Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=953061
 
 

Citations (4)



 
 

Footnotes (195)



 


 



Beyond Disclosure: The Case for Banning Contingent Commissions


Daniel Schwarcz


University of Minnesota Law School


Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 25, p. 289, 2007
Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-52

Abstract:     
In the last two years, insurers' payment of contingent commissions to insurance brokers and independent agents has come under wide-spread scrutiny from regulators, prosecutors and legislatures. Contingent commissions reward agents and brokers for directing large volumes of profitable business to insurance companies and may consequently create various conflicts of interests for these ostensibly independent intermediaries. The insurance industry, along with a chorus of sympathetic academics, has argued that these conflicts of interest can be adequately addressed by requiring that intermediaries disclose their receipt of contingent commissions to customers. Moreover, they have argued that contingent commissions may, in fact, improve the efficiency of insurance markets by reducing adverse selection. To date, these arguments have largely convinced lawmakers. This Article challenges that emerging consensus. It argues that, in consumer insurance markets, a mere disclosure requirement is an ineffective method for limiting the costs of contingent commissions or allowing consumers to meaningfully accept these costs through their market decisions. Contingent commissions are also unlikely to reduce adverse selection in consumer insurance markets, where empirical evidence has consistently shown that adverse selection is an exaggerated threat. For these reasons, the Article calls on state legislatures and regulators to ban contingent commissions in consumer insurance markets. The Article also raises the possibility that contingent commissions should be banned in insurance markets where purchasers of insurance are sophisticated commercial entities. It shows that an informed insurance purchaser might choose to purchase insurance through an intermediary that accepts contingent commissions even though the purchaser would prefer for these payments to be banned. It also demonstrates that contingent commissions may fail to appreciably reduce adverse selection by inducing high-risk, sophisticated insureds to engage in socially wasteful efforts to avoid actuarially fair classifications.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 48

Keywords: Insurance, Regulation, Contingent Commissions, Independent Intermediaries, Insurance Agents, Insurance Brokers

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: December 21, 2006 ; Last revised: March 28, 2014

Suggested Citation

Schwarcz, Daniel, Beyond Disclosure: The Case for Banning Contingent Commissions. Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 25, p. 289, 2007; Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-52. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=953061

Contact Information

Daniel B. Schwarcz (Contact Author)
University of Minnesota Law School ( email )
229 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 3,007
Downloads: 498
Download Rank: 31,581
Citations:  4
Footnotes:  195

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.312 seconds