BURLINGTON, Vt.—An undeniable characteristic of the financial crisis is that its impact has cut across industry types and regions, so it's natural that captive insurance companies have been among those feeling its effects.

One of the key ways the crisis has touched captives is through potential counterparty exposures, said two captive insurance company executives who were part of the Financial Crisis and the Captive Industry panel at the Vermont Captive Insurance Assn.'s annual conference this month in Burlington, Vt.

“I think one area that's important is the reliance on reinsurers,” said Skip Neilson, downstream team lead-Americas at Shell Oil Co. in Houston, which owns three captives that include Vermont-domiciled Noble Assurance Co.

Mr. Neilson said approximately 10 years ago, Shell's captives had a traditional “tower”-type reinsurance program, with various reinsurers each covering exposures in those towers. Since then, the company has “collapsed” the towers into a multiclass protection program that sees approximately 15 underwriters reinsuring portions of the overall broad program today.

Because of the new structure, while Shell's captive program still has been exposed to some reinsurers in “straits” during the economic crisis, it generally has fared well, Mr. Neilson said.

Richard D. Wilder, vp in the corporate insurance services department at J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. in New York, which owns three captives that include Vermont-domiciled Park Assurance Co., said J.P. Morgan also has been looking to position itself to address issues that might be associated with a major reinsurer having financial problems.

“A few years ago, we would have said we want to do business with fewer, bigger, very big reinsurers,” Mr. Wilder said, noting the company believed that would simplify its reinsurance program. Now, though, J.P. Morgan has stepped back from that reliance on a few reinsurers in its captive program.

“You haven't seen a failure of any of the reinsurers or insurers that we use,” Mr. Wilder said, adding that those companies' ratings have remained acceptable. But J.P. Morgan is examining its program and looking to do more with its captives because the company understands its captives' financial position and their capacity to take on risk, he said. When it transfers risk, J.P. Morgan is looking to spread the exposure among more insurers and reinsurers.

John Lochner, a principal at Towers Perrin in Weatogue, Conn., and moderator of the panel, said the consulting firm is seeing the financial crisis leading more companies to take a fresh look at their captive programs.

“We're...seeing a renewed interest, or uptick, in people challenging their captive program,” Mr. Lochner said, whether that takes the form of doing captive “refeasibility” or re-engineering studies, questioning the adequacy or reasonableness of capital committed to the captive, or seeking to maximize cost efficiency.

At Shell, Mr. Neilson said one area of interest among senior management is greater utilization of the captive program and placing less risk with counterparties.

Responding to an audience question, Mr. Neilson said the financial crisis hasn't led Shell to require that its underwriters post collateral. “Nor have we,” said J.P. Morgan's Mr. Wilder, “but I think it's a fascinating concept.” But, he added, if you require collateral from your insurers, “why are you doing business with them to begin with?”

Asked about calls for crackdowns on offshore “tax havens” put forth by the Obama administration and others as part of legislation and regulation proposed in response to the financial crisis, Mr. Wilder said, “It's something that bears watching.”

But, he said, he doesn't think it's something that will affect J.P. Morgan and said the company has elected to have its Bermuda-domiciled Hatherly Insurance Ltd. captive taxed as a U.S. corporation.

As for Shell, Mr. Neilson said, “We're doing what any astute international organization is doing.”

“We're managing our tax obligation,” he said. “We're doing it legally.” Tax issues concerning captive domiciles, Mr. Neilson said, are “not something we're going to mount a full-fledged effort to greatly influence.”