• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Sign Up
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise With Us
    • Monthly Banner Ad
    • Sponsor An Email
    • Post A Job
    • Product Launch

Agency Checklists

Massachusetts-inspired Insurance News & More

  • JOBS
  • Checklists
    • Starting Your Own Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Purchasing An Insurance Agency in Massachusetts
    • Why, When, & How: Times When A Massachusetts Insurance Agent Should Use A Business Broker
    • Deciding Whether or Not to Outsource Your Customer Service?
    • Employment Contracts & The Non-Compete Clause In Massachusetts
    • Hiring An Insurance Producer In Massachusetts
    • Insurance Agent to Agency Loans In Massachusetts
    • Moving Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • How Premium Financing Can Work For Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Remuneration Audit Checklist
    • Selling Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Applying For An Agency Loan
    • When The Auditor Calls
  • Data
  • Events
  • InsurShop
    • Insurance Quiz Time
    • Insurance Books
      • Innovation Titles
      • Improvement
      • Leadership
      • Licensing
      • Marketing
      • Sales
    • Insurance Films
    • Insurance Glossary
  • Partner News
You are here: Home / Insurance News | Massachusetts / Insurers | News / Genworth Loses Appeal Over The Denial Of Its 134% Rate Increase On Long-Term Care Insurance

Genworth Loses Appeal Over The Denial Of Its 134% Rate Increase On Long-Term Care Insurance

June 11, 2019 by Owen Gallagher

On June 3, 2019, the Appeals Court rejected the appeal of the Genworth Life Insurance Company (“Genworth”) against the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance (“Commissioner”).

In 2017, the Commissioner had rejected Genworth’s 2012 rate filings increasing the premium on long-term care insurance policies affecting approximately 14,500 policyholders in Massachusetts. At the time the Commissioner denied the insurer’s rate increases, Genworth had already sued the Commissioner, arguing that under the applicable rate statute its filings were deemed approved in 2016, by operation of law.

If Genworth’s rate increases had taken effect, some of the policyholders affected would have had rate increases of up to 134%.

The Appeals Court decision, Genworth Life Insurance Company v. Commissioner of Insurance, affirmed a 2017 decision of the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court that sustained the Commissioner’s position that Genworth had improperly filed its notice to initiate a 30-day statutory period for the Commissioner to act on Genworth’s pending rate increases before they were “deemed” approved automatically.

The “deeming statute” and the commissioner’s 2008 bulletin on filing notice through SERFF

Long-term care insurance policies are purchased by insureds to finance or defray the cost of long-term care needs if they become disabled later in life. Long-term care insurance pays for home health care, assisted living facilities, and nursing home care. The Commissioner has exclusive authority to review and approve or disapprove rate-increase requests for long-term care insurance policies and to withdraw approval of previously approved rates under Massachusetts law.

Because of several factors, including increased longevity, price inflation in nursing home costs, and incorrect actuarial assumptions, long-term care insurance has generated substantial losses to carriers. As a result, insurers that wrote long-term care insurance have sought significant rate increases that regulators have resisted.

Since 2009, the Commissioner has required rate submissions through the SERFF system

Since 2009, the Division of Insurance (“Division”), through its Bulletin 2008-08, has advised carriers to submit all forms and rates electronically, through the Division’s System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing (“SERFF”). SERFF replaced the prior paper-based process and allowed insurers to electronically submit forms, policies, and endorsements to the Commissioner and allowed the Division to manage the regulatory review process on-line with greater efficiency and speed.

The Commissioner’s SERFF Filing Instructions advised carriers that any rates submitted for approval with an implementation date “on approval” are not eligible to be deemed approved. Any time after filing its rate “on approval” a carrier may subsequently amend its filing and request an effective date. This change of the submission from “on approval” to a specified date, results in the filed rate’s automatic approval if the Commissioner takes no action with the 30-days before the rate is deemed effective. However, under the Division’s SERFF instructions the carrier should file the effective date for its rate to take effect through the Division’s SERFF System.

Genworth rate increase request in limbo from 2012 until 2016

In December 2012, Genworth filed proposed rate increases on its Massachusetts long-term care insurance policies issued between September 1988 and September 2005. Genworth sought premium increases of up to 134 percent over existing premium rates on some of 14,500 of Genworth’s long-term care insurance policies. Genworth filed for its rate increases through the Division’s SERFF system under the statute giving the commissioner authority to approve or disapprove long-term care insurance rates. Under that law, if the Commissioner does not reject a rate filing within thirty days, the filing is ‘deemed’ approved.

Because the thirty day period does not allow adequate time for the Division to evaluate some rate filings, the Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News, Mass. Division of Insurance News, DOI News, Massachusetts insurance regulationsCommissioner encourages carriers to opt out of the “deemer” mechanism of the statute and submit rate-increase requests to become effective, “on approval.” When Genworth filed its proposed rate increase in 2012, it did not set an effective date but instead made the rates effective “on approval.”

