The Architecture of Insurance Oversight: A Multi-Layered Regulatory Framework

Section 1: The Foundation of U.S. Insurance Regulation: A State-Centric System

The regulatory framework governing the insurance industry in the United States is unique among major financial sectors.

Unlike banking and securities, which are subject to a significant and direct federal regulatory presence, the oversight of insurance is primarily vested in the individual states.¹

This decentralized, state-centric system is not an accident of history but the direct result of a specific and consequential series of judicial rulings and legislative actions that have cemented state authority for over 150 years.

Understanding this historical foundation is critical to comprehending the complex interplay of state, federal, and coordinating bodies that oversee the industry today.

The structure is a product of a deliberate political choice to preserve state power, a choice that was reaffirmed in the mid-20th century in response to a legal challenge that threatened to upend the entire system.

1.1 The Historical Precedent: Paul v. Virginia

The cornerstone of the state-based regulatory system was laid in 1868 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Paul v.

Virginia.¹

In this landmark case, the Court ruled that the issuance of an insurance policy was not a transaction of commerce but rather a personal contract.

This finding had profound implications: if insurance was not “interstate commerce” as defined by the U.S. Constitution, then it was not subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.¹

This decision effectively ceded the entire field of insurance regulation to the states.

Even before this ruling, states had begun to recognize the need for oversight, with New Hampshire appointing the first state commissioner of insurance in 1851, and several other states establishing similar departments or agencies shortly thereafter.²

The

Paul v.

Virginia decision validated and accelerated this trend, creating a legal certainty that lasted for nearly 80 years.

During this long period, an extensive and intricate system of state-level regulation developed, covering everything from company chartering and solvency to agent licensing and taxation.¹

The states’ authority was considered absolute, and the federal government remained almost entirely absent from the field.

1.2 The Paradigm Shift: U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association

This long-established precedent was shattered in 1944.

In United States v.

South-Eastern Underwriters Association, the Supreme Court dramatically reversed its position, finding that insurance transactions that stretched across state lines were, in fact, a form of interstate commerce.¹

This decision overturned 76 years of legal understanding and exposed the insurance industry to federal regulation for the first time.

The immediate and most disruptive consequence of the ruling was that the insurance industry was now subject to federal antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Antitrust Act.³

This created an existential crisis for the industry’s fundamental business practices.

Insurers had long relied on cooperative activities, such as pooling historical loss data through rating organizations, to accurately price risks and develop actuarially sound premiums.⁴

Under a strict interpretation of the Sherman Act, these collaborative data-sharing arrangements could be construed as illegal price-fixing conspiracies.³

The ruling threw the industry and its state regulators into a state of chaos, as it threatened the very mechanisms that enabled insurers, particularly smaller ones, to compete and remain solvent.⁴

1.3 The Congressional Response: The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945

The prospect of a federal takeover of insurance regulation, coupled with the potential dismantling of the industry’s operational model, prompted an immediate and forceful reaction.

Alarmed state insurance regulators and industry executives, who had built their systems and businesses on the foundation of Paul v.

Virginia, lobbied Congress for a legislative remedy.³

Congress responded with remarkable speed, passing the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945.¹

This pivotal piece of legislation effectively reversed the practical effects of the

South-Eastern Underwriters decision and re-established the primacy of state-level regulation.

The Act’s declaration is unambiguous, stating “that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest”.⁵

The McCarran-Ferguson Act accomplished three critical objectives:

1. Affirmed State Primacy: It stipulated that no Act of Congress shall be construed to “invalidate, impair, or supersede” any state law regulating the business of insurance, unless the federal act specifically relates to the business of insurance.⁵ This created a high legal bar for federal preemption, ensuring that state laws would govern unless Congress explicitly decided otherwise.
2. Provided a Limited Antitrust Exemption: It granted a conditional exemption from federal antitrust laws for activities that constitute “the business of insurance,” but only to the extent that such activities are regulated by state law.¹ This was the crucial provision that allowed insurers to continue their practice of pooling historical loss data and jointly developing standard policy forms—activities essential for accurate pricing and market competition.⁴
3. Established Clear Limits: The antitrust exemption was not absolute. The Act explicitly states that federal laws still apply to any “agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation”.³ This ensured that while cooperative data sharing was permitted, anti-competitive collusion was not.

The structure of U.S. insurance regulation is therefore not the product of a proactive, deliberate design process aimed at creating the most efficient system.

It is, instead, a direct and rapid reaction to a judicial decision that threatened to upend the established order.

The 76-year precedent of Paul v.

Virginia had allowed a deeply entrenched system of state control to flourish.

The South-Eastern Underwriters decision shattered this foundation, creating immediate legal and operational jeopardy for both state governments, which relied on insurance premium taxes for revenue, and the industry itself.

The speed of the congressional response—passing McCarran-Ferguson within a year—highlights the urgency and political power of the state regulators and industry leaders who saw their authority and business models at risk.¹

This reactive origin means the system is built upon a legal “carve-out” rather than a comprehensive federal framework.

This has resulted in a persistent and dynamic tension between state authority and periodic calls for federal intervention, particularly when the 50-state system is criticized as inefficient or ineffective in addressing national or systemic issues.¹

Section 2: The State-Level Apparatus: Departments of Insurance as Primary Regulators

With the legal foundation firmly re-established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the primary responsibility for overseeing the insurance industry rests with regulatory bodies in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.⁵

Typically known as the Department of Insurance (DOI) or a similar designation, this state-level agency serves as the frontline regulator, performing a comprehensive suite of functions designed to protect consumers and ensure a stable marketplace.

While the specific laws and organizational structures vary from state to state, the core responsibilities are broadly consistent across the country and can be categorized into four main areas: licensing and authorization, financial solvency oversight, market conduct regulation, and consumer assistance.

