencies, which may struggle with the additional regulatory burdens. Critics of the bill suggest that while the intent is to enhance consumer protection, the implementation of strict training standards could unintentionally limit access to insurance services for certain populations. The debate underscores the challenge of balancing regulation with the practical needs of the insurance industry.