Woman loses insurance coverage for her politics (New Hampshire)

[intheflow]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050113/REPOSITORY/501130325/1031

Woman loses insurance coverage for her politics
Company calls move 'common practice'

By NORMA LOVE
The Associated Press

(snip)

Johnston is losing extra coverage she bought years ago while she still practiced medicine - not because she's a retired doctor, but because she is active in Francestown politics.

The Providence Mutual Fire Insurance Co. sent her a letter last month notifying her it is not renewing her $1 million umbrella policy next month because of "the political positions the insured holds."

(snip)

"It's a common practice within the industry not to cover that because of libel and slander (risks)," he said.

The nonrenewal letter prompted state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, Rep. Claudia Chase and Rep. John DeJoie, all Democrats, to file legislation to require insurers to cover politicians.

"It's a matter of First Amendment rights," said DeJoie, of Concord.

DeJoie is reviewing existing law to see what, if any, protections there are for lawmakers.

"I, as a state legislator, could conceivably lose my insurance," he said.

(snip)

[Tempest]

1. She's a Democrat

From the article:

Johnston is vice chairwoman of her town's Democratic committee and a member of the Hillsborough County Democratic Committee. She helps campaigns by distributing posters and making calls, and she held a get-out-the-vote session for Howard Dean at her house.

[coloradodem2005]

2. This is not a free speech issue.

If anything, they are stifling her right to free speech. They should be sued.

[Bono71]

3. They are not the government, therefore they are not bound

by the 1st Amendment...must have "government action" before amendment kicks in...

[TahitiNut]

4. They are a creature of law ... as in "Congress shall make no law."

Their very existence is based in law and public licensing.

Under the view you're espousing, businesses can refuse to serve blacks. It's a very familiar argument to those of us who lived through those years.

[Bono71]

6. No...the view I am espousing has been litigated and

decided long ago...and it is totally different from your hypothetical black/restaurant situation.

First, with service of minorities, the Civil Rights Act (not the 1st amendment) protects them. That is, there is specific legislation dealing with the issue. Second, it has been well established that the 5th and 14th amendments only apply to state action...

With a private insurance company, there is no state action. Period.

[Dhalgren]

5. But she could sue then for discrimination

unless the company has, likewise, dropped every other politician on their books. If there is even one Republican still being covered, then she has a case.

[Bono71]

8. That is more probable...but again this protection would come

from something other than the 1st amendment and freedom of speech.

[Liberty Belle]

17. Equal protection, perhaps?

[Orangepeel]

19. doesn't equal protection only apply to "protected classes"

my lay understanding was that a business could not refuse to serve a customer based on race or religion, but they could refuse to serve someone based on a reason that was not protected by law.

[intheflow]

11. I like this idea.

Thsi woman is being discriminated against because she voluntarily suplied information to the insurance company when she answered their questionnaire. Therefore, had she withheld that information she would still be covered. So if John Sununu had a policy with this company but didn't disclose that he worked in NH political circles, they'd still cover him? This stinks to high heaven. I'm sure she has grounds to sue them on some premise!

[Occulus]

7. I have a VERY serious problem with that point of view.

Not that you're wrong, I just think it should be changed. Businesses and corporations should be required to respect our Constitutional rights.

[Bono71]

9. We would have to change the Constitution...for the most part

the Bill of Rights protects us from Government Action...the Constitution itself is where the federal government derives its power. There is very little to do with private action...

[Igel]

10. I don't see the problem. There's no freedom of speech involved here.

She can speak all she wants. And, like the rest of us, if she gets sued for libel, she'll pay the lawyer and any the damages. She's not being pummelled for her political views, but for her political positions. I don't see Constitutional protection against paying for the consequences of speech, or anything requiring that insurers insure high-risk customers.

It's harsh--she's not exactly in that high profile a position, but some actuary in the company lumped all political positions together in one category, and some mindless middle management type read her questionnaire and put her in that category, and this is the result.

I suspect that if she got them to drop the slander/libel bits from her umbrella coverage (making it less than "umbrella", of course), they'd have no problem with insuring her against claims if her dog bites someone.

[Bono71]

12. agree 100% n/t

[Just Me]

13. Don't laws pertaining to insurance prohibit arbitrary shit like this?

I'll have to chew on this one.

This is obviously discriminatory practice.

[Igel]

15. Some car insurance laws prohibit this, since

many of us we pretty much need a car for our jobs. I did have a tough time getting car insurance as a teenager, but that was a long time ago.

Insurance companies discriminate all the time, between high and low risk customers. Some people can't get insurance, some pay more, some pay less (relatively).

[alfredo]

21. Their license to operate in the state could be

pulled if they are abusing their position and power.

Golden Rule Insurance lost it's right to do business in Ky for discrimination against blacks.

[flaminbats]

22. How can insured low risk customers suddenly be reclassified as high risk?

sounds like fraud to me! "Hi if you pay our premiums we'll insure you for libel and slander."

After paying enough premiums, "sorry you're no longer covered because you might be sued!" :wtf:

[Just Me]

25. Moreover, insurance companies are the demons of rising health care cost

Look. A doctor cannot practice without insurance, per law.

Now, the practice of medicine is no longer based upon competent practice but rather at the discretion and discrimination of insurance companies.

There's something very bad about placing that kind of power (governance) in a corporate structure while the government is simultaneously thumping common citizens lawful rights and the attorneys who help those citizens.

The doctors and citizens and trial attorneys ARE NOT the greatest enemies. The corporate insurers (who make a shit load of money) are definitely the greater of all evils.

[Massachusetts]

14. "Live free or die"

:bounce:

[ernstbass]

16. I weonder if they will do this to any repugs

[struggle4progress]

18. kick

[justiceischeap]

20. Just looked up the President of the insurance company

At the FEC site, she donated money to the re-election of Lincoln Chafee, Republican senator, Rhode Island.

Hmmm, me smell discrimination...

[lynne]

23. The Providence Mutual Fire Insurance Co. -

- is a regional, mutual insurance company. They only do business in a limited number of northeast states. It is not unusual for insurance companies, especially smaller mutuals, to have underwriting restrictions with regard to high-profile individuals. This includes politicians - at all levels -, sports figures, people in the entertainment industry, etc.

All she needs to do is have her coverages rewritten to a national carrier that can assume her increased potential for liability loss.

[grace0418]

24. Here we go

is anyone going to be insured anymore?