2.1 Licensing and Authorization: The Gateway to the Market

Before an insurance company can sell policies in a given state, it must first obtain a license from that state’s DOI.⁵

This licensing process is the fundamental gateway to the market and involves a thorough review of the company’s business plan, corporate structure, and financial standing.¹¹

A key part of this process is ensuring the insurer meets the state’s minimum capital and surplus requirements, which are designed to provide a financial cushion against unexpected losses and vary widely by state and by the type of insurance being offered.⁵

This licensing system creates several classifications of insurers:

• Domestic Insurer: A company is considered “domestic” in the state where it is incorporated and received its primary license.⁵ This home state DOI has the primary responsibility for its financial oversight.
• Foreign Insurer: When a domestic insurer seeks to do business in other states, it must apply for a license in each of those states, where it will be known as a “foreign” insurer.⁵
• Alien Insurer: An insurer incorporated in a country outside the United States is referred to as an “alien” insurer in the U.S. jurisdictions where it is licensed.⁵

Insurers that successfully complete this process are known as “admitted” carriers and are subject to the full scope of the state’s regulations, including rules on rates and policy forms.²

However, there is also a parallel market for “non-admitted” or surplus lines insurers.

These companies cover specialized, high-risk, or unusual exposures that admitted insurers are often unwilling to underwrite.⁵

Surplus lines insurers are not licensed in every state where they operate; instead, they are licensed and overseen for solvency only by their home state.⁵

In the other states, they are free from rate and policy form regulation, which gives them the flexibility to price unique risks that do not fit the standard market.²

This creates a vital safety valve for the insurance market, providing capacity for complex commercial risks and other hard-to-place coverages.

2.2 Financial Solvency and Prudential Oversight: Ensuring Claims Can Be Paid

Perhaps the most critical function of a state DOI is prudential oversight—regulating the financial solvency of insurance companies to ensure they remain financially sound and capable of paying policyholder claims far into the future.¹

This responsibility is the bedrock of consumer protection.

State regulators employ several tools to monitor solvency.

As mentioned, they establish and enforce minimum capital and surplus requirements that all licensed insurers must maintain.⁵

Beyond this, DOIs conduct regular and detailed

financial examinations of their domestic insurers.¹¹

These examinations are deep dives into an insurer’s accounting methods, investment portfolios, reserving practices, and overall financial health.¹²

By analyzing quarterly and annual financial statements filed by the companies, regulators can detect early warning signs of financial distress and intervene before a company becomes insolvent.¹²

2.3 Market Conduct and Consumer Protection: Ensuring Fair Treatment

While solvency regulation ensures that a company can pay claims, market conduct regulation ensures that it does so fairly and in accordance with the law and the terms of its policies.

This area of oversight focuses on the company’s interactions with consumers and its business practices in the marketplace.¹

Key functions of market conduct regulation include:

• Rate and Form Regulation: States review the content of insurance policies to ensure the language is clear, not misleading, and complies with state laws.¹⁰ Many states also regulate the premium rates companies can charge, particularly for personal lines like auto and home insurance. The goal is to ensure that rates are not “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory”.¹³ The degree of rate regulation varies significantly, with some states requiring prior approval for any rate change, while others use a more competitive “file and use” system.⁵
• Agent and Broker Oversight: DOIs are responsible for the licensing, continuing education, and oversight of the vast network of insurance agents, brokers, and adjusters who sell products and handle claims.¹⁰ They investigate misconduct and can take disciplinary action, including fines and license revocation.¹⁶
• Advertising and Unfair Practices: Regulators monitor insurance advertising to prevent false or deceptive marketing.¹⁶ They also enforce statutes that prohibit unfair trade practices, such as misrepresenting policy benefits or engaging in unfair claims settlement practices.⁴

2.4 Consumer Assistance and Complaint Resolution

A core, public-facing function of every DOI is to serve as a resource for consumers.¹¹

State DOIs operate consumer hotlines and online portals where policyholders can ask questions and file formal complaints against insurance companies or agents.¹⁷

When a complaint is filed, the DOI acts as a mediator and investigator.

The typical process involves forwarding the complaint to the insurance company for a formal response, reviewing the policy language and relevant statutes, and determining whether the company acted appropriately.¹⁸

DOIs investigate tens of thousands of such complaints each year, and this process can result in the recovery of millions of dollars for consumers through denied claims being overturned or other resolutions.¹³

The data collected from these complaints also serves as a valuable tool for regulators, helping them identify patterns of misconduct that may warrant a broader market conduct examination or enforcement action.

The distinction between the admitted and surplus lines markets is not an incidental feature of the U.S. regulatory system; it is a carefully designed structural element that embodies a fundamental trade-off between comprehensive consumer protection and broad market availability.

The “admitted” market, with its stringent state-level approval of policy forms and rates, offers the highest degree of protection for consumers purchasing standard products like personal auto or homeowners insurance.⁵

However, certain risks—due to their size, novelty, or volatility—cannot be effectively priced or underwritten within this highly structured environment.

Without an alternative, these risks would likely go uninsured or be forced to seek coverage in international markets.

The “non-admitted” or surplus lines market was created to fill this critical gap.⁵

By exempting these insurers from state-specific rate and form regulation, the system allows the market to dynamically price and cover difficult risks.

This creates a pragmatic, two-tiered system.

Consumers in the standard market benefit from extensive state protections.

Those who must access the surplus lines market gain the ability to purchase coverage that would otherwise be unavailable, but in exchange, they forgo protections related to policy terms and pricing.

Their primary safeguard becomes the solvency regulation of the insurer’s home state, making the strength of that single regulator paramount.

This represents a deliberate and practical compromise inherent in the state-based system.

