<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" > <channel> <title>July 24 | Insurance Advocate</title> <atom:link href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/category/2017/july-24/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com</link> <description>Since 1889</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2019 09:17:03 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator> <item> <title>. . . May 1992</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/may-1992/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gina Marie Balog-Sartario]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Looking Back]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8386</guid> <description><![CDATA[]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-1.jpeg"></a><a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-1.jpeg"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-8394 size-full" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-1.jpeg" alt="" width="1590" height="2125" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-1.jpeg 1590w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-1-600x802.jpeg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-1-224x300.jpeg 224w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-1-768x1026.jpeg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-1-766x1024.jpeg 766w" sizes="(max-width: 1590px) 100vw, 1590px" /></a><a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back.jpeg"><img decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-8395 size-full" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back.jpeg" alt="" width="1554" height="2076" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back.jpeg 1554w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-600x802.jpeg 600w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-225x300.jpeg 225w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-768x1026.jpeg 768w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/looking-back-767x1024.jpeg 767w" sizes="(max-width: 1554px) 100vw, 1554px" /></a></p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/may-1992/">. . . May 1992</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Appropriate to Effect “Forced-Placed Insurance”</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/appropriate-to-effect-forced-placed-insurance/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Zalma]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[On My Radar]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8397</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Pay Your Mortgage and Keep Insurance or Lose Many people have – especially in the last ten years – had difficulty paying their mortgage and keeping the property insured as required by the mortgage documents. When the lender exercises its rights under the mortgage document, places “forced-placed insurance” to protect their security, they are often […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/appropriate-to-effect-forced-placed-insurance/">Appropriate to Effect “Forced-Placed Insurance”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h4><span style="color: #0000ff;"><em><strong>Pay Your Mortgage and Keep Insurance or Lose</strong></em></span></h4> <p>Many people have – especially in the last ten years – had difficulty paying their mortgage and keeping the property insured as required by the mortgage documents. When the lender exercises its rights under the mortgage document, places “forced-placed insurance” to protect their security, they are often sued by the defaulting mortgagor.</p> <p>In <em>Tonya Hill v. DLJ Mortgage..</em>., United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit — Fed.Appx. —-, 2017 WL 1732114 (May 3, 2017) Tonya Hill appealed an order dismissing her claims against DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (“DLJ”), Selene Finance LP (“Selene”), and Doonan, Graves and Longoria, LLC (“Doonan”).</p> <p>Hill alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and a state statute. Hill’s claims arise from her promissory note (the “Note”) in the amount of $379,200, and the mortgage on real property that she and her husband executed and delivered as security for the Note. Hill alleged that the defendants improperly sought to collect on her defaulted Note.</p> <p>The District Court dismissed Hill’s FDCPA and RESPA claims with prejudice and declined to exercise jurisdiction over Hill’s state statutory claim. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of this case, and the issues on appeal.</p> <h4><span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong>ANALYSIS</strong></span></h4> <p>To state a claim, the complaint must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, legal conclusions are not presumed to be accurate.</p> <p>A claim will have facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.</p> <h4><span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong>FDCPA Claims</strong></span></h4> <p>Hill’s FDCPA claims are premised on monthly statements sent to her by Selene regarding the total amount owing under her Note. As the District Court explained, Selene sent these statements in compliance with the Truth in Lending Act federal regulations, which requires mortgage loan servicers to transmit monthly statements to consumers. With this in mind, the monthly statements here do not reflect attempts to collect on the debt evidenced by the Note.</p> <h4><span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong>RESPA Claim</strong></span></h4> <p>Hill alleged that the defendants, when purchasing force-placed insurance on her property, did not provide her with any of the information or requests required by RESPA’s Regulation X and charged her account for the insurance in violation of a different regulation.</p> <p>“Force-placed insurance,” as defined by RESPA, is “hazard insurance coverage obtained by a servicer of a federally related mortgage when the borrower has failed to maintain or renew hazard insurance on such property as required of the borrower under the terms of the mortgage.” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(2). The allegations of Hill’s complaint, all conclusory in nature, failed to state a plausible claim for relief under RESPA. Among other things, the RESPA allegations do not specify that Hill’s mortgage was “federally related.”</p> <p>Hill also asserts that the District Court should have granted her leave to amend her complaint to assert a specified damages amount for her RESPA claim. Hill, however, never sought leave to replead her Amended Complaint from the District Court. The contention that the District Court abused its discretion in not permitting an amendment that was never requested is frivolous.