During the following four years, the Division of Insurance raised questions and sought additional information about the filings by way of “Objection Letters” filed through the SERFF system. Information was exchanged, and negotiations between Genworth and the Division of Insurance followed. Also, during this period, Genworth amended its filings twice through the SERFF system, changing the rate increase it was requesting. However, Genworth did not make any post-submission filing through the SERFF system seeking to impose a specific approval deadline.

Finally, after discussions with the Division, on October 21, 2016, Genworth sent notices advising the Commissioner that it would treat its rates as deemed approved in thirty days under M.G.L. c. 175, § 108(2)(a), unless the Commissioner disapproved the filings in writing in the interim. Genworth emailed the letters to the Commissioner, with copies sent by Federal Express overnight delivery. The commissioner received the notices on October 21, 2016, and requested extensions of the thirty-day deadline, which Genworth granted. Genworth’s final extension expired on December 16, 2016, with the Commissioner having neither approved nor disapproved Genworth’s filings.

At the time Genworth sent its notice, the Commissioner was negotiating with sixteen other long-term care insurance carriers over proposed rate increases and reached agreement with these other carriers to implement more modest rate increases. See Agency Checklists’ article of January 24, 2017, “Long-Term Care Policyholders’ Rates May Rise 40% Under Agreement With 16 Carriers.”

Genworth was not one of the 16 carriers agreeing to the rate increase limitations for its long-term care insurance policies.

On January 9, 2017, Genworth filed suit in the Superior Court for Suffolk County seeking a declaration that its filings had taken effect based upon its notice to the Commissioner of when its rates would take effect, and the Commissioner’s lack of action.

On February 21, 2017, the Commissioner rejected Genworth’s 2012 rate filings and claimed that Genworth’s notices by letter seeking to have the filings deemed approved were not valid because Genworth had not filed these notices through SERFF.

Superior Court decision in favor of the Commissioner

In the Superior Court, the Commissioner restated his argument that since Genworth only sent its requests by overnight mail and e­mail and had not filed any notices through SERFF, Genworth’s notices were insufficient to trigger any statutory approvals of Genworth’s filings.

The Superior Court found that the Commissioner’s administrative instructions “requiring that the applicant set a specific Effective Date in its filing and that any change to that filing be made through SERFF” were valid.

The Superior Court judge ruled Genworth’s failure to comply with these instructions meant the rate increase notice to the Commissioner never took effect. Instead, Genworth’s 2012 filings remained subject to the Commissioner’s disapproval authority, which the Commissioner validly exercised in February 2017. See Agency Checklists’ article of October 3, 2017, “No 134% Rate Increase For Genworth Life Due to Failure to Properly File Notice of Effective Date.”

Genworth appealed to the Appeals Court and sought direct appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court. However, that court denied Genworth’s request for an immediate appeal.

Appeals Court confirms Genworth did not follow the proper notice procedure

Before the Appeals Court, Genworth argued that under the applicable statute its requested rate increase was “deemed approved” on December 16, 2016, because its October 21, 2016 letters had provided the requisite 30-day notice. Genworth furthered argued that since the commissioner did not explicitly disapprove the increase within thirty days as required.

Genworth claimed its failure to file the request through SERFF was insignificant because the Commissioner had actual notice of the requested increase. Genworth also argued that the Division’s rules for filing through SERFF exceeded the Commissioner’s authority.

The Commissioner position before the Appeals Court was again that because Genworth’s statutory notices to the commissioner were not valid because Genworth did not file them through SERFF, as required. Thus, the statute did not control; the new rates were not deemed approved; and were, in fact, validly disapproved in the Commissioner’s February 2017 letter to Genworth after it had filed suit.

The Commissioner pointed the court to the instructions to the 2008-08 bulletin state explicitly, under the section titled “Deemer Provision,” that “[t]his section does not apply . . . to any filings that are effective on approval.”

The court noted the parties did not dispute that when on October 21, 2016, Genworth amended its pending rate request by letters to opt into the rate statute’s 30-day deemer provision, Genworth sent its notices to the Commissioner via Federal Express and e-mail, and not through SERFF, as the 2008-08 bulletin required.

The court affirmed the Superior Court decision that Genworth’s letters did not trigger the statute’s 30-day deemer provision. Therefore, the requested rate increase did not become effective, and the Commissioner’s explicit disapproval in February 2017, of Genworth’s rate increases, controlled.

The court’s final ruling was;

We are satisfied that the [Superior Court] judge’s view was correct here and that the sub-regulatory guidance provided by the 2008-08 bulletin was an appropriate exercise of the Commissioner’s authority. As a result, Genworth has not carried its “formidable burden” of demonstrating that the Commissioner’s interpretation, and administration, of [the statutes involved] were incorrect.”

Twenty days to apply for further appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court

The Massachusetts Appeals Court is an intermediate appellate court. The ultimate judicial authority resides with the Supreme Judicial Court. Parties dissatisfied with an Appeal Court’s decision may apply for further appellate review. However, the allowance of any further appeal is discretionary with the Supreme Judicial Court.

Genworth had initially requested the Supreme Judicial Court allow a direct appeal bypassing the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court denied that application on March 29, 2018.  Under the circumstance of this case, there is little doubt Genworth will make a second application for appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court.

Under the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, Genworth will have until June 24, 2019, to apply for further appellate review.

