BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2588 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 2588 (Chu) As Amended August 19, 2016 Majority vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |50-29 |(June 2, 2016) |SENATE: |25-13 |(August 23, | | | | | | |2016) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: INS. SUMMARY: Creates new individual licensing programs for independent property/casualty insurance adjusters (adjuster) and apprentice independent property/casualty insurance adjusters (apprentice). The Senate amendments: 1)Eliminate the requirement for adjusters to maintain a $2,000 performance bond if the adjuster is working for a licensed firm that meets the bonding requirement. 2)Establish an inactive license category for adjusters. 3)Reduces the fee for issuing or renewing an adjuster license AB 2588 Page 2 from $120 to $80. 4)Resolve chaptering out conflicts with SB 488 (Block) of the current legislative session. EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires business entities providing insurance adjusting services to be licensed by the Department of Insurance (DOI). 2)Requires a business entity to designate a qualified individual to be responsible for the operation of the business entity's adjusting functions. That individual must have at least two years of experience adjusting claims and pass an examination. 3)Exempts individuals working for an insurer or a business entity that adjusts claims for an insurer from being licensed. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill has estimated ongoing costs to the DOI of $700,000-$800,000 per year for the added licensing and enforcement costs for the new licensees. The new program will generate estimated revenue of $1.5-2.5 million per year from fees from the new license requirements. Estimated costs to the Department of Justice of $400,000 in fiscal year 2017-18, $480,000 in fiscal year 2018-19, and $160,000 ongoing thereafter for processing live scan fingerprints submitted with applications. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, this bill will improve the caliber of independent insurance adjusters in California by requiring anyone who is not employed by an insurer (including AB 2588 Page 3 self-insured entities) who adjusts property/casualty insurance claims to be licensed. To become licensed, individuals will have to complete pre-licensing education, pass a qualifying examination, and pass a fingerprint-based background check. In addition licensees must complete 24 hours of continuing education every two years. Furthermore, the bill creates the apprentice independent insurance adjuster license for those seeking to become licensed. This bill will also allow California and other states with similar licensing laws (34 other states license individual adjusters) to license non-residents on a reciprocal basis. These changes will streamline the process for non-residents to obtain an adjuster license as currently these applicants must pass California's examination which is substantively similar to the examination passed in their resident states. 2)Claims Adjusters. Claims adjusters are central to the operation of an insurer. They investigate and evaluate insurance claims, decide whether an insurance company must pay a claim, and, if so, how much the insurance company must pay to satisfy the claim. This frequently requires on-site physical inspection in a property damage claim (commonly a home, business location, or automobile) which brings them into regular contact with the insured and with other members of the public. This bill is proposing new, broader licensing requirements for property/casualty adjusters. 3)NAIC Guideline. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is composed of the insurance commissioners for each state and has a number of functions. Among those is promoting consistency in insurance law by developing model laws and guidelines for the states. Adopting some NAIC model laws related to the financial solvency of insurers is required for a state to maintain its accreditation status with NAIC. Accreditation is crucial to the effective functioning of the oversight of financial solvency and states effectively have to adopt NAIC model laws that are part of the accreditation standards. NAIC model laws and guidelines that are not part of the accreditation standards are strictly advisory and states are under no obligation to enact them. This bill is based on a guideline developed by the NAIC that is not an accreditation standard. The DOI reports that 35 AB 2588 Page 4 states license adjusters in varying forms and this bill closely follows the NAIC guideline, including the creation of the apprentice license which is noted as an option in the guideline. 4)Contractor vs. Employee. This bill only applies the new individual license requirement to individuals who adjust claims for an insurer or self-insured entity on a contract basis while exempting individuals who are employees of an insurer or self-insured entity. This is analytically troublesome. Adjusters perform the same service and present the same risk regardless of their status as an employee or a contractor. The argument that individual adjusters must be licensed to ensure their competence and protect the public applies equally to both employees and contractors who are adjusting claims. Tax filing status seems a poor proxy for determining the necessity of a license. 5)DOI Workload. The DOI has a working estimate of 40,000 new licenses being issued over a two-year period if this bill is enacted. This working estimate is based the assumption that the number of independent adjusters in California would be similar to other large states, such as Florida. It is often difficult to estimate the number applicants when establishing a new licensing program because the affected population is typically unknown, and it can be hard to predict how businesses may alter their practices based on new licensing requirements. 6)Impact of Expanding Licensing Requirements. There has been some attention paid recently to the expanding number of occupations that require a license. Most notably a study co-authored by the United States (US) Treasury Department, Council of Economic Advisors, and the US Department of Labor found that occupational licensing requirements have a measurable economic impact. The study found that: "?by making it harder to enter a profession, licensing can AB 2588 Page 5 also reduce employment opportunities and lower wages for excluded workers, and increase costs for consumers. a) Research shows that by imposing additional requirements on people seeking to enter licensed professions, licensing can reduce total employment in the licensed professions. b) Estimates find that unlicensed workers earn 10% to 15% lower wages than licensed workers with similar levels of education, training, and experience. "Licensing laws also lead to higher prices for goods and services, with research showing effects on prices of between 3% and 16%. Moreover, in a number of other studies, licensing did not increase the quality of goods and services, suggesting that consumers are sometimes paying higher prices without getting improved goods or services." Analysis Prepared by: Paul Riches / INS. / (916) 319-2086 FN: 0004817