Protecting Your Producers

In his campaign to have public employees pay more for their health insurance Senate President Stephen Sweeney decries the ridiculously high cost of coverage for teachers:

Yet last Thursday Sweeney pushed through a law that will make those costs (whatever they may be) as well as profits for his own producers (whoever they may be) that much higher.

S2475 ScaSa (2R) Prohibits application of fiduciary standard to insurance producers; specifies qualifications of persons providing affidavit of merit in lawsuits against insurance producers. *
Passed Senate


Identical Bill Number: A2034    (3R)

Sweeney, Stephen M.   as Primary Sponsor
Pou, Nellie   as Primary Sponsor

4/12/2018 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Commerce Committee
1/17/2019 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading
1/31/2019 Senate Amendment (32-0) (Pou)
2/21/2019 Passed by the Senate (32-0)
Introduced – – 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Reprint – – 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Statement – SCM 1/17/19 – 2 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Floor Statement – Senate 1/31/19 1R – 1 pages PDF Format    HTML Format
Reprint – – 4 pages PDF Format    HTML Format

Committee Voting:
SCM  1/17/2019  –  r/Sca  –  Yes {5}  No {0}  Not Voting {0}  Abstains {0}  –  Roll Call

Session Voting:
Sen.    1/31/2019  –  2ND READING   –  Yes {0}  No {0}  Not Voting {40}    –  Voice Vote Passed
Sen.    1/31/2019  –  AMEND   –  Yes {32}  No {0}  Not Voting {8}    –  Roll Call
Sen.    2/21/2019  –  3RDG FINAL PASSAGE   –  Yes {32}  No {0}  Not Voting {8}    –  Roll Call

2 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by skip3house on February 23, 2019 at 7:52 pm

    Sure brings up questions…….. no wonder NJ cannot cut spending, but must raise taxes instead. Do you recall a recent post of Corzine allowing a ‘grandmother’ to sit on an inactive committee while getting more time for free medical benefits from NJ, yet sitting on Port Authority Board?


  2. Posted by Tough Love on February 24, 2019 at 12:05 am

    Few really WANT to be “fiduciaries” as it carries great rick and can easily be abused by those who, for reasons NOT having to do with the services provided …. are not happy with some “outcome”…………….. similar to the Doctor who follows recognized medical procedures/standards but is sued none-the-less simply due to a poor (often unavoidable) outcome.

    Insurance “producers” are often compensated on a commission basis not that much different than stock brokers. The standard rule by which stock brokers are governed is that an investment must be SUITABLE based in their client’s wealth, desires, age, instructions, risk tolerance, etc. But ………. given 2 equally “Suitable” investments, they do NOT have to choose the one which would generate the lowest commissions … as would an “Investment Advisor” agreeing to operate under a fiduciary arrangement.

    Most brokers feel that they are providing a valuable service, and why should they have to seek out the lowest compensation for that service. Certainly business owners don’t operate for the financial benefit of their customers. They’re in business to make a profit, and (in general) the bigger, the better.

    That said, it is surprising why the NJ Legislature is seeking to pass a law that actively PROHIBITS the application of fiduciary standard to insurance producers. The only thing I can think of is that such “producers” are being pressured by the buyers of the insurance products to agree to a fiduciary relationship …………. and since outwardly responding that they don’t want to wouldn’t be well-received, they might be looking for another way of saying NO … we “can’t” because of this (proposed) law.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: