

Currently released so far... 12478 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AU
ASEC
AE
AF
AORC
AEMR
AMGT
ABUD
AFFAIRS
APER
AS
AMED
AY
AG
AR
AJ
AL
AID
AM
AODE
ABLD
AMG
AFIN
ATRN
AGAO
AFU
AN
AA
ALOW
APECO
ADM
ARF
ASEAN
APEC
AMBASSADOR
AO
ASUP
AZ
AADP
ACOA
ANET
AMCHAMS
ACABQ
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APCS
AGMT
AINF
AIT
AORL
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ACBAQ
AFGHANISTAN
ADANA
ADPM
AX
ADCO
AECL
AMEX
ACAO
ASCH
AORG
AGR
AROC
ASIG
AND
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AC
AUC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
BL
BR
BO
BA
BD
BM
BK
BG
BU
BB
BH
BTIO
BY
BEXP
BP
BE
BRUSSELS
BF
BIDEN
BT
BX
BC
BILAT
BN
BBSR
BTIU
BWC
BMGT
CA
CASC
CVIS
CM
CH
CO
CU
CD
CWC
CI
CS
CY
CMGT
CF
CG
CR
CB
CV
CW
CE
CBW
CT
CPAS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CJAN
CODEL
CIDA
CDG
CDC
CIA
CTR
CNARC
CSW
CN
CONS
CLINTON
COE
CROS
CARICOM
CONDOLEEZZA
COUNTER
CL
COM
CICTE
CIS
CFED
COUNTRY
CJUS
CBSA
CEUDA
CLMT
CAC
COPUOS
CIC
CBE
CHR
CTM
CVR
CITEL
CLEARANCE
CACS
CAN
CITT
CARSON
CACM
CDB
CAPC
CKGR
CBC
EC
EG
EPET
ECON
ETRD
EFIN
EIND
EMIN
ENRG
EAID
EAGR
EUN
ETTC
EAIR
ENIV
ES
EU
EINV
ELAB
ECIN
EFIS
ELTN
EWWT
ECPS
ECONOMIC
ENGR
EN
EINT
EPA
ELN
ESA
EZ
ER
ET
EFTA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
EXTERNAL
EI
EUR
EK
ERNG
ENGY
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENERG
EINVEFIN
ENVR
ECA
ELECTIONS
ETC
EUREM
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EURN
ECINECONCS
EEPET
EXIM
ERD
ENVI
ETRC
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ETRO
EDU
ETRN
EAIG
ECONCS
ECONOMICS
EAP
ECONOMY
EINN
EIAR
EXBS
ECUN
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ESENV
ECONEFIN
ECIP
EFIM
EAIDS
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINVETC
IZ
IT
IR
IS
IN
IC
IAEA
IO
ICAO
IWC
ID
IV
ISRAEL
IAHRC
IQ
ICTR
IMF
IRS
IDP
IGAD
ICRC
ICTY
IMO
IL
INRA
INRO
ICJ
ITU
IBRD
INMARSAT
IIP
ITALY
IEFIN
IACI
ILO
INTELSAT
ILC
ITRA
IDA
INRB
IRC
INTERPOL
IA
IPR
IRAQI
ISRAELI
INTERNAL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
IBET
INR
IEA
IZPREL
IRAJ
ITF
IF
KDEM
KU
KPAL
KNNP
KCRM
KZ
KN
KS
KJUS
KTFN
KSCA
KV
KISL
KPAO
KPKO
KIRF
KTIA
KIPR
KFLO
KFRD
KTIP
KAWC
KSUM
KCOM
KAID
KE
KTDB
KMDR
KOMC
KWBG
KDRG
KVPR
KTEX
KGIC
KWMN
KSCI
KCOR
KACT
KDDG
KHLS
KSAF
KFLU
KSEO
KMRS
KSPR
KOLY
KSEP
KVIR
KGHG
KIRC
KUNR
KIFR
KCIP
KMCA
KMPI
KBCT
KHSA
KICC
KIDE
KCRS
KMFO
KRVC
KRGY
KR
KAWK
KG
KFIN
KHIV
KBIO
KOCI
KBTR
KNEI
KPOA
KCFE
KPLS
KSTC
KHDP
KPRP
KCRCM
KLIG
KCFC
KTER
KREC
KTBT
KPRV
KSTH
KRIM
KRAD
KWAC
KWMM
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KOMS
KX
KMIG
KRCM
KVRP
KBTS
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNAR
KPWR
KNPP
KDEMAF
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KGIT
KPAI
KTLA
KFSC
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KID
KOM
KMOC
KJUST
KGCC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KO
KNSD
KHUM
KSEC
KCMR
KCHG
KICA
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KCGC
KWWMN
KPAK
KWNM
KWMNCS
KRFD
MOPS
MCAP
MPOS
MARR
MO
MNUC
MX
MASS
MG
MY
MU
ML
MR
MILITARY
MTCRE
MT
MEPP
MA
MDC
MP
MAR
MASSMNUC
MARAD
MAPP
MZ
MD
MI
MEETINGS
MK
MCC
MEPN
MRCRE
MAS
MIL
MASC
MC
MV
MTCR
MIK
MUCN
MEDIA
MERCOSUR
MW
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTRE
MEPI
MQADHAFI
MAPS
NO
NATO
NL
NP
NZ
NSF
NI
NH
NG
NAFTA
NU
NASA
NR
NATOPREL
NSSP
NSG
NA
NT
NW
NK
NPT
NPA
NATIONAL
NPG
NSFO
NS
NSC
NE
NGO
NDP
NIPP
NRR
NEW
NZUS
NC
