問題保險事業之退場處理機制──美國紐約州法制之研究

The Receivership Process And Mechanism for Insurers - A Study for New York State Laws

美國的保險產業一直是由各州自行立法監理，雖然近年來持續有將保險產業納入聯邦金融監理系統的討論，但迄今仍無結論，因此各州的保險監理制度仍然具有高度的研究比較價值，而中大型保險事業之跨州經營銷售保單復為不可避免之產業發展狀況，因此美國保險監理官協會(NAIC)亦持續的進行各種模範法令(Model Laws and Regulations)的制定，希冀提供各州一個較為相容而非衝突的保險監理與產業規範法令制度。紐約州在保險產業具有舉足輕重的地位，一則因多家大型保險事業均係依紐約州法設立登記之商業組織，二則因紐約州之州民購買保險商品之比重在其全國具有相當高的占比，三則因紐約州的保險監理規範與NAIC間具有互相影響的情形，因此，筆者繼三年前撰文討論NAIC各種問題保險事業之退場制度後，此次即以紐約州保險法Article 74 “REHABILITATION, LIQUIDATION, CONSERVATION AND DISSOLUTION OF INSURERS”為研究主題，探討紐約州問題保險事業之退場處理制度。與NAIC模範法提供四種不同介入程度或不同程度退場措施：監管administrative supervision)、接管(conservation)、重整(rehabilitation)及清算(liquidation)相較，紐約州保險法Article 74則主要僅有重整與清算二種退場措施程序，其發動退場程序之基礎事實(grounds)相當廣泛，而自紐約州清算局之官方網頁亦可發現保險事業之退場在紐約州極為常見，而該州的保險保障基金(insurance security fund)於個案墊付的總額又相當低，顯示的是一種「早期發現，早期治療」的監理態度，從而使消費者以及整體保險產業受到個別保險事業退場之影響降至最低，此種制度對我國應該具有相當的參考與啟示價值，希望對我國未來的監理政策能有提供參考價值之處。

Since the very beginning, individual states, but not the State, have the authority to regulate the insurance business in the United States. Although recently there are arguments to put the insurance business under the federal regulation, however, there is no conclusion for this issue. NAIC of the U.S. provides several Model laws and regulations for individual states' consideration for adoption, for the purpose to reduce regulation conflicts between states. New York is specific in insurance business for several reasons. First, many large size insurers are organized according to NY laws, secondly, the residents of NY purchase a lot portion of insurance policies, thirdly, the NY regulations closely interacted with the NAIC regulations. Therefore, the NY insurance regulations could be a good model to compare and study. In this article, the author will exam and study the Article 74 of the New York Insurance Law under the title of 'REHABILITATION, LIQUIDATION, CONSERVATION AND DISSOLUTION OF INSURERS', which is different with the NAIC Model Laws, which provides four different receivership processes: administrative supervision, conservation, rehabilitation, and liquidation. According to the New York laws and cases, the author find that the regulatory policy in New York is an 'early intervene and early cure' philosophy, which could reduce the levies for individual insurers into the state insurance security fund and no money come from tax payers. In the past few years, the FSC of Taiwan put several P/L insurance and Life insurance companies into receivership, however, the Taiwan Insurance Guaranty Fund is not financially able to finish the case and a financial subsidy from the government was granted by the FSC. The author would like to introduce the New York mechanism as reference for Taiwan.