Section 3: Case Studies in State Regulation: California, New York, and Texas

While the core functions of insurance regulation are consistent across the United States, the application of that authority can vary significantly from one state to another.

The regulatory philosophies, legal frameworks, and enforcement priorities of individual state DOIs create distinct operating environments.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the nation’s largest insurance markets.

By examining the regulatory apparatuses of California, New York, and Texas, it becomes clear how these influential states not only govern their own massive markets but also set de facto national standards that ripple across the entire industry.

3.1 California Department of Insurance (CDI)

The California Department of Insurance (CDI) presides over the largest insurance market in the United States and the sixth-largest in the world.²²

It is a massive regulatory body, overseeing more than 1,600 insurance companies and licensing nearly half a million agents, brokers, and other insurance professionals.¹³

The defining feature of California’s regulatory landscape is Proposition 103, a citizen-led initiative passed by voters in 1988.¹³

This law fundamentally reshaped the CDI’s authority and structure.

It transformed the Insurance Commissioner from a gubernatorial appointee into an independent, statewide officer elected directly by the people, making the office directly accountable to the public.²¹

Most critically, Proposition 103 requires that all property and casualty insurers—including those selling auto and homeowners policies—receive

prior approval from the CDI before implementing any new rates.²¹

This gives the CDI’s Rate Regulation Branch immense power to scrutinize, challenge, and reject rate increases it deems to be “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory”.¹³

The CDI’s functions are carried out through a series of robust, specialized branches.

The Financial Surveillance Branch monitors insurer solvency, while the Consumer Services and Market Conduct Branch investigates over 56,000 consumer complaints annually, recovering more than $130 million a year for policyholders.¹³

The Enforcement Branch is a powerful law enforcement arm that investigates criminal insurance fraud, leading to thousands of arrests each year.¹³

Finally, the Legal Branch provides the backbone for these activities, litigating enforcement actions and ensuring that all policies and rates comply with the extensive California Insurance Code.²⁵

3.2 New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS)

The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) represents a different model of regulatory power.

It was created in 2011 through a merger of the state’s former Banking and Insurance Departments, a direct response to the 2008 global financial crisis.²⁶

The goal was to establish a more modern, efficient, and comprehensive regulator capable of overseeing the interconnected risks across the financial services industry.²⁶

Today, the DFS is one of the most powerful financial regulators in the world, supervising over 3,000 institutions with nearly $10 trillion in combined assets.²⁶

Historically, New York’s insurance department was a pioneer in consumer protection, and the DFS has continued this legacy of innovation.²⁸

It has become a global leader in new regulatory frontiers, notably by being the first U.S. regulator to license virtual currency companies and by establishing a landmark cybersecurity regulation that has become a model for other jurisdictions.²⁶

The DFS’s Insurance Division carries out the traditional functions of state oversight with significant depth.

It closely monitors insurer solvency and requires domestic insurers to conduct an annual Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) to evaluate their risk management frameworks.³¹

The state also maintains the Life Insurance Company Guaranty Corporation of New York, a fund that protects policyholders in the event of a life insurer’s insolvency.³²

For health insurance, the DFS has a stringent rate review process under a “prior approval” statute, allowing it to modify or disapprove any premium increase found to be unreasonable or excessive.³³

To streamline these processes, the DFS utilizes the System for Electronic Rates and Forms Filing (SERFF), an electronic platform developed by the NAIC.³⁴

3.3 Texas Department of Insurance (TDI)

The Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) operates with a unique dual mandate.

It is responsible for regulating one of the nation’s largest and most dynamic insurance markets while also overseeing the administration of the complex Texas workers’ compensation system.¹⁶

This gives the agency a broad scope of authority that touches nearly every aspect of the state’s economy.

A hallmark of the TDI is its emphasis on robust enforcement and fraud prevention.

The TDI’s Fraud Unit is not merely an investigative office; it is a state law enforcement agency whose criminal investigators are licensed Texas peace officers with statewide jurisdiction to make arrests and conduct investigations.¹²

This unit works closely with local, state, and federal law enforcement to prosecute a wide range of insurance crimes, from claimant fraud to complex financial schemes by insurers.¹²

The TDI’s enforcement powers are further amplified by its relationship with the Texas Attorney General’s Office, which represents the TDI in court and can independently sue insurance companies for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.³⁷

In addition to its law enforcement functions, the TDI performs the full range of regulatory duties.

Its Financial Regulation Division monitors the financial health of hundreds of Texas-based companies to ensure they can pay claims.¹²

It also licenses companies and agents, reviews insurance advertising for compliance, and provides extensive consumer assistance through its Help Line, which answers questions and helps consumers file complaints.¹⁶

Given Texas’s vulnerability to natural disasters, the TDI also plays a critical role in disaster response, coordinating with the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) and other stakeholders to assist policyholders with claims and recovery after events like hurricanes.¹²

3.4 Comparative Analysis of State Regulatory Functions (CA, NY, TX)

The distinct approaches of these three key states highlight the diversity within the U.S. state-based system.

A side-by-side comparison reveals fundamental differences in structure, authority, and priorities.

Feature	California (CDI)	New York (DFS)	Texas (TDI)
Leadership	Elected Commissioner	Appointed Superintendent	Appointed Commissioner
Scope	Insurance Only	Integrated (Banking & Insurance)	Insurance & Workers’ Comp Admin.
P&C Rate Regulation	Prior Approval Mandate (Prop 103)	Varies by Line	Varies by Line
Key Solvency Tools	Financial Exams, Capital Requirements	Financial Exams, Guaranty Fund, ORSA	Financial Exams, Capital Requirements
Notable Initiatives	Proposition 103, Elected Commissioner	Cybersecurity Regulation, Virtual Currency	Workers’ Comp System, Fraud Unit (Peace Officers)
Consumer Services	Investigates ~56,000 complaints/year	Online Complaint Portal, External Appeal	Help Line, Investigates ~35,000 complaints/year

The sheer market size and regulatory sophistication of states like California, New York, and Texas give them an influence that extends far beyond their own borders.

