Texas Senate Bill SB1735

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 5/4/11
• Introduced: 3/11/11
• Voted on by Senate: 5/10/11
• Refer: 3/23/11
• Report Pass: 5/4/11
• Engrossed: 5/10/11
• Refer: 5/11/11

Caption

Relating to limited purpose subsidiary life insurance companies.

Impact

By enabling limited purpose subsidiary life insurance companies, SB1735 seeks to enhance the stability of the life insurance market in Texas. It sets a minimum capital and surplus requirement of $10 million for these subsidiaries and outlines specific operational guidelines, including the prohibition against assuming new risks for business sold after a specified date. This carefully regulated framework aims to provide a buffer for life insurance companies, ensuring they can meet their policyholder obligations while managing their financial resources. Proponents argue that this will ultimately lead to a stronger insurance sector that can better withstand economic fluctuations.

Summary

SB1735 relates to the establishment of limited purpose subsidiary life insurance companies in Texas. The bill aims to authorize these companies to support the excess reserves for certain life insurance policies. Specifically, it amends Chapter 841 of the Insurance Code to introduce a new subchapter outlining the regulations and operational framework for these entities. A primary purpose is to improve the financial stability of life insurance companies by allowing the establishment of subsidiaries that can manage excess reserves effectively. The bill emphasizes the need for these companies to be wholly owned by a domestic insurance company and defines various key terms such as 'ceding insurer' and 'excess reserves'.

Contention

While SB1735 has garnered support for its potential to strengthen the insurance market, it could also lead to concerns about regulatory complexities and administrative burdens for existing life insurance companies. The requirement for maintaining significant capital reserves and compliance with numerous reporting obligations could be viewed as onerous by some stakeholders. Furthermore, there might be discussions around competitive fairness and whether such measures effectively address the needs of policyholders or merely serve as another layer of regulatory oversight. These aspects could be points of contention during legislative deliberations.