Agency Checklists will keep its readers posted on any further appellate proceedings in this case.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Insurers | News, MA Insurance Law | Insurance Coverage Cases Tagged With: Agency Checklists, insurance news massachusetts, MA Insurer News, massachusetts insurance news

Insurance Jobs in Massachusetts

About Owen Gallagher

Owen Gallagher is an experienced insurance litigator as well as a certified mediator and arbitrator who specializes in insurance industry disputes. His interest and affinity for insurance began at a young age working the counter at his father’s assigned risk agency in Roxbury. Over the course of his career, Owen has argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and has helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.  Owen can be reached here.

Primary Sidebar

-View Latest Career Opportunities Here-

Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News

Latest Agency Sales

The Philbin Insurance Group

The Philbin Insurance Group Purchases The Douglas Insurance Agency

World Insurance Associates Acquires The R.S. Gilmore Insurance Agency

DealerPolicy | Agency Checklists

DealerPolicy Insurance Acquires Granite State Independent Insurance

Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News

Arthur J. Gallagher Acquires North Star Marine Insurance

More Agency Sales

2020 NAIC Market Share Reports

NAIC 2020 Market Share Reports

Comments & Updates

  • Tony Lucacio on Associate General Counsel For Goosehead Insurance Terminated After Participating In January 6th Events In Washington, D.C.
  • Annie on Vermont Mutual Distributes $1,000,000 to COVID-19 Relief Efforts
  • Andrew J. Carpentier on The CAR Year In Review: Highlights From The 2020 Annual Report
  • Frank Lombard CPCU ARM on Time To Act As A Trusted Advisor About Earthquake Insurance?
  • Mike Ryan on InsurOp-Ed: Biden Tax Plan’s Impact on Insurance Agencies

AC In Your Inbox

Massachusetts Law Updates

Raynham Agent’s Non-Compete Escape Clause Included In Agency Sale Still Valid After Subsequent Stock Sale

A case deciding whether a non-compete clause included by the former owner of Eagle Insurance in his sale to People’s United Insurance, is still valid after that agency’s subsequent sale to AssuredPartners.

Boston Red Sox And MLB Aim Legal Beanball At Insurers With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit

Boston Red Sox and MLB Aim Legal Beanball At Insurers With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit

30 Major League Baseball teams have filed suit against their 3 insurers seeking $1.6 billion in Business Interruption losses from the COVID-19 shutdowns.

Should Insurance Agents Help Advocate Claims?

Court Rules An Obscure Statute Cured Contract Breach For A Three-Year Delay In Undisputed Claim Payment

A discussion of a recent Appellate Division of the District Court ruling a little-used statute can protect an insurance entity from a breach of contract for the payment of money.

MA Appeals Court Denies Ballet Master’s Claim Insurers Must Defend A Ballerina’s Sexual Abuse Suit

MA Appeals Court Denies Ballet Master’s Claim Insurers Must Defend A Ballerina’s Sexual Abuse Suit

After receiving the claimant and insurers’ briefs, the Appeals Court issued an unusual order and ordered supplemental briefing on two issues that neither insurer had raised or argued.

More Mass. Law Updates

CAR News

The CAR Year In Review: Highlights From The 2020 Annual Report

Last Look 2020: The Private Passenger Auto Insurance Marketplace in Massachusetts

Last Look 2020: The Commercial Auto Insurance Market Share in Massachusetts

CAR Begins The RFP Process For Commercial Servicing Carriers And Possible Commercial Pool Changes

View More CAR News

DOI News

Massachusetts Moves Up In 2020 Insurance Regulation Report Card

Mass. Division of Insurance Issues Four COVID-19-Related Bulletins Before 2021

Massachusetts Stays The Course As The 12th Largest Insurance Marketplace

DOI Announces Hearings For Two Separate Insurance Company Acquisitions of Control

View More DOI News

Insurance Fraud

Peabody Contractor Indicted For Insurance Fraud And Payroll Tax Evasion On $2.5 Million Of Under-The-Table Wages

Massachusetts Shares in $39.5 Million Multistate Settlement Agreement Over Insurance Company Data Breach

Arthur J. Gallagher Suffers Ransomware Attack

MA Attorney General Sues Keches Law Firm For Referring Injured Workers On Comp To A Mail-Order Pharmacy For Kickbacks

More Insurance Fraud News

Footer

Agency Checklists

About us
Contact us

14 Summer Street
Suite 102
Malden, MA 02148
617-598-3800
info@agencychecklists.com

Advertise on Agency Checklists

We offer a variety of ways to get help promote your company or product.

Announcements
Email Sponsorships
Partnerships
Custom Collaborations

*Affiliate Disclosure

Please note that any of Agency Checklists’ articles might contain one or more affiliate links. This means that any subsequent purchase resulting from these links may result in a commission for us, but at no additional cost to you. For example, as an Amazon Associate, Agency Checklists earns a commission from all qualifying purchases. By working with affiliates we can continue to keep Agency Checklists subscription free. Thank you for your support.

SEARCH OUR SITE

Explore Our Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Agency Checklists · All rights reserved.