BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1565
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 16, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
Joe Coto, Chair
AB 1565 (Lieber) - As Amended: January 10, 2008
SUBJECT : Insurance Cancellation or Nonrenewal: Property of
Religious Organizations
SUMMARY : Adds places of religious observance or practice to
the list of properties that cannot have property insurance
cancelled or nonrenewed due to the commission of a crime against
the property. Specifically, this bill :
1) Provides that a property insurance policy covering a
place of religious observance or practice cannot be
cancelled or nonrenewed, nor can the premium be excessive
or unfairly discriminatory, based on a claim or claims
occurring in the previous 5 years that involved a crime
committed against the insured property.
2) Defines "place of religious observance or practice" to
be:
a. A church, gurdwara, mandir, mosque, synagogue,
temple, or other place of religious observance or
practice, or
b. A place primarily used as a place of religious
observance or practice, where religious observance or
practice is regularly held.
3) Defines "religious" by reference to existing provisions
of the Penal Code relating to hate crimes against religious
property or persons for religious reasons.
4) Redefines the existing Insurance Code definition of hate
crimes for property insurance purposes by reference to the
more recently enacted and commonly understood Penal Code
definition.
EXISTING LAW :
1) Prohibits a property insurer from canceling or
nonrenewing a policy, or charging a premium that is
excessive or unfairly discriminatory, based on a claim or
claims against the policy within the previous 5 years
AB 1565
Page 2
involving a hate crime or an anti-reproductive rights crime
committed against the insured.
2) Provides that a law enforcement agency must determine
that the crime was a hate crime or an anti-reproductive
rights crime.
3) Contains a definition of "hate crime" for insurance
purposes that is more complex than, and at odds with, the
current definition that is regularly used by law
enforcement based on more recently enacted hate crimes
laws.
FISCAL EFFECT : None identified.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of the Bill : According to the author, "[a]rsons
and other major attacks on churches and other places of
worship are an appalling fact of life throughout the United
States, including in California. Media attention peaked in
the years after 1995, when more than 400 churches across
the country burned. These fires have declined somewhat
since then, but they continue at a reported rate of 15 to
20 per month. Christian churches of all sorts -- black,
gay-friendly, conservative, progressive, Catholic,
Orthodox, mainline Protestant -- are the principal victims.
Jewish synagogues and Unitarian churches also have always
been targets. And since 9/11, attacks on Islamic mosques
and Sikh gurdwaras have become more common.
According to the National Coalition for Burned Churches,
insurance policy cancellations and large rate increases
continue to be a major problem for some of the victims.
Current California law protects religious associations and
other nonprofits from these cancellation and increases --
but only if police classify the attacks as hate crimes,
which requires proof of biased intent. There is little
doubt that most of these attacks are motivated at least in
part by hate or other bias, but police do not classify any
particular attack as a hate crime without evidence specific
to that attack. This leaves the places of worship without
legal protection from policy cancellations or unfair rate
increases.
AB 1565
Page 3
In 2007 in Antioch, for example, a mosque burned in an
arson after a series of targeted vandalisms, but the
authorities still have not identified it as a hate crime.
This bill brings places of religious observance under the
existing law, regardless of whether there is specific
evidence that a particular attack is a hate crime. It also
changes the long, complicated definition of "hate crime" in
the Insurance Code to conform with the simpler definition
in the Penal Code, making it easier for police to determine
whether a particular attack fits the definition."
2) Prior Legislation . In 2001, AB 1193 (Steinberg) was
enacted primarily in response to issues that followed from
the June 19, 1999 firebombing of the Temple B'Nai Israel in
Sacramento. While the Temple's policy was renewed a few
days after the incident, the Temple received a notice at
its next annual renewal time that its policy would not be
renewed. The bill established limitations on canceling or
nonrenewing property insurance policies based on claims
relating to hate crimes.
In 2003, AB 996 (Wiggins) expanded the law to also apply to
anti-reproductive rights crimes, and added the premium
discrimination provisions.
3) Definition of "hate crime." The existing law defining
hate crimes for the purposes of property insurance
nonrenewal and cancellation rules was developed in the two
bills discussed in comment 2, above. These bills pre-date
SB 1234 (Kuehl), which established a comprehensive hate
crimes law. While SB 1234 did provide that its definition
of hate crime applied "unless an explicit provision of law
. . . clearly requires a different meaning", thus
preserving the Insurance Code definition, it may make more
sense to move toward a single, well-understood definition.
This is particularly true in the context of the insurance
rules at issue with respect to hate crimes, because the law
requires a determination by a law enforcement agency. It
is clear that law enforcement is going to be more familiar
with Penal Code provisions with which it regularly works,
as opposed to Insurance Code language to which it may
rarely be exposed.
AB 1565
Page 4
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None reported.
Opposition
None reported.
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086