BILL ANALYSIS
AB 41
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 41 (Solorio) - As Amended: January 7, 2010
Policy Committee: InsuranceVote:7-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill modifies insurance statutes governing the California
Organized Investment Network (COIN) and community development
investing, which encourages insurance industry financial
commitments in urban and economically disadvantaged areas.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Extends the sunset on existing biennial reporting requirements
of insurers to the California Department of Insurance (CDI)
from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2015.
2)Requires insurers who collect $100 million or more in premiums
to develop and file a "Community Development Investment"
policy statement to influence community development decisions
and actions.
FISCAL EFFECT
One-time fee-supported special fund costs of $175,000 to CDI to
collect, maintain, and publish information related to current
reporting activity and to publish policy statements on behalf of
California's largest insurers. Ongoing fee-supported special
fund costs of $50,000.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This bill increases the requirements imposed on
insurers with respect to community development activities and
investments. COIN reflects collaboration between CDI,
insurance companies, and economic development organizations.
This bill serves as follow-up to AB 925 (Ridley-Thomas),
Chapter 456, Statutes of 2006, which requires insurers to
AB 41
Page 2
report community development investments to CDI. According to
data, only 54 of 485 insurers have adopted a policy related to
community investment. This bill extends current law reporting
and establishes a policy statement requirement on large
insurers to increase the information and feedback about these
investments. According to the author and published financial
data, up to 120 companies may be subject to the policy
statement requirement.
2)Related Legislation . AB 1910 (Coto) in 2008 was similar to
this bill and was vetoed. The veto message referenced the
state budget delay with no specific concerns expressed about
the content of the legislation.
Analysis Prepared by : Mary Ader / APPR. / (916) 319-2081