7 Amendments of Astrid LULLING related to 2011/2010(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the necessity, function and structure of insurance guarantee schemes are not analogous with either deposit guarantee schemes or investor compensation schemes on account of the different business model of insurers and the different risk exposure of consumers in the event of the failure of an insurer,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission, in coherence with the definition of relevant details of Solvency II, to come forward with proposals for a minimum harmonisation directive establishing a coherent and consistent cross-border framework for national insurance guarantee schemes (IGS) across Member States providing last-resort protection to consumers exclusively in case insurance untertakings, due to their insolvency, are unable to fulfil their contractual commitments;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the adoption of the ‘home’ country principle – whereby all policies written by an insurerlife insurance policies subscribed by natural persons, regardless of location of sale, are covered by the ‘home’ IGS – recognising both that: A) under Solvency II the cross- border provision of insurance services will increase; and, B) the failure of an insurer will be linked to the inadequacy of supervision by the ‘home’ supervisor, and thus the burden of responsibility for failure should be borne by the ‘home’ IGS;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Insists that the model of function, design and funding for national IGS be a matter of subsidiarity, reflecting the ‘home’ country principle of supervision and the divergence of models used by existing IGS; urges the Commission against advocating an ex-ante approach to funding given the absence of compelling arguments in favour of such an approach and the disruption it could cause;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that ‘home’ and ‘host’ supervisors should cooperate fully with the concerned IGS to ensure minimised disruption for the policyholder in a ‘host’ country in the event of the failure of an insurer, acting through the college with the participation of EIOPA to ensure consistency of approach between schemes;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Insists that new EU legislation should not result in the dilution of protection offered by existing IGS in Member States, and that consumers should not face any losses as a result of regulatory failure to adequately supervise insurers or intermediaries; calls consequently on the Commission to ensure that a European framework for IGS compensates policyholders for losses in full and without exception for all types of insurance products in the event of insurer bankruptcy, insurer or intermediary mis-selling, or fraud, within a set period of time, consistent throughout Member States; suggests that in case an insurance guarantee scheme would have to endow with compensation to policyholders, EU legislation should provide for caps and limits;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that in the absence of a legally binding EU definition of what constitutes a small- or micro- undertaking, and given the changing nature of such entities over time, proposals for a directive on IGS should be limited to natural persons acting for purposes which can be regarded as outside their trade, business, craft of profession; natural persons linked to the failed insurer such as directors, managers or (qualified) shareholders should be excluded from the group of consumers; requests that the Commission re-evaluate the case for including select legal persons once a legally binding definition is agreed; stresses that as a matter of subsidiarity individual Member States may choose to include legal persons within their national IGS;