STANDARD

According to The Standard

Erin L. Ayers Editor

Sara Jacobi Staff Writer

Barbara S. Crockett Advertising Manager

Nakeesha Warner Production Coordinator

Susanne Edes Dillman Marketing Manager

Kelly A. Cotter Circulation Manager

John C. Cross, Esq. Publisher

Surprises That Are in Fact Not Surprising

Issued every Friday, except July and August then biweekly. No issue Christmas week. Published by Standard Publishing Corp., 155 Federal St., Boston, MA 02110. Phone (617) 457- 0600. Fax (617) 457-0608. www.spcpub.com. Subscription price $92 a year, $157 for two years (prepaid). Single copies may be purchased at the office of the publisher for $5. © Standard Publishing Corporation 2009 (ISSN 0038-9390)

Periodicals postage
paid at Boston, MA and
additional mailing offices.

CONTACT INFORMATION: Editorial e.ayers@spcpub.com

Advertising b.crockett@spcpub.com

Classifieds/Production n.warner@spcpub.com

Customer Service k.cotter@spcpub.com

Erin L. Ayers

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) revealed research last week that found that laws banning cell phone use while driving do not reduce crash rates. Doubtless this won’t stop the flood of legislators pushing for laws prohibiting talking or texting while driving. Nor should it, really. These laws seem to garner plenty of support, pass quickly, and for the portion of any state’s population that appears to think laws are good things to follow, they could work. However, there will always be scofflaws who think that placing their pizza order is more important than keeping the roads safe. Therefore, the insurance industry and legislatures shouldn’t expect wild inroads to be made in the crash rate.

Speaking of other non-surprises, a vast industry coalition tried to educate Congress on reasons why the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption should not be tampered with in response to the financial crisis. This latest letter to the House of Representatives included more pointed language and the most information I feel the industry has provided to Congress. It was as though the coalition was saying, “It’s okay, Congress! We get that you don’t understand the antitrust exemption and instead interpret this longstanding law as some reason that the financial system collapsed. We’ll explain it all.” Luckily, the coalition refrained from coming right out with it and saying, “Oh, hey, Congress, the financial system collapsed because you also don’t understand how to regulate banks.” Baby steps, here, the federal government will figure that out eventually, too. The House is reportedly set to consider a repeal of the exemption, codified in 1945 with the McCarran-Ferguson Act, in the coming weeks and the industry is clearly ramping up the education of the decision-makers.

And finally, the New Hampshire Supreme Court settled the ongoing question of, “To whom exactly do funds contained within a joint underwriting association belong?” The Court, though, not unanimously, agreed with the petitioning health care providers that those who pay into the fund, along with the board, should decide how that money is distributed when it is technically “surplus.” Although the dissenting justices in this case agreed with the state that the money would be better put to use in the budget, it is a win for upholding contract language.

www.spcpub.com

—ELA

POSTMASTER:
Send all address corrections to:
The Standard
155 Federal St.
Boston, MA 02110