PIA National has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to delay preliminary approval of a class settlement with Zurich Insurers until flaws in a mandatory disclosure statement are corrected.

In a reply brief filed with the Court on October 6, 2006, PIA National answered the objections of ten state Attorneys General who are formally opposing PIA’s effort to get the Court to consider its brief of amicus curiae that the association filed on September 15, 2006. In addition to the flawed disclosure statement, PIA objects to this and similar proposed settlements because they would create disparate impact on PIA members’ livelihoods by prohibiting the payment by carriers of certain contingency payments.

“Main Street insurance agents did not commit the alleged abuses that led to these proposed settlements,” said PIA National Executive Vice President & CEO Len Brevik. “But this settlement agreement attempts to impose a remedy for wrongdoing on Main Street agents, who did nothing wrong. That’s just not right.”
 
“Agents were shut out of the negotiating process that led to these proposed settlements, and now the Attorneys General don’t want the Court to hear our concerns,” Brevik said. “That is unfair and unconscionable.”

Arguments filed on September 26, 2006 by the Attorneys General asking that the Court deny PIA’s request to file the amicus brief “lack merit and appear designed to evade PIA’s legitimate concerns,” according to the PIA reply brief.  PIA reiterates that it was unfairly shut out of all negotiations and now, the Attorneys General “seek to silence the agents and brokers most directly affected” by provisions of the proposed settlement.

PIA noted that the plaintiffs in the case “want to have it both ways” by asking the court to ignore that insurance is regulated primarily by the respective states and thereby approving a purported “nationwide” settlement, while at the same time asking the court to defer PIA’s objections until after provisions it objects to are approved.

“It would appear that the Settling AGs exceeded the considered judgment of most state regulators,” notes the PIA reply. “AGs are not the primary insurance regulators in their states – the insurance commissioners and supervisors are – and the vast majority of insurance commissioners have refused to join the Multi-State Agreement.  In fact, the Georgia Commissioner, the Honorable John W. Oxendine, recently declared that Georgia will have no part in this ongoing crusade because he felt it ‘served no worthwhile purpose.’”

PIA Responds To Attorneys General (National Underwriter 10/13/06)

PIA Asks for Delay in Zurich Settlement (Business Insurance 10/13/06)

Agents Seek Delay in Settlement (Insurance Journal 10/13/06)

PIA Asks District Court to Delay Approval of Class Settlement (PIA press release 10/12/06)

Reply Brief of Amicus Curiae (PDF file)
National Association of Professional Insurance Agents
United States District Court, District of New Jersey
Filed: October 6, 2006

Attorneys Generals’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to PIA’s Amicus (PDF file)
United States District Court, District of New Jersey

Brief of Amicus Curiae (PDF file)
Unites States District Court, District of New Jersey
National Association of Professional Insurance Agents

October 17, 2006