Louisiana lawmakers filed three bills targeting captive insurance ahead of the 2026 session, which opened on 9 March. The proposals triggered immediate reaction across the captive sector.
Industry contacts received a written assessment from Jennifer Haskell, director of regulatory compliance at Risk Services Companies and a former insurance regulator. Her review breaks down how each bill alters regulatory structure, market access, and oversight.
House Bill 904, backed by Representative Bamburg and supported by the Louisiana Department of Insurance, stems from operational friction during captive risk retention group application reviews.
The bill adjusts the state’s captive statute to expand regulatory discretion. It allows the insurance commissioner to waive certain requirements for RRGs, provided NAIC accreditation standards remain intact.
- It broadens acceptable capital and surplus forms.
- It authorizes required deposits when solvency concerns surface.
- It aligns governance and annual reporting rules with NAIC expectations.
- It also shifts rate-filing rules from mandatory to discretionary.
Haskell describes the language as unusually flexible compared with other jurisdictions. She writes the bill gives the commissioner room to apply judgment instead of forcing uniform structures across all captives. We think regulators often push rigid frameworks, so this shift stands out, at least on paper.
In fact, it may ultimately represent some of the most favourable language in the country, as it gives the Commissioner significant flexibility to apply regulatory judgment rather than forcing every captive into a rigid, cookie-cutter structure.
Jennifer Haskell, director of regulatory compliance at Risk Services Companies
House Bill 932, introduced by Representative Edmond Jordan, takes a different direction and targets the commercial trucking segment.
The proposal establishes the Louisiana Commercial Trucking Insurance Market Reform Act. It requires captive insurers covering Louisiana trucking risks to contribute 3% of retained premium annually to a newly created market access fund.
The rule applies regardless of domicile, which raises jurisdictional friction straight away. The bill also imposes minimum reserve and surplus thresholds.
It mandates disclosure of coverage within 30 days after a claim. It sets up a group purchasing pool for smaller carriers. It allows judgment creditors to pursue direct action against captive insurers.
Industry response turned sharp. Haskell argues the bill misreads how captive insurance and risk retention groups function. She points to their status as regulated risk management structures used across the US trucking sector.
The required contribution acts like a targeted tax on retained premium. It also attempts oversight beyond state borders, which raises federal preemption issues under the Liability Risk Retention Act.
According to Beinsure analysts, cross-state regulation rarely lands cleanly in practice, and this proposal looks messy already. She also flags broader market consequences.
The bill risks weakening ongoing efforts to improve affordability and coverage availability in Louisiana’s trucking insurance market. Pressure on captives could tighten supply instead of easing it.
House Bill 936, also sponsored by Jordan, proposes a new standalone Louisiana Captive Insurance Act. The bill sets out a full framework covering licensing, capitalization, governance, actuarial standards, premium tax, and advisory committee structure.
It introduces rules for protected cell companies and formalizes oversight components across the captive lifecycle.
Haskell questions the direction. She writes the proposal does not match the department’s current trajectory for developing the captive framework.
Recent efforts aimed to position Louisiana as a viable jurisdiction for alternative risk structures. This bill pulls in another direction. It risks slowing momentum built over recent reforms.
She also notes both HB 932 and HB 936 come from Jordan, identified in legislative records as co-owner of Cypress Insurance Agency.
The proposals appear aimed at fixing pressure points in the trucking insurance market. Haskell argues they reflect a weak grasp of captive insurance mechanics and risk retention group structures.
The potential fallout extends beyond trucking into the broader captive sector.
The Louisiana Department of Insurance states it is reviewing all captive-related legislation filed this session. Officials indicate plans to engage lawmakers as the process moves forward.
The department signals ongoing work to refine the state’s captive insurance environment, though the direction remains unsettled.