A large national insurer cannot afford to be excluded from these massive and lucrative markets.²²

Consequently, these companies must comply with the regulations promulgated in these states, which are often the most stringent and forward-looking in the country.

For example, when New York’s DFS implemented its comprehensive cybersecurity regulations, it effectively set a new national benchmark.²⁶

It is frequently more efficient and cost-effective for a national insurer to adopt this single, highest standard across all of its operations rather than attempting to build and maintain dozens of different, state-specific compliance systems.

This dynamic creates a ripple effect, where a new regulation from Sacramento or Albany can compel nationwide changes in industry practice.

In this way, these key states act as de facto national regulators, driving a form of regulatory harmonization through powerful market forces rather than through federal mandate.

Section 4: The National Coordinator: The Role and Influence of the NAIC

The decentralized, state-based nature of U.S. insurance regulation presents an obvious challenge: how to achieve a necessary degree of uniformity and coordination across 56 different jurisdictions to allow for the efficient operation of a national market.

The solution to this paradox is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

The NAIC is a non-governmental organization with no direct regulatory authority, yet it stands as the central coordinating body and standard-setter for the entire system.¹

It is the indispensable institution that enables the state-based system to function as a coherent national framework.

4.1 Mission and Structure

The NAIC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, created and governed by the chief insurance regulators from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories.¹

Founded in 1871, its mission is to assist these state regulators, both individually and collectively, in serving the public interest.⁴²

This mission is pursued through several core objectives: protecting consumers, promoting fair and competitive insurance markets, and ensuring the financial solvency of insurance companies.⁴²

The NAIC acts as a forum where regulators can exchange information, share expertise, and coordinate their oversight activities.¹

It provides the essential infrastructure, data, and analytical tools that support the state regulators in their duties.⁴⁶

4.2 Model Laws and Regulations: The Tool for Uniformity

One of the NAIC’s most important functions is the development and promotion of model laws and regulations.²

Through a collaborative process involving committees, task forces, and working groups composed of state regulators, the NAIC drafts proposed legislation and rules for areas where a uniform national standard is deemed necessary or beneficial.⁴⁹

This process is open and transparent, actively seeking input from industry representatives, consumer groups, and other interested parties.⁴⁹

These model laws cover nearly every facet of insurance regulation, from producer licensing and market conduct standards to highly technical requirements for financial reporting and solvency.⁵²

However, it is crucial to understand that these models do not have the force of law on their own.²

The NAIC is not a legislature.

For a model law to become effective, it must be adopted by each individual state’s legislature or regulatory body, and states are free to enact the models as written, modify them, or reject them entirely.³⁹

Despite this, the models are widely adopted, creating a significant degree of harmonization across the country.

4.3 The Accreditation Program: The Engine of Compliance

If model laws are the tools for uniformity, the NAIC Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation Program is the engine that drives their adoption.

Established in the late 1980s in response to a series of high-profile insurer insolvencies, this program is the key mechanism through which the NAIC promotes effective and consistent solvency regulation nationwide.⁵

The program sets rigorous, baseline standards for a state DOI’s operations.

To become accredited, a department must demonstrate that it has adequate statutory and administrative authority, sufficient resources and personnel, and robust procedures for conducting financial analysis and examinations.⁵⁵

States must undergo a comprehensive on-site peer review every five years, with interim annual reviews, to earn and maintain their accredited status.⁵⁵

Today, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several territories are accredited.⁵⁵

The power of the accreditation program lies in the powerful incentive it creates for compliance.

Accreditation enables a system of interstate reliance.

Regulators in one accredited state can confidently rely on the financial solvency oversight performed by an insurer’s accredited home state regulator.⁵⁵

This eliminates the need for every state to conduct its own costly and duplicative financial examinations of the same multi-state insurer, creating immense efficiencies for both regulators and the industry.⁵⁵

This reciprocal trust is the foundation of an efficient national market.

4.4 Data Collection and Analysis: The Central Nervous System

The NAIC also functions as the central nervous system for the entire regulatory framework, collecting, standardizing, and analyzing the vast quantities of data that are the lifeblood of insurance oversight.⁴³

It develops and maintains the

statutory accounting principles (SAP), a conservative accounting framework specifically designed for solvency regulation that differs from the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) used by most other industries.³⁹

Insurers are required to file detailed annual and quarterly financial statements with the NAIC.

The NAIC’s staff and sophisticated analytical tools process this data, providing state regulators with essential business intelligence to monitor the financial health of the industry.⁴⁸

The NAIC produces a wide array of statistical reports on market trends, competition, and insurer investments, and it operates critical consumer-facing tools like the Life Insurance Policy Locator and a national database of consumer complaints against companies.⁴³

This centralized data function provides state regulators with the information and analytical power they need to be effective.

The NAIC’s influence demonstrates a unique form of authority, best described as a coercive power of persuasion.

Although the NAIC lacks any formal legal power to compel a state to act, its Accreditation Program creates a powerful economic and operational incentive for compliance that is nearly impossible for a state to ignore.³⁹

A state’s domestic insurance industry is a significant economic driver, and for those insurers to operate efficiently on a national scale, they must be able to avoid the crushing burden of undergoing 50 separate financial examinations.

The Accreditation Program provides this efficiency through a system of reciprocity: if a state is accredited, other states will trust its solvency oversight.⁵⁵

The critical link is that to achieve and maintain accreditation, a state

must adopt a core set of NAIC model laws related to financial regulation.⁴⁹

This transforms the NAIC’s “suggested” model laws into near-mandatory standards.

