1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DOL Provides New ERISA Guidance Regarding Reporting of Commissions and Fees Paid to Insurance Brokers and Agents

DOL Provides New ERISA Guidance Regarding Reporting of Commissions and Fees Paid to Insurance Brokers and Agents

Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.02.05

By William Flanagan

The Department of Labor has issued a new advisory opinion in an effort to bring clarity to whether and how insurance companies should report commissions, fees and other compensation paid to brokers and agents for ERISA-covered plans, especially “contingent” or bonus compensation. The guidance comes in the midst of controversy surrounding these forms of compensation and insurers' level of disclosure to customers about them.

DOL issued Advisory Opinion 2005-02A on February 24, 2005 in response to an application contending that there has been widespread under-reporting of commissions and fees by insurance companies as the result of misinterpretations of prior DOL guidance. Specifically, the applicants alleged that some in the insurance industry were using language from DOL's prior advisory opinion, A.O. 86-17A (April 28, 1986), along with language from the instructions for the Form 5500, Schedule A, to justify reporting only those payments linked directly to specific contracts or policies issued by insurance companies to ERISA-covered plans.

To address this request, DOL surveyed all of the ERISA statutory and regulatory provisions governing the reporting of commissions and fees on the Form 5500. Although acknowledging that Schedule A to the Form 5500 requires the listing of each specific contract issued by an insurer to a plan, DOL nevertheless concluded that the obligation to report fees and commissions extends beyond those payments related directly to the contracts and policies listed on the Schedule A. Thus, DOL announced the general rule that an insurer is required to report any payment where the eligibility for or amount of such payment

is based, in whole or in part, on the value ( e.g. , policy amounts, premiums) of contracts or policies (or classes thereof) placed with or retained by an ERISA plan, including, for example, persistency and profitability bonuses.

So long as the payment is based in any way on the value of the policy or contract issued to the plan, the reporting obligation would attach regardless of whether, among other things, the payment was classified as a sales commission or was paid from a special bonus fund. Indeed, DOL noted that even non-monetary compensation (for example, trips, cruises, gift certificates, club memberships, etc.) must be reported if this test is met. DOL stated that it is up to the insurer to assure that fees or commissions calculated with respect to more than one contract are accurately apportioned and reported on a contract-by-contract basis as required by Schedule A.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights