Delaware has enacted a new law to reassure insurers that confidential and privileged information remains protected when shared with regulators.
House Bill No. 74, passed by the 153rd General Assembly and signed into law this year, amends Section 321 of Title 18 of the Delaware Code. Sponsored by Rep. Bush and Sen. Mantzavinos, with support from Sens. Seigfried and Walsh, the measure clarifies that disclosure of documents, materials, or information to the Insurance Commissioner does not waive any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality—regardless of whether the information is redacted.
The bill says: “No waiver of any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality in the documents, materials, or information occurs as a result of disclosure to the Commissioner under this section.”
The statute does not alter the terms of insurance policies or address consumer-specific issues. Instead, it focuses on the regulatory process, ensuring that insurers can comply with requests for information without jeopardizing privileged communications or sensitive data.
For Delaware insurers, this clarification eliminates the risk that cooperating with regulators could be interpreted as forfeiting legal protections. Industry observers believe the law will likely foster greater transparency and cooperation during regulatory examinations, while safeguarding the rights of both insurers and policyholders.
The legislation comes as insurers nationwide face heightened scrutiny and pressure to increase transparency. By explicitly protecting privilege during regulatory disclosures, Delaware positions itself as a jurisdiction that balances robust oversight with respect for the legal rights of industry participants.
Compliance officers and legal counsel are expected to welcome the change, which provides long-sought clarity in managing regulatory obligations. The measure also gives regulators assurance that companies can provide information without fear of losing key protections, supporting smoother oversight.
While narrow in scope, House Bill No. 74 could serve as a model for other states, particularly those navigating similar tensions between regulatory demands and privilege protections.