NAR
NV
NORAD
OTRA
OPCW
OVIP
OAS
OREP
OPIC
OIIP
OPRC
ODIP
OEXC
OPDC
OSCE
OIC
OSCI
OECD
OFDP
OFDA
OMIG
OPAD
OFFICIALS
OVP
OIE
OHUM
OCS
OBSP
OTR
OSAC
ON
OCII
OES
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PTER
PINS
PINR
PREF
PK
PROP
PA
PARM
PBTS
PMAR
PM
PGIV
PE
PRAM
PHUH
PHSA
PL
PNAT
PO
PLN
PAO
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PF
PEL
PBIO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PAS
POL
PREO
PAHO
PMIL
POGOV
POV
PAK
PNR
PRL
PG
PREFA
PSI
PINL
PU
PARMS
PRGOV
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POSTS
PROG
PORG
PTBS
PUNE
POLICY
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PP
PS
PY
PTERE
PGOF
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PRELP
PSEPC
PGOVE
PINF
PNG
PGOC
PFOR
PCUL
POLINT
PGGV
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PGOVLO
PHUS
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
RS
RU
RELATIONS
RW
RO
RM
RP
ROOD
RICE
RUPREL
RSO
RCMP
REACTION
REPORT
REGION
RIGHTS
RF
RFE
RSP
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
SU
SCUL
SNAR
SOCI
SF
SA
SHUM
SENV
SP
SR
SY
SANC
SC
SMIG
SZ
SARS
SW
SEVN
SO
SEN
SL
SNARCS
SNARN
SI
SG
SN
SH
SYR
SAARC
SPCE
SHI
SCRS
SENVKGHG
SYRIA
SWE
STEINBERG
SIPRS
ST
SNARIZ
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SIPDIS
SAN
TC
TI
TBIO
TH
TSPL
TRGY
TSPA
TPHY
TU
TW
TS
TAGS
TK
TX
TNGD
TZ
TF
TL
TV
TN
TD
TIP
TR
TP
TO
TT
TFIN
THPY
TERRORISM
TINT
TRSY
TURKEY
TBID
US
UK
UNGA
UP
UZ
UNMIK
USTR
UNO
UNSC
UN
UNESCO
UNAUS
UNHRC
UY
UG
UNHCR
UNCND
USOAS
USEU
UNICEF
UNEP
UV
UNPUOS
UNCSD
USUN
UNCHR
UNDC
USNC
UE
UNDP
UNC
USPS
USAID
UNVIE
UAE
UNFICYP
UNODC
UNCHS
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNCHC
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 05TORONTO2609, Canada Asks U.S. to Change Rule on Insurance
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05TORONTO2609.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
05TORONTO2609 | 2005-10-06 11:08 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Consulate Toronto |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 TORONTO 002609
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD EAGR TBIO CA
SUBJECT: Canada Asks U.S. to Change Rule on Insurance
for Cross-border Motor Carriers - In Accordance with
SPP Objectives
¶1. During a September 26 financial services roundtable
discussion with Consulate and embassy officials,
leaders of the Canadian insurance industry advised that
the Government of Canada would soon request changes to
the U.S. policy on the certification of insurance
coverage for cross-border motor carriers. The
September 29, 2005, Petition for Rule Making (contained
in para 2), provided to us by an insurance industry
contact, asks the U.S. to enact rules that would
harmonize requirements and certification for motor
vehicle liability insurance. The Canadian Embassy in
Washington sent this request to the Secretaries of
Transportation, Commerce, State, and Treasury on
September 30. The Canadian Embassy letter argues that
the requested changes would "contribute to enhancing
the competitive and efficient position of North
American businesses and would assist in meeting the
stated goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership
(SPP)." ConGen Toronto notes that this request is
consistent with the following priority area identified
in the SPP "...seek ways to improve convenience and
cost of insurance coverage for carriers engaged in