The “voluntary” decision to seek accreditation becomes a functional necessity for any state wishing to foster a healthy, competitive insurance industry that can operate beyond its borders.

This dynamic makes the NAIC the most powerful coordinating body in the U.S. system, providing the essential glue that binds the 56 disparate jurisdictions into a functioning national framework.

Section 5: The Evolving Federal Footprint: Monitoring Systemic Risk and International Affairs

While the U.S. insurance regulatory system is fundamentally state-based, the federal government maintains a limited but increasingly significant role.

Historically, federal involvement was confined to specific market segments or programs that were national in scope.

However, the 2008 global financial crisis marked a turning point, revealing gaps in the state-based system’s ability to monitor and mitigate risks that could threaten the entire financial stability of the United States.

This led to the creation of new federal bodies with a mandate for macro-prudential oversight, fundamentally altering the dynamic between state and federal authorities.

5.1 Pre-Crisis Federal Role

Prior to 2008, the federal government’s role in insurance regulation was minimal, consistent with the principles of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.¹

Federal involvement was generally targeted at specific areas where a state-by-state approach was impractical or insufficient.

The most prominent example is the

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a federal program established in 1968 and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).⁶⁵

The NFIP was created to offer primary flood insurance in high-risk areas where it was largely unavailable from the private market and to promote floodplain management standards in participating communities.⁶⁵

Another area with a notable federal presence has been health insurance, which has long been subject to federal laws such as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and Medicare regulations.¹

5.2 The Post-Crisis Expansion: The Dodd-Frank Act

The 2008 financial crisis, and particularly the federal government’s $182 billion bailout of American International Group (AIG), a massive global insurer, served as a stark wake-up call.⁶⁷

The crisis exposed a critical vulnerability in the regulatory architecture: while state regulators were focused on the solvency of individual companies within their borders, no single entity was responsible for monitoring how the distress of a large, complex, and interconnected financial institution—even an insurer—could pose a

systemic risk to the entire financial system.²

In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, a sweeping piece of legislation that overhauled financial regulation in the U.S..²

Title V of the Act specifically addressed the insurance industry, creating two new federal bodies designed to fill the systemic risk monitoring gap without dismantling the state-based regulatory system.²

5.3 The Federal Insurance Office (FIO)

Established within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) was created to provide federal-level expertise and coordination on insurance matters.²

It is critical to note that the FIO is explicitly

not a regulator; it has no general supervisory or regulatory authority over the business of insurance, which remains with the states.⁶⁷

The FIO’s mandate is primarily one of monitoring and advising.

Its key functions include:

• Monitoring the Industry: The FIO is charged with monitoring all aspects of the insurance sector to identify potential emerging threats to financial stability and to assess gaps in the state-based regulatory system.⁶⁹
• International Representation: The FIO coordinates federal policy on international insurance matters and represents the United States in international bodies such as the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS).⁶⁷ It also assists the Treasury Secretary in negotiating “covered agreements” with foreign jurisdictions to recognize the equivalence of each other’s prudential measures.⁶⁷
• Advising the FSOC: The Director of the FIO serves as a non-voting member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, providing insurance-specific expertise to inform the council’s decisions.⁶⁹
• Monitoring Access to Insurance: The FIO is also tasked with monitoring the extent to which traditionally underserved communities and consumers have access to affordable non-health insurance products.⁶⁷

5.4 The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)

The Dodd-Frank Act also created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), a collaborative body chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and composed of the heads of the major U.S. financial regulatory agencies.²

The FSOC’s primary mission is to identify risks to the financial stability of the United States.²

The FSOC’s most significant power with respect to the insurance industry is its authority to designate a non-bank financial company, including an insurer, as a “Systemically Important Financial Institution” (SIFI).¹¹

A SIFI designation is reserved for firms whose financial distress could pose a threat to the country’s financial stability.

Once designated, a firm is subjected to enhanced prudential supervision and capital standards administered by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.¹

This authority has been used sparingly and has been a source of significant debate.

Between 2013 and 2014, three large insurers were designated as SIFIs, but these designations were later rescinded following legal challenges and changes in the council’s approach.¹

The FSOC’s methodology for designation has evolved, shifting between an “entity-based” approach and an “activities-based” approach over the years.¹¹

5.5 Health Insurance: A Unique Hybrid Model

While the federal footprint has expanded primarily in the area of systemic risk, health insurance stands apart as a line of business that operates under a true hybrid regulatory model.

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 dramatically increased the federal government’s role in this sector.¹

The ACA established a comprehensive set of national standards for health insurance, including mandating essential health benefits, prohibiting denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, and creating the Health Insurance Marketplace where individuals can purchase subsidized coverage through the Premium Tax Credit.¹

While states still handle the day-to-day regulation of health insurers—including licensing, rate review, and market conduct—they must do so within the overarching framework established by federal law.

5.6 Overview of Key U.S. Insurance Oversight Bodies

The modern U.S. insurance oversight landscape is a complex, multi-layered system involving state, coordinating, and federal entities, each with a distinct role and source of authority.

Entity	Primary Role	Authority	Key Responsibilities
State Departments of Insurance (DOIs)	Primary Regulator	Regulatory (State Law)	Licensing, Solvency, Market Conduct, Consumer Protection
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)	Coordinator & Standard-Setter	Advisory / Coordinating	Model Laws, Accreditation, Data Collection
Federal Insurance Office (FIO)	Monitor & Advisor	Advisory (Federal Law)	Industry Monitoring, International Representation, Advising FSOC
Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)	Systemic Risk Identifier	Regulatory (Federal Law)	Designating non-bank SIFIs for Fed supervision

Section 6: A Global Perspective: Comparative Regulatory Models in the UK and EU

To fully appreciate the unique characteristics of the U.S. state-based regulatory system, it is instructive to compare it with the more centralized and harmonized approaches adopted by other major global insurance markets.

