BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1565
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 1565 (Lieber)
As Amended January 10, 2008
2/3 vote
INSURANCE 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
| |Coto, Berg, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Carter, De | | |
| |Leon, Parra | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|Ayes:| | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Benoit, Duvall, Garrick | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |44-30|(January 24, |SENATE: |24-14|(August 7, |
| | |2008) | | |2008) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 five 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,
AB 1565
Page 2
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 five years 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 Penal
Code 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
AB 1565
Page 3
they continue at a reported rate of 15 to 20 per month.
"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.
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."
2)Prior legislation: AB 1193 (Steinberg), Chapter 253, Statutes
of 2001, 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. AB 1193 established limitations on canceling
or nonrenewing property insurance policies based on claims
relating to hate crimes. 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.
3)Definition of "hate crime": The existing law defining hate
crimes for property insurance purposes was developed in AB
1193 and AB 996. These bills pre-date SB 1234 (Kuehl),
Chapter 700, Statutes of 2004, which established a
comprehensive hate crimes law. It may make more sense to move
toward a single, well-understood definition. This is
AB 1565
Page 4
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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
Existing law provides a narrow exception to insurance
law in order to protect places of religious observance
from having their property insured cancelled due to a
hate crime against the property. This bill would
expand this law to apply to any crime committed
against the property.
While hate crimes against any property cannot be
condoned in any way, existing law provides adequate
protections for places of religious observance subject
to hate crimes. Insurance law, as governed by the
provisions of the voter-approved Proposition 103,
provides that rates shall not be excessive, inadequate
or unfairly discriminatory. The expansion of law
proposed by this measure so strictly limits how
insurers may calculate premiums it is contrary to both
the general spirit and application of Proposition 103.
Analysis Prepared by: Mark Rakich/Tracy Elwell / INS. / (916)
319-2086
FN: 0008015