cross border commerce."
¶2. Begin full copy of the Petition for Rulemaking:
September 29, 2005
Annette M. Sandberg
Administrator
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh St. SW
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Ms. Sandberg:
Re: Petition for Rulemaking by the Government of Canada
to Amend 49 CM Part 387 (Financial Responsibility
Requirements for Motor Carriers)
Interest of the Petitioner
Part 387 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) Regulations sets out the
financial responsibility requirements for motor
carriers. The combined effect of Part 387.7 and Part
387.11 of the Regulations is to require Canadian-
domiciled motor carriers operating in any of the United
States to obtain the necessary insurance coverage, in
the form of the MCS-90 endorsement, from or through a
U.S.-licensed insurer in addition to obtaining
insurance that is valid in Canada from an insurer
licensed in the province of Canada in which the motor
carrier is domiciled.
The result of these requirements is an additional
administrative burden, inconvenience and cost not faced
by U.S.-domiciled motor carriers operating into Canada.
The insurance policy issued by a U.S.-licensed insurer
to a U.S.-domiciled motor carrier is accepted as valid
insurance for the Canadian portion of the trip. The
insurance policy issued by a Canadian-licensed insurer
to a Canadian-domiciled motor carrier is not accepted
as valid insurance for the U.S. portion of a trip.
The Governments of Canada and the US have taken
significant steps in recent years to improve the flow
of trade in North America. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement was followed by the much broader North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed by the
U.S., Canada and Mexico. The focus on trade issues has
recently been reinforced by the Security and Prosperity
Partnership of North America (SPP), discussed in more
detail below. Cross-border motor carrier insurance
issues have arisen in the context of the NAFTA treaty
and the SPP initiative.
The Government of Canada has participated for many
years in the work of the Trinational Insurance Working
Group, which was created by and reports to the NAFTA
Financial Services Committee (comprised of senior
officials from the U.S. Treasury Department, Canada's
Department of Finance and Mexico's Hacienda). Its
mandate and function is to examine and seek solutions
to cross-border trucking insurance issues. All members
of the Trinational Insurance Working Group have agreed
that the highest and best solution to these issues is a
seamless motor vehicle liability policy that would
require insurance companies to provide the compulsory
insurance coverages and policy limits required in any
of the three NAFTA countries, regardless of the home
jurisdiction of the truck and the country in which the
policy is written. This would afford mutual recognition
of motor vehicle liability policies written in any of
the NAFTA countries.
As between Canada and the United States, one of the
critical changes required in order to effect full
mutual recognition of such insurance policies for
commercial trucks is an amendment to the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration Regulations to permit
insurance companies, licensed either provincially or
federally in Canada to write motor vehicle liability
insurance policies, to sign the MCS-90.
The need to seek ways to improve the convenience,
efficiency and cost of insurance coverage for motor
carriers engaged in cross-border commerce was noted in
the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America (SPP). The establishment of the SPP was
announced on March 23, 2005, by President Bush,
together with the Prime Minister of Canada and the
President of Mexico. The Prosperity Agenda that
accompanied the Leaders' Statement of this Partnership
stated, among other things, that:
"To enhance the competitive position of North American
industries in the global marketplace and to provide
greater economic opportunity for all of our societies,
while maintaining high standards of health and safety
for our people, the United States, Mexico and Canada
will work together, and in consultation with
stakeholders, to:
- Work towards the freer flow of capital and the
"efficient provision of financial services throughout
North America" (e.g., ... seek ways to improve
convenience and cost of insurance coverage for carriers
engaged in cross border commerce).
In furtherance of the SPP, on June 27, 2005 a Report to
the Leaders was signed on behalf of the United States
by the respective Secretaries of Homeland Security,
Commerce and State. One of the stated initiatives in
the Report, set out at page 17 under the section
entitled "Financial Services", is to "Seek ways to
improve the availability and affordability of insurance
coverage for carriers engaged in cross-border commerce
in North America". The following Key Milestone is
stated for this initiative:
"U.S. and Canada to work towards possible amendment of
the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Regulation to allow Canadian insurers to directly sign
the MCS-90 form concerning endorsement for motor
carrier policies of insurance for public liability: by
June 2006."
Rulemaking Requested
The Government of Canada requests that 49 CFR, Part
387.11 be amended to provide that one of the types of
policies of insurance that satisfies the financial
responsibility requirements set out in Part 387.9 of
the Regulations is a policy of insurance issued by a
Canadian insurance company legally authorized to issue
such a policy in the Province of Canada in which a
Canadian motor carrier has its principal place of
business or domicile, and that is willing to designate
a person upon whom process, issued by or under the
authority of any court having jurisdiction of the
subject matter, may be served in any proceeding at law
or equity brought in any State in which the motor
carrier operates. The Government of Canada further
requests that any additional or other amendments be
made to 49 CFR, Part 387 that maybe required in order
to give effect to the above-referenced initiative of
the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America.
Current Means by which Canadian-Domiciled Motor
Carriers are Insured for Cross-Border Commerce
Currently, there are only two insurance options
available to Canadian motor carriers wishing to engage
in U.S. cross-border commerce. They may obtain
separate insurance policies, one valid in Canada
written by a Canadian insurer and one valid in the U.S.
written by a U.S. insurer. This is a very expensive
option and puts Canadian insurance companies that would
otherwise earn income on policies issued to Canadian-
domiciled motor carriers at a distinct trade
disadvantage. It is rarely used.
The second option, which is by far the most commonly
used, is for a Canadian-licensed insurer to enter into
what is known as a "fronting arrangement" with a U.S.-
licensed insurer whereby the U.S. insurer permits the
Canadian insurer to sign the MCS-90 as its agent, and
the entire risk is contractually "reinsured" back to
the Canadian insurer by the US insurer. In order that
the U.S. insurer is not at risk in the event of a claim
against the Canadian motor carrier, the Canadian
insurer of the carrier must put up an agreed-upon
amount of capital under the fronting arrangement. The
second option also puts Canadian insurers and motor
carriers at a trade disadvantage, as the cost of
entering into the fronting arrangement is borne
entirely by the Canadian insurer, which it in turn
passes on to the motor carrier. As well, the capital
put up under the fronting arrangement by the Canadian
insurer is capital taken out of the Canadian insurance
marketplace, thus reducing the capital available to
underwrite insurance in Canada. U.S. motor carriers
and their insurers do not face these additional costs
in transporting goods into Canada.
Canadian insurers are finding it increasingly difficult
to find fronting partners in the U.S. This has come
about because, as a result of mergers and acquisitions,
there are few multinational insurers left that write
motor vehicle liability (i.e. public liability)
policies for motor carriers in both Canada and the U.S.
It is much more difficult and much more costly to enter
into such an arrangement with a company that is not
part of the same corporate group. This also has the
effect of limiting competition in the marketplace
largely to the very few multinational insurance
companies writing insurance for motor carriers on both
sides of the Canada-U.S. border.
Canada Extends Full Recognition to Motor Vehicle
(Public Liability) Insurance Policies Issued by U.S.-
Licensed Insurers
Between the U.S. and Canada, in regard to private
passenger vehicles and light trucks, there has been for
many years full mutual recognition and acceptance of
motor vehicle liability policies issued in either
country as acceptable proof of financial
responsibility. All of the American states and Canadian
provinces recognize the certificate of insurance issued
by a motor vehicle insurer licensed in any state of the
US or any province of Canada as acceptable proof of
financial responsibility for private passenger vehicles
and light trucks domiciled in the jurisdiction of issue
of the policy.
In addition, Canada has long extended this recognition
in respect of motor vehicle liability insurance for US-
domiciled motor carriers. All Canadian jurisdictions
accept the signing and filing by insurers licensed in
any jurisdiction of the U.S. of a Power of Attorney and
Undertaking as valid proof, in Canada, of financial
responsibility of U.S.-issued motor vehicle liability
policies on U.S. resident motor vehicles of all
categories. In essence, the Power of Attorney and
Undertaking (PATJ) provides that the U.S. insurer will
comply with and meet the minimum compulsory coverages
and policy limits required in any Canadian jurisdiction
in which an accident involving its insured occurs. The
PAU is similar to the combined provisions of Sub-Parts
387.11 and 387.15 (MCS-90 Form) of the FMCSA
Regulations. The PAU is filed with the Canadian
Council of Insurance Regulators (the Canadian
equivalent to the U.S. National Association of
Insurance Commissioners).
Protection for U.S. Citizens if a Canadian-Licensed
Insurer is authorized to sign the MCS-90
As indicated above, the general current practice for
Canadian-domiciled motor carriers operating into and
throughout the U.S. is for the motor carrier's Canadian
insurer to enter into a fronting arrangement with a
U.S. insurer. Typically, the fronting agreement
provides that the U.S. insurer will handle any claims
made in the U.S. against the Canadian motor carrier in
return for an additional fee to be paid to the U.S.
insurer by the Canadian insurer. However, it is always
open to the Canadian insurer to retain an independent
insurance adjusting company in the U.S. to handle the
claim on its behalf. In either case, the dollars paid
to settle the claim or to pay any judgment by a U.S.
Court against the Canadian motor carrier are always
paid directly by the Canadian insurer.
Motor vehicle liability laws and the judicial systems
of the U.S. and Canada are very similar. The terms of
Canadian motor vehicle liability insurance policies,
Canadian insurance claims handling practices, and the
use by Canadian insurers of independent claims
adjusters located in the jurisdiction where an accident
occurs to handle the front-line investigation of
claims, are very similar to their U.S. counterparts.
In the many decades during which Canadian vehicles,
including commercial trucks, have traveled throughout
the United States, there has not been one single
reported incident where a Canadian insurer has failed
to pay a judgment awarded against its Canadian insured
to a U.S. citizen or resident to the full extent of its
legal obligation to pay. Canadian motor vehicle
insurers have decades of direct experience in handling
motor vehicle liability claims in the U.S. through
their private passenger and light truck line of
business. There is no reason to expect this to change
if Canadian insurers are permitted to issue proof of
financial responsibility to Canadian-domiciled motor
carriers by way of signing the MCS-90 Form directly
rather than as the agent of a U.S. insurer.
Conclusion
Achieving a seamless motor vehicle liability insurance
policy between Canada and the U.S. for motor carriers
would contribute to enhancing the competitive and
efficient position of North American business and would
assist in meeting the stated goals of the Security and
Prosperity Partnership.
We request that in view of the foregoing this petition
be considered and that a Rulemaking be initiated to
make the proposed amendments to the FMCSA Regulations.
Yours very truly,
Claude Carriere
Minister (Economic) and Deputy Head of Mission
Copy to:
Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury
End Text.
LECROY