The regulatory frameworks in the United Kingdom and the European Union, in particular, offer a stark contrast, reflecting different historical developments, political structures, and regulatory philosophies.

These systems prioritize national or supranational consistency over the state-level autonomy that defines the American model.

6.1 The United Kingdom: The “Twin Peaks” Model

Following the 2008 financial crisis, the United Kingdom undertook a major reform of its financial regulatory structure, abandoning its single-regulator model and implementing a “twin peaks” system in 2013.⁷⁴

Under this framework, insurance companies are “dual-regulated,” meaning they are overseen by two separate agencies, each with a distinct and clearly defined mission.⁷⁵

1. The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA): The PRA operates as an arm of the Bank of England and is responsible for the prudential regulation of banks, building societies, and insurance companies.⁷⁵ Its primary objective is to promote the safety and soundness of these firms, thereby protecting the stability of the UK’s financial system. The PRA focuses on solvency, capital adequacy, and risk management, ensuring that firms are financially resilient and can meet their obligations to policyholders.⁷⁵
2. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): The FCA is responsible for conduct regulation.⁷⁵ Its mandate is to ensure that financial markets function well and to protect consumers. The FCA regulates how firms behave and interact with their customers, setting rules for marketing, product design, disclosure, and claims handling to ensure that consumers are treated fairly.⁷⁹ The FCA has significant enforcement powers, including the ability to ban products, issue fines, and require firms to modify misleading promotions.⁸¹

This clear division of labor—one peak for prudential safety, one for business conduct—is designed to provide focused expertise and prevent the potential conflicts that can arise within a single, monolithic regulator.

For consumer recourse, the UK system is supplemented by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), an independent body that resolves disputes between consumers and financial firms, and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which provides a safety net for consumers if a firm becomes insolvent.⁷⁴

6.2 The European Union: The Harmonized “Solvency II” Framework

The European Union has pursued a strategy of deep regulatory harmonization to create a single, integrated market for insurance across its member states.

The centerpiece of this effort is the Solvency II Directive, a comprehensive and sophisticated regulatory regime that became fully applicable on January 1, 2016.⁸⁵

Solvency II establishes a single, risk-based prudential framework for all insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU.

It is structured around three main “pillars”:

• Pillar 1: Quantitative Requirements: This pillar sets out the risk-based capital requirements that insurers must hold. It includes the Solvency Capital Requirement (SCR), which is the capital needed to ensure a 99.5% probability of surviving extreme losses over a one-year period, and the Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR), an absolute minimum floor.⁷⁸
• Pillar 2: Governance and Risk Management: This pillar imposes qualitative requirements, mandating that insurers have a robust governance system, effective risk management functions, and conduct their own regular risk and solvency assessment (similar to the ORSA in the U.S.).⁸⁵
• Pillar 3: Supervisory Reporting and Disclosure: This pillar enhances transparency by requiring insurers to submit detailed reports to their supervisors and to disclose key information to the public, allowing for greater market discipline and supervisory review.⁸⁵

While Solvency II creates a harmonized rulebook, the day-to-day supervision of insurance companies remains the responsibility of the National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in each EU member state.

The work of these NCAs is coordinated and supported by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA).

EIOPA is an independent EU advisory body that works to ensure the consistent application of regulations across the Union, provides technical advice to EU institutions, and helps to identify and mitigate risks to financial stability.⁸⁷

6.3 Comparison of Global Insurance Regulatory Frameworks (U.S. vs. UK vs. EU)

The architectural differences between these three major regulatory systems are profound, reflecting their distinct political and historical contexts.

Jurisdiction	U.S.	United Kingdom	European Union
Regulatory Structure	Decentralized / State-Based (Coordinated by NAIC)	Centralized “Twin Peaks”	Harmonized Single Market (Supervised by NCAs)
Key Institutions	State DOIs, NAIC, FIO	PRA (Prudential), FCA (Conduct)	National Competent Authorities, EIOPA
Primary Prudential Framework	Risk-Based Capital (RBC)	Solvency II (UK version)	Solvency II Directive
Basis of Authority	State Law / McCarran-Ferguson Act	Financial Services and Markets Act 2000	EU Directives (e.g., Solvency II)

The contrast between the U.S. model and the UK/EU models reveals a fundamental philosophical divergence in regulatory approach.

The European models, driven by the political project of creating a seamless single market, prioritize harmonization and consistency.

The Solvency II directive ensures that an insurer in Poland and one in Portugal operate under the same core prudential rulebook, facilitating cross-border competition and simplifying supervision.⁸⁵

Similarly, the UK’s “twin peaks” model is a centralized, national solution designed for efficiency and a clear separation of regulatory purpose—prudential safety versus market conduct.⁷⁴

The U.S. system, born from a historical defense of states’ rights and local control, inherently values policy experimentation and adaptation.

This decentralized structure, while creating significant compliance costs and complexities for national insurers, allows individual states to tailor regulations to their unique local market conditions.

For example, a state like Florida can develop highly specialized regulations to address hurricane risk, or California can enact specific rules for earthquake insurance—nuances that a rigid, one-size-fits-all national or supranational system might struggle to accommodate effectively.

This creates a trade-off: the U.S. system sacrifices the efficiency of a single rulebook for the flexibility of 56 regulatory laboratories.

Neither system is inherently superior; they are simply the products of different historical paths and political priorities.

Conclusion

The oversight of insurance companies in the United States is a complex, multi-layered endeavor that stands in stark contrast to the more centralized regulatory systems found in other major economies.

