Lack of uniformity in broker compensation draws fire.

In a Honolulu hotel suite overlooking the Pacific Ocean, lush palm trees, an orchid pool and deck, Mario Vitale, the chief executive officer of Willis North America, is nibbling on sandwiches as he takes a break during the Risk and Insurance Management Society's conference. Between bites, the affable New Yorker talks about contingent commissions. "If they're wrong for whatever reason, they are wrong for everyone," he says.

Since Eliot Spitzer began investigating the practice of taking commissions from insurers to place business, the commercial brokerage space has been split between some medium-to-large insurance brokers that have decided to no longer accept the controversial fees and a good many that do and defend the practice.

Brokers Willis, Marsh and McLennan, and Aon Corp. are among those that have decided not to accept the commissions. But the question lingers: Is it possible for an industry to have two different remuneration strategies within a single marketplace?

Vitale leans back in his sofa. "It doesn't make sense to have two systems," he says.

One reason the industry has not been able to unite on this issue is that there isn't one regulatory body governing this behavior like there is in the United Kingdom and among European Union members.

"You have 50 states, 50 individual insurance departments, many elected positions, dealing with this issue and you don't have a unified effort to make it a level playing field," he said.

The majority of risk managers surveyed at the Risk and Insurance Management Conference say they're not happy with the insurance placement process. The society hasn't taken a formal position on contingent commissions, but its outgoing president, Ellen Vinck said she believes the practice should be abolished across the board.