BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 3005 By: Paxton Insurance Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Observers note that there are certain exemptions from the requirement that certain agents hold a limited property and casualty license. C.S.H.B. 3005 seeks to create another such exemption for a person who writes certain job protection insurance policies. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 3005 amends the Insurance Code to exempt from provisions of law requiring certain persons acting as agents to hold a limited property and casualty license a person who wrote for the previous calendar year job protection insurance policies for an insurer that generated, in the aggregate, less than $40,000 in direct premium. EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2011. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE C.S.H.B. 3005 differs from the original by making the exemption from the requirement that certain persons hold a limited property and casualty license apply to a person who wrote job protection insurance policies for an insurer that generated a specified amount in direct premium, whereas the original makes the exemption apply to a person who wrote such policies for an insurance company that generated such amount in direct premium. The substitute differs from the original in nonsubstantive ways.
BILL ANALYSIS
# BILL ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 3005
By: Paxton
Insurance
Committee Report (Substituted)
C.S.H.B. 3005
By: Paxton
Insurance
Committee Report (Substituted)
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Observers note that there are certain exemptions from the requirement that certain agents hold a limited property and casualty license. C.S.H.B. 3005 seeks to create another such exemption for a person who writes certain job protection insurance policies.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 3005 amends the Insurance Code to exempt from provisions of law requiring certain persons acting as agents to hold a limited property and casualty license a person who wrote for the previous calendar year job protection insurance policies for an insurer that generated, in the aggregate, less than $40,000 in direct premium.
EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2011.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
C.S.H.B. 3005 differs from the original by making the exemption from the requirement that certain persons hold a limited property and casualty license apply to a person who wrote job protection insurance policies for an insurer that generated a specified amount in direct premium, whereas the original makes the exemption apply to a person who wrote such policies for an insurance company that generated such amount in direct premium. The substitute differs from the original in nonsubstantive ways.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Observers note that there are certain exemptions from the requirement that certain agents hold a limited property and casualty license. C.S.H.B. 3005 seeks to create another such exemption for a person who writes certain job protection insurance policies.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 3005 amends the Insurance Code to exempt from provisions of law requiring certain persons acting as agents to hold a limited property and casualty license a person who wrote for the previous calendar year job protection insurance policies for an insurer that generated, in the aggregate, less than $40,000 in direct premium.
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2011.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
C.S.H.B. 3005 differs from the original by making the exemption from the requirement that certain persons hold a limited property and casualty license apply to a person who wrote job protection insurance policies for an insurer that generated a specified amount in direct premium, whereas the original makes the exemption apply to a person who wrote such policies for an insurance company that generated such amount in direct premium. The substitute differs from the original in nonsubstantive ways.