Editor’s note: Port City Daily invited North Carolina Insurance Commissioner candidates Wayne Goodwin, the incumbent, and Mike Causey to participate in our candidate profile series. Candidates’ responses have not been edited for length or content.
Name: Wayne Goodwin
Office sought: NC Insurance Commissioner
Political affiliation: Democrat
Age: 45
Personal/family information: Married to former State Representative Melanie Wade Goodwin. Two young children, Madison and Jackson. In addition to family in my hometown of Hamlet, I have many relatives in New Hanover County.
Education/Profession: B.A. with Honors, Political Science, UNC-Chapel Hill. Juris Doctor (J.D.), UNC-Chapel Hill. Small-town lawyer, small business owner, state insurance regulator for the people
Previous elected/appointed office(s) held: Assistant Insurance Commissioner (2005-2008); Assistant General Counsel to Insurance Commissioner Long (2005); State Representative, NC General Assembly, representing Richmond, Montgomery, Scotland and Stanly counties (1996-2004). Multiple appointments to state boards, councils and commissions since 1992.
Why are you running in this election? I’m running to save North Carolinians statewide more money as Insurance Commissioner (savings on my watch of $1.4 Billion to date for individuals and small businesses), to reform our rate-making system to provide greater consumer protections and fairer rates and greater opportunities for insurance companies to write more homeowners insurance coverage on the coast than they do now (competition will help consumers), and to prevent the insurance industry from controlling the Department of Insurance (my opponent worked 30 years for insurance companies and 10 years as a paid lobbyist).
What are the biggest issues facing North Carolinians today—specifically North Carolinians in the southeastern part of the state?
The biggest issues facing residents in southeastern North Carolina, as it relates to the state Insurance Commissioner’s office, are:
Fair ratemaking, particularly for homeowners insurance
More refined territories for insurance ratemaking
Enhanced tax and insurance credits for mitigation of home hazards
Competition in the east among insurance companies for homeowners
A stronger surplus in the Beach Plan/coastal property insurance windpool)
Insurance fraud by agents and other criminals
Preventing the insurance industry from controlling the Insurance Commissioner’s office (my opponent worked 30 years for insurance companies and 10 years as a paid lobbyist)
Homeowners in southeastern part of the state continue to suffer burdensome homeowners’ insurance rate increases across the state each year, yet actuarial data indicates claims in other parts of the state top this region. What would you do to ensure equitable increases if increase are warranted?
Last week I denied the insurance companies’ attempt to raise homeowners’ insurance rates in North Carolina and ordered that the matter be addressed in a public hearing (like a trial) in June 2013 for final decision. It appeared that the requested rates are excessive and unfairly discriminatory. It is important to note that as Insurance Commissioner I must follow the law and the set procedures or risk a court declaring that my actions are void, which then means the insurance industry’s requested rates are implemented at the highest level. Allowing such a “deemer” is unacceptable. My opponent has already appeared to jeopardize that result by certain statements he has made on the campaign trail. Wouldn’t it be a travesty if a court voids what I’ve done to scrutinize rate requests by insurance companies and says that Mr. Causey’s statements (if he is elected instead of me) give the court no choice but to declare that the rates go into effect as insurance companies have sought? Having a competent knowledge of current insurance law is crucial, and I have that. Mr. Causey has no legal degree and, on information and belief, he last had an insurance license many, many years ago.
Also, as I do for all insurance filings, I order my independent actuaries, economic experts, lawyers, etc. to review every insurance filing from insurance companies with a fine-tooth comb. We must keep in mind that – by some estimates – the eastern part of North Carolina is approximately 10 percent of the population and 45 percent of wind claims while the rest of the state makes up 90 percent of the population and 55 percent of the wind claims. In general, I believe that we must establish rates that are fair and based on actual historic data and the law, and do what we can to protect consumers and allow for a competitive, solvent market. Furthermore, I order public comment periods and encourage public discussion of filings, the impact, and the law before any changes, if any are made in rates.
Do you support an evaluation of the North Carolina Rate Bureau and its rate-making processes? Why or why not?
There have already been several evaluations of one sort or another of the NC Rate Bureau (which is not part of the Department of Insurance) over the last 10 years as it relates to car insurance and homeowners insurance. While I support evaluations if the goal is to improve fair ratemaking, consumer protection and industry competition, I am concerned that another attempt to review this area of the law in a wholesale way may give the insurance companies an opportunity to gut consumer protections and cause rates to go higher, clearly the opposite result that what is the basis for your question. We should be very careful.
Would you support evaluated past claims in the rate-making process for homeowners insurance?
I believe that historic data based on past claims and on past storms/catastrophes are extremely important in the rate-making process, and must be considered. Keep in mind that I have not raised any homeowners insurance rates on my watch as Insurance Commissioner. Any rates that have gone up over the last four years are a result of insurance companies withdrawing discounts, legislative changes in the Beach Plan, some companies dropping coverage, etc., and not rate-making decision by me or the Department of Insurance.
