BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, FINANCE,
AND INSURANCE
Senator Michael J. Machado, Chair
AB 1565 (Lieber) Hearing Date: June 18, 2008
As Amended: January 10, 2008
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
VOTES: Asm. Floor(01/24/08):44-30/Pass
Asm. Ins. (01/16/08):06-03/Pass
SUMMARY Would provide that a property insurance policy
covering a place of religious observance or practice cannot be
cancelled or nonrenewed, nor can the premium be increased, based
on a claim occurring as a result of any crime committed against
the insured property; define "place of religious observance or
practice"; define "religious" as it relates to a crime against a
place of religious observance or practice; and redefine the
existing Insurance Code definition of hate crimes for property
insurance purposes.
DIGEST
Existing law
1.Prohibits a property insurer that issues policies to certain
nonprofit organizations, including religious organization,
from canceling or refusing to renew a policy, or from imposing
an excessive or discriminatory premium, based solely on a
claim or claims against the policy within the previous 5 years
involving a hate crime or an anti-reproductive rights crime
committed against the insured (Section 676.10 of the Insurance
Code);
2.Contains a definition of "hate crime" for insurance purposes
that is inconsistent with the current definition in the Penal
Code that is regularly used by law enforcement based on more
recently enacted hate crimes laws (Section 676.10 of the
Insurance Code and Section 422.55 of the Penal Code);
3.Provides that a law enforcement agency must determine that the
crime was a hate crime or an anti-reproductive rights crime
AB 1565 (Lieber), Page 2
(Section 676.10 of the Insurance Code);
4.Requires that peace officers be trained to recognize crimes
that meet the Penal Code definition and to report those hate
crimes to the Department of Justice. There is no similar
training or reporting requirement for crimes that meet the
Insurance Code definition Sections 13519.6 and 13023 of the
Penal Code);
AB 1565 (Lieber), Page 3
This bill
1.Would add to current protection for claims failed as a result
of a hate crime to include claims filed as a result of any
crime occurring at a place of religious observance or
practice.
2.Would provide 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 filed in the
previous five years that involved any crime, as opposed to
limiting the protection to claims filed as a result of hate
crime as is provided in current law;
3.Would define "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;
1.Would define "religious" by reference to existing provisions
of the Penal Code relating to crimes against religious
property or persons for religious reasons;
2.Would redefine the existing Insurance Code definition of hate
crimes for property insurance purposes by reference to the
more recently enacted and commonly used Penal Code definition.
COMMENTS
1.Purpose of the bill. To protect churches, gurdwaras, mandirs,
mosques, synagogues, temples, and other places of religious
observance or practice from insurance policy cancellations,
non-renewals, and excessive and discriminatory rate increases
based on claims for losses caused by any crimes, not just hate
crimes as determined by law enforcement.
It also revises the definition of "hate crime" in the
Insurance Code to conform with the definition in the Penal
Code, making it consistent with the definition more commonly
used and applied by law enforcement.
2. Background . According to the author's office, "Arsons and
other major attacks on churches and other houses of worship
AB 1565 (Lieber), Page 4
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 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. According to the author's office,
"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
discriminatory or excessive rate increases. In 2007 in
Antioch, for example, arson destroyed a mosque after a series
of explicitly anti-Islamic death threats, vandalism attacks, a
shooting, and a break-in the day before the fire -- but the
authorities still have not identified the arson as a hate
crime."
Law enforcement officers commonly work with the Penal Code
definition of "hate crime" and are familiar with how to
determine whether a particular crime meets that definition.
The author's office asserts that law enforcement is less
familiar with the Insurance Code definition of "hate crime."
For purpose of uniformity, this bill will refer to the more
commonly used definition in the Penal Code. However, this
bill will extend the protections for religious institutions to
include claims filed as a result any crime. All other
non-profits will continue to be protected with regard to their
property insurance in the event they file a claim as the
result of a hate crime.
3. Support . The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) supports this bill
AB 1565 (Lieber), Page 5
because current law protects targeted places of worship from
insurance cancellations and excessive and discriminatory rate
increases, but only if law enforcement agencies officially
determine that the attacks are hate crimes. To further
complicate matters, the Insurance Code has a definition of
hate crime that is inconsistent with the Penal Code. The ADL
states that it seems reasonable to assume that any arson
attack on a house of worship is likely motivated by hate and
bigotry, even if the burden of proof to meet the definition of
hate crimes cannot be met. There may be instances when law
enforcement may be unprepared to make determinations about
whether a particular attack fits the definition - especially
as there are competing definitions. As a result, targeted
places of worship may be left without legal protection against
the cancellations and excessive rate increases that current
law was intended to prevent. By replacing the definition of
hate crime in the Insurance Code with the version used in the
penal Code, AB 1565 ensures consistency and maximizes the
likelihood of these crimes being identified as hate crimes.
California Church IMPACT supports this bill and states in a
letter to the author's office, "Current California law
protects places of worship that are targets from excessive and
discriminatory insurance rate increases, but only if law
enforcement agencies officially determine that the attacks are
hate crimes." They also state that the reliance on law
enforcement to determine that a crime is a hate crime, as
defined by law, leaves most targeted places of worship without
legal protections against the rate increases that current law
was intended to prevent.
The California State Employees Association states that its
members consider AB 1565 to be important legislation and that
they support bill.
4. Opposition . None received
Prior Legislation . In 2001, AB 1193 (Steinberg, Chapter 253,
Statues of 2001) established limitations on canceling or
nonrenewing property insurance policies based on claims
relating to hate crimes.
In 2003, AB 996 (Wiggins, Chapter 647, Statutes of 2003)
expanded the law to also apply to anti-reproductive rights
crimes, and added the premium discrimination provisions.
AB 1565 (Lieber), Page 6
In 2005, SB 1234 (Kuehl, Chapter 700, Statutes of 2004),
established a comprehensive hate crimes law. SB 1234 provided
that its definition of hate crime applied "unless an explicit
provision of law... clearly requires a different meaning,"
thus preserving the Insurance Code definition.
POSITIONS
Support:
Anti-Defamation League
California Church IMPACT
California State Employees Association
Oppose :
None received.
Consultant: Taryn Smith651-1402