It is a framework defined by a delicate and evolving balance of power between state, coordinating, and federal entities, each with a distinct role shaped by a unique legal and political history.

At its core, the system is fundamentally state-based, a principle established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which affirmed the primacy of state law in regulating the business of insurance.⁵

The frontline regulators are the Departments of Insurance in each state and territory, which are responsible for the full spectrum of oversight: licensing companies and agents, monitoring financial solvency to ensure claims can be paid, regulating market conduct to ensure consumers are treated fairly, and resolving individual policyholder complaints.⁵

This decentralized structure is held together and harmonized by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

Though a non-governmental body with no formal regulatory power, the NAIC serves as the indispensable national coordinator.¹

Through the development of model laws and, most critically, its financial accreditation program, the NAIC creates powerful incentives for states to adopt uniform standards, particularly for solvency regulation.

This “coercive power of persuasion” enables the 56 disparate jurisdictions to function as a coherent national system, preventing a chaotic and inefficient regulatory patchwork.⁵⁵

The federal government’s role, while historically limited, expanded significantly after the 2008 financial crisis.

This expansion was not aimed at supplanting the states as primary regulators but at filling a perceived gap in macro-prudential oversight.

The creation of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) under the Dodd-Frank Act introduced a federal capacity to monitor the insurance industry for systemic risk and to coordinate policy on the international stage.²

This federal footprint remains targeted, coexisting with, rather than displacing, the state-based apparatus.

Ultimately, the architecture of U.S. insurance oversight is a pragmatic and resilient framework born from a history that values local control while recognizing the needs of a national market.

It is less a single, streamlined structure and more a dynamic ecosystem, where state regulators act as primary supervisors, the NAIC provides the essential coordinating infrastructure, and the federal government watches for risks that could threaten the stability of the broader financial system.

This division of labor, while complex, has allowed the system to adapt to new challenges, from insurer insolvencies to global financial crises, while preserving the foundational principle of state-based regulation.

