BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1565|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1565
Author: Lieber (D)
Amended: 1/10/08 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE BANKING, FINANCE, AND INS. COMMITTEE : 7-4, 6/18/08
AYES: Machado, Correa, Florez, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Scott,
Wiggins
NOES: Runner, Cox, Hollingsworth, Margett
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-30, 1/24/08 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Insurance policies: nonprofit organizations
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides 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. This bill
defines "place of religious observance or practice,"
defines "religious" as it relates to a crime against a
place of religious observance or practice, and redefines
the existing Insurance Code definition of hate crimes for
property insurance purposes.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
CONTINUED
AB 1565
Page
2
1. Prohibits a property insurer that issues policies to
certain nonprofit organizations, including religious
organizations, 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 five 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 (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).
This bill:
1. Adds to current protection for claims filed 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. 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 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.
AB 1565
Page
3
3. Defines "place of religious observance or practice" as:
A. A church, gurdwara, mandir, mosque, synagogue,
temple, or other place of religious observance or
practice.
B. Or, a place primarily used as a place of religious
observance or practice, where religious observance or
practice is regularly held.
4. Defines "religious" by reference to existing provisions
of the Penal Code relating to crimes against religious
property or persons for religious reasons.
5. Redefines 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.
Background
According to the author's office, "Arsons and other major
attacks on churches and other houses 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 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
AB 1565
Page
4
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."
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
nonprofits 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/24/08)
Anti-Defamation League
California Church IMPACT
California State Employees Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
supports this bill 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. By replacing the definition of hate crime
AB 1565
Page
5
in the Insurance Code with the version used in the Penal
Code, this bill 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 this bill to be important legislation and
that they support bill.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Bass, Beall, Berg, Blakeslee, Brownley,
Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Coto, Davis, De La
Torre, De Leon, DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fuentes, Galgiani, Hancock, Hernandez, Huffman, Jones,
Krekorian, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Ma,
Mendoza, Mullin, Nava, Parra, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Solorio, Swanson, Torrico, Wolk, Nunez
NOES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Benoit, Berryhill,
Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Garcia,
Garrick, Houston, Huff, Jeffries, Keene, La Malfa, Maze,
Nakanishi, Niello, Plescia, Sharon Runner, Silva, Smyth,
Spitzer, Strickland, Tran, Villines, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hayashi, Horton, Karnette, Price, Soto,
Vacancy
GFC:mw 6/24/08 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****