Abstract
Effective October 1, 2018, the Member States of the European Union had to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of January 20, 2016 on insurance distribution (IDD). The IDD arose out of a desire to give insurance customers equal protection regardless of the type of distributor from which they obtained insurance. Essentially, the IDD seeks to level the playing field of protections for insurance customers by simplifying, consolidating, and expanding customer protections when needed. The IDD has the stated goal of focusing on “the area of the disclosure of information” to customers. The directive is intentionally broad and applies “to persons whose activity consists of providing insurance or reinsurance distribution services to third parties.”
Although it is much too early to predict the course of the IDD within the European Union, a comparison can be drawn with the Model Acts promulgated by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in the United States to glean an inkling as to where the IDD might be headed. Parts of the Model Acts have been in place for a number of years and, while the legal regimes they cover are modestly different, there are nonetheless broad lessons that can be drawn in the comparison of the two. Whether the path of the IDD follows the arc of the Model Acts, or not, will perhaps be attributed to three instrumental aspects:
The IDD is unquestionably focused on customer protection. The NAIC is more nearly concerned with uniformity. It may be that the IDD’s focus will contribute to better traction among the EU Member States then Model Acts have experienced in the United States.
Unlike the IDD, the NAIC Model Acts are not comprehensive with respect to customer protection.
The NAIC Model Acts have seen inconsistent adoption by the states, a factor that has contributed to a lack of uniformity and constancy across any number of insurance products. While the IDD should not suffer from spotty adoption, the relative flexibility of the EU Member States in adopting more stringent rules may lead to a lack of uniformity and consistency similar to that of the Model Acts. Thus, the IDD may very well face the same headwinds faced by the Model Acts in the United States.
Accurate predictions are always elusive when dealing with the implementation of regulation and legislation. Accordingly, we will watch with curiosity whether the IDD, which takes a much more global approach in customer protection, will see more success.
Acknowledgements
An early version of this paper was presented at the VIIth Association Internationale de Droit des Assurances (AIDA) Europe Conference in Warsaw on April 13, 2018. We are grateful for the diligent and able research assistance of Andrew Klair and Michael (Jake) Winton, both University of California, Hastings College of the Law class of 2020. Errors are, of course, ours.
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Research Articles
- Is the International Community Ready for the Next Pandemic Wave? A Legal Analysis of the Preparedness Rules Codified in Universal Instruments and of their Impact in the Light of the COVID-19 Experience
- Access-to-Justice Reforms: A Brazilian Case Study of Bank Litigation Related to Heterodox Economic Plans
- Quality of Energy, Energy Access and Law within the Cuban Hydropower Context
- Limiting Freedom During the Covid-19 Emergency in Italy: Short Notes on the New “Populist Rule of Law”
- Contracting Out Public Services to the Private Sector in the UK: Issues and Considerations
- Liability for the Fact of Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Agents. Things, Agencies and Legal Actors
- Put Dialectics into the Machine: Protection against Automatic-decision-making through a Deeper Understanding of Contestability by Design
- The Issue of Immunity of Private Actors Exercising Public Authority and the New Paradigm of International Law
- Ruling without Rules: Not Only Nudges. Regulation beyond Normativity
- Breaking out of the Regulatory Delusion. The Ban to Surrogacy and the Foundations of European Constitutionalism
- The Transplant of Trusts in Different Legal Jurisdictions: The Example of China
- The New EU Rules on Insurance Customer/Policyholder Protection Viewed against the NAIC Model Acts
Articles in the same Issue
- Research Articles
- Is the International Community Ready for the Next Pandemic Wave? A Legal Analysis of the Preparedness Rules Codified in Universal Instruments and of their Impact in the Light of the COVID-19 Experience
- Access-to-Justice Reforms: A Brazilian Case Study of Bank Litigation Related to Heterodox Economic Plans
- Quality of Energy, Energy Access and Law within the Cuban Hydropower Context
- Limiting Freedom During the Covid-19 Emergency in Italy: Short Notes on the New “Populist Rule of Law”
- Contracting Out Public Services to the Private Sector in the UK: Issues and Considerations
- Liability for the Fact of Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Agents. Things, Agencies and Legal Actors
- Put Dialectics into the Machine: Protection against Automatic-decision-making through a Deeper Understanding of Contestability by Design
- The Issue of Immunity of Private Actors Exercising Public Authority and the New Paradigm of International Law
- Ruling without Rules: Not Only Nudges. Regulation beyond Normativity
- Breaking out of the Regulatory Delusion. The Ban to Surrogacy and the Foundations of European Constitutionalism
- The Transplant of Trusts in Different Legal Jurisdictions: The Example of China
- The New EU Rules on Insurance Customer/Policyholder Protection Viewed against the NAIC Model Acts