Works cited

1. Introduction to Financial Services: Insurance | Congress.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10043
2. Insurance in the United States – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_in_the_United_States
3. McCarran–Ferguson Act – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act
4. McCarran-Ferguson Act | III – Insurance Information Institute, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.iii.org/publications/insurance-handbook/regulatory-and-financial-environment/mccarran-ferguson-act
5. Regulation | III – Insurance Information Institute, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.iii.org/publications/commercial-insurance/how-it-functions/regulation
6. content.naic.org, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/mccarran-ferguson-act#:~:text=Overview%3A%20The%20McCarran%2DFerguson%20Act,such%20business%20by%20the%20several
7. Act of March 9, 1945 [Commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act] [Chapter 20 – GovInfo, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-12153/pdf/COMPS-12153.pdf
8. 15 U.S. Code § 1012 – Regulation by State law; Federal law relating specifically to insurance, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1012
9. 15 U.S. Code § 6701 – Operation of State law, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/6701
10. www.congress.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10043#:~:text=Each%20state%20government%20has%20a,the%20market%20conduct%20of%20companies.
11. Insurance & Reinsurance Laws and Regulations Report 2025 USA – ICLG.com, accessed August 15, 2025, https://iclg.com/practice-areas/insurance-and-reinsurance-laws-and-regulations/usa
12. Working at TDI – Texas Department of Insurance, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/blog/category/working-at-tdi.html
13. About the Department – California Department of Insurance, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0500-about-us/02-department/
14. NIPR: Home Page, accessed August 15, 2025, https://nipr.com/
15. State Based Systems, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.statebasedsystems.com/industry/licensing.htm
16. TDI working for you – Texas Department of Insurance, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/consumer/cb022.html
17. Get help with an insurance complaint – Texas Department of Insurance, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/consumer/get-help-with-an-insurance-complaint.html
18. File a Consumer Insurance Complaint – Office of the Commissioner of Insurance and Safety Fire – Georgia.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://oci.georgia.gov/file-consumer-insurance-complaint
19. File a Complaint | DORA – Colorado Division of Insurance, accessed August 15, 2025, https://doi.colorado.gov/for-consumers/file-a-complaint
20. Complaints | Utah Insurance Department, accessed August 15, 2025, https://insurance.utah.gov/complaints/
21. California Department of Insurance – Climatebase, accessed August 15, 2025, https://climatebase.org/company/1138132/california-department-of-insurance
22. Department of Insurance (CDI) – CA.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.ca.gov/departments/175/
23. Where is California Department of Insurance Located? HQ & Global Offices (2025) – Highperformr.ai, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.highperformr.ai/company/cadeptofinsurance
24. California Department of Insurance – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Insurance
25. Legal Branch/General Counsel – California Department of Insurance, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0500-about-us/02-department/050-lgc/
26. About Us | Department of Financial Services – NY.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/About_Us
27. Understanding NYDFS: New York Department of Financial Services – Scrut, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.scrut.io/post/what-is-nydfs
28. New York State Insurance Department – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Insurance_Department
29. What is the New York State Department Of Financial Services (NYSDFS)?, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.sanctionscanner.com/knowledge-base/new-york-state-department-of-financial-services-nysdfs-62
30. Department of Financial Services – NY.Gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/
31. Enterprise Risk Report and ORSA Summary Report | Department of Financial Services, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/insurance_companies/enterprise_risk_and_orsa
32. Financial Stability and the DFS, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumers/health_insurance/financial_stability_and_the_department_of_financial_services
33. Health Insurance Rate Review FAQs – Department of Financial Services – NY.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumers/health_insurance/rate_review_faqs
34. Insurance Companies: Rate and Form Filing Requirements and Checklists | Department of Financial Services, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/insurance_companies/rate_and_form_filing_requirements_and_checklists
35. About TDI, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/general/index.html
36. Texas Department of Insurance – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Department_of_Insurance
37. Insurance | Office of the Attorney General, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/consumer-protection/financial-and-insurance-scams/insurance
38. TDI’s Role in a Disaster – Texas Department of Insurance, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/consumer/storms/cpmdisrole.html
39. National Association of Insurance Commissioners – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Insurance_Commissioners
40. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) – Practical Law, accessed August 15, 2025, https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I94a4494fc51911ebbea4f0dc9fb69570
41. National Association of Insurance Commissioners | IRP – International Recovery Platform, accessed August 15, 2025, https://recovery.preventionweb.net/organization/national-association-insurance-commissioners
42. What is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) #insurance #NAIC – YouTube, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MSba-N1Q3QY
43. What is the NAIC and what does it do?, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/about-naic.pdf
44. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) – Finance Strategists, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.financestrategists.com/insurance-broker/national-association-of-insurance-commissioners-naic/
45. FAQ What is the National Association of Insurance … – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/about-faq.pdf
46. Regulator – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/regulator
47. About Us – State Based Systems, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.statebasedsystems.com/aboutUs.htm
48. NAIC – Supporting Insurance, Regulators, & Public Interest, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/
49. NAIC Model Laws 101, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/topic-model-laws-101.pdf
50. Insurance 101: Understanding NAIC Model Laws | AgentSync, accessed August 15, 2025, https://agentsync.io/blog/insurance-101/understanding-naic-model-laws
51. Model Laws – About – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/model-laws/about
52. Model Laws – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/model-laws
53. Model Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/publication-model-2024-spring.pdf
54. NAIC Model Laws, Regulations, Guidelines and Other Resources—Summer 2021, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/legacy/documents/legal_mod_law_toc.pdf
55. Insurance Topics | Accreditation – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/accreditation
56. The NAIC Accreditation Program, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/government-affairs-brief-accreditation-program.pdf
57. Three States Accredited – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/article/daily-news-three-states-accredited
58. NAIC Awards Accreditation for the Departments of Insurance for Hawaii, Kansas and South Carolina, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/article/naic-awards-accreditation-departments-insurance-hawaii-kansas-and-south-carolina
59. Five Departments of Insurance Achieve Accreditation for Meeting Financial Solvency Oversight Standards – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/article/five-departments-insurance-achieve-accreditation-meeting-financial-solvency-oversight-standards
60. Publications – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/publications
61. Insurance Industry Snapshots and Analysis Reports – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/industry/insurance-industry-snapshots-analysis-reports
62. What Is the NAIC? | Bankrate, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/naic/
63. Center for Insurance Policy and Research – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/research
64. NAIC Guide to Health Insurance Law – Number Analytics, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/naic-guide-to-health-insurance-law
65. National Flood Insurance Program – California Department of Water Resources – CA.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Flood-Management/National-Flood-Insurance-Program
66. Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) | Congress.gov, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44593
67. Federal Insurance Office (FIO): Meaning, History – Investopedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federal-insurance-office.asp
68. Dodd-Frank: Title V – Insurance | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dodd-frank_title_V
69. Federal Insurance Office – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/federal-insurance-office
70. Financial Reform FIO – NAIC, accessed August 15, 2025, https://content.naic.org/index_financial_reform_fio.htm
71. Understanding Federal Insurance Office – Number Analytics, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-federal-insurance-office
72. About FIO | U.S. Department of the Treasury, accessed August 15, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/federal-insurance-office/about-fio
73. Affordable Care Act | Internal Revenue Service, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act
74. How is the insurance industry regulated? | | ABI, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.abi.org.uk/data-and-resources/tools-and-resources/regulation/
75. Insurance law and regulation in United Kingdom| Expert Guides, accessed August 15, 2025, https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-insurance/united-kingdom
76. Insurance & Reinsurance Laws and Regulations Report 2025 England & Wales – ICLG.com, accessed August 15, 2025, https://iclg.com/practice-areas/insurance-and-reinsurance-laws-and-regulations/england-and-wales
77. life insurance regulation: Solvency II, PRA and FCA – HMRC internal manual – GOV.UK, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/life-assurance/lam01090
78. Insurer regulation in the UK – Rothesay, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.rothesay.com/news/perspectives/insurer-regulation-in-the-uk/
79. Navigating the insurance regulatory landscape in the UK | The Policyholder Perspective, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.policyholderperspective.com/2024/10/articles/financial-insurance-coverage/navigating-the-insurance-regulatory-landscape-in-the-uk/
80. FCA Insurance Compliance Guide – Number Analytics, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/fca-insurance-compliance-guide
81. Financial Conduct Authority – Wikipedia, accessed August 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Conduct_Authority
82. FCA: Financial Conduct Authority, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/
83. FCA strips back insurance rulebook, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-strips-back-insurance-rulebook
84. Register Home Page – FCA, accessed August 15, 2025, https://register.fca.org.uk/s/
85. Insurance regulation – Finance – European Commission, accessed August 15, 2025, https://finance.ec.europa.eu/banking/insurance/insurance-regulation_en
86. Insurance and reinsurance | EUR-Lex – European Union, accessed August 15, 2025, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/insurance-and-reinsurance.html
87. Regulation and policy – EIOPA – European Union, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/browse/regulation-and-policy_en
88. European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) – EUR-Lex, accessed August 15, 2025, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/european-insurance-and-occupational-pensions-authority-eiopa.html
89. European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority’s (EIOPA) contribution to the supervision of and financial stability in the EU, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/bp_eiopa/bp_eiopa_en.pdf
90. European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) – Devex, accessed August 15, 2025, https://www.devex.com/organizations/european-insurance-and-occupational-pensions-authority-eiopa-68643