</p> <h4><span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong>State-Law Claim</strong></span></h4> <p>Hill did not address her GBL claim on appeal, and accordingly has waived that claim. In fact, arguments not made in an appellant’s opening brief are waived. Even so, because the District Court correctly dismissed all of Hill’s federal claims, it was entitled to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.</p> <h3><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>ZALMA OPINION</strong></span></h3> <p>Not only was the appellate request to amend the complaint frivolous, it appears that the entire action was frivolous, and an attempt to avoid paying a mortgage and insure the property that was security for the debt. Although the Second Circuit affirmed the district court, one can only wonder why there was no sanction for the frivolous nature of the suit and appeal.</p> <p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/appropriate-to-effect-forced-placed-insurance/">Appropriate to Effect “Forced-Placed Insurance”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Failure to Pay Part of Premium Results in Cancellation of Entire Policy</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/failure-to-pay-part-of-premium-results-in-cancellation-of-entire-policy/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Lawrence Rogak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Courtside]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8399</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Garcia v Government Empls. Ins. Co. Edited by Lawrence N. Rogak The issue in this case was whether the failure to pay the extra premium for an increase in the limits of an umbrella policy should result in cancellation of just the increased limit, or the entire policy. The Appellate Division holds that the non-payment […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/failure-to-pay-part-of-premium-results-in-cancellation-of-entire-policy/">Failure to Pay Part of Premium Results in Cancellation of Entire Policy</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05202.htm"><strong><em>Garcia v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</em></strong></a><em> </em></p> <p><strong><em>Edited by Lawrence N. Rogak</em></strong></p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>The issue in this case was whether the failure to pay the extra premium for an increase in the limits of an umbrella policy should result in cancellation of just the increased limit, or the entire policy. The Appellate Division holds that the non-payment cancellation applies to the entire policy, not just the increased limits. The result is particularly harsh because the cancellation took effect just hours after a serious accident, and the insured had paid the basic amount of the premium, just not the increased amount for the increased limits.—LNR</em></p> <p> </p> <p>In an action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) to recover the amount of an unsatisfied judgment against the defendant’s insured, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (J. Murphy, J.), entered June 17, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p> <p>On May 19, 2006, the plaintiff, Antonio Garcia, was injured when he was struck by a vehicle in a parking lot in Brooklyn. Garcia commenced an action against Jeanne Rakowski, who owned the vehicle, and Linda Danielson, who, with Rakowski’s permission, was driving it when it struck Garcia. In 2012, Garcia obtained a judgment against Rakowski and Danielson. After obtaining partial satisfaction of that judgment, Garcia sought to recover the unsatisfied portion of it from Government Employees Insurance Company. GEICO had issued an umbrella policy to Rakowski, and Garcia claimed that the umbrella policy was in effect when Rakowski’s vehicle struck him. After GEICO failed to satisfy the remainder of the judgment within 30 days of Garcia’s request, Garcia commenced this action against GEICO pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2). He alleged, in relevant part, that, at the time of the accident, Rakowski’s umbrella policy, in the amount of $1,000,000, was in effect. He also alleged that GEICO’s purported cancellation of that policy before the accident was “improper, invalid, and ineffective.”</p> <p>GEICO moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Rakowski’s umbrella policy was not in effect at the time of the accident. Specifically, GEICO contended that Rakowski’s umbrella policy, which contained a liability limit of $2,000,000 for the contracted policy period, had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium, effective at 12:01 a.m. on May 19, 2006, only a few hours before Rakowski’s vehicle struck Garcia.</p> <p>In support of its motion, GEICO submitted evidence that in August 2005, Rakowski, who had a coverage limit of $1,000,000 for the period ending October 10, 2005, requested, and received, a renewal policy, for the period from October 10, 2005, to October 10, 2006, with a coverage limit of $2,000,000. Rakowski also added a rental property to the policy for that period. The increase in the coverage limit from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 resulted in a $199 increase in the premium. The addition of the rental property, however, did not result in any increase in the premium. Specifically, GEICO submitted the “Amended Declarations,” dated August 31, 2005, showing the $2,000,000 coverage limit for the period from October 10, 2005, to October 10, 2006, the increase of $199 “FOR ADDITIONAL COVERAGE TO SECOND MILLION,” and the increase of $0 for the addition of the rental property. GEICO also submitted Rakowski’s deposition testimony that she had requested the $2,000,000 coverage limit for the period beginning October 10, 2005. Notably, the Amended Declarations stated: “AMENDED DECLARATION EFFECTIVE 10/10/05 SUPERSEDES ANY PREVIOUS DECLARATION BEARING THE SAME NUMBER FOR THIS POLICY PERIOD.”</p> <p>GEICO also submitted evidence that before the beginning of the renewal term, Rakowski made a $306 premium payment (the amount of the previous year’s premium), but had not paid the additional $199 that was due for the increase in her coverage limit. Finally, GEICO submitted evidence that in November 2005, it had mailed Rakowski a notice informing her that her policy would be cancelled effective 12:01 a.m. on May 19, 2006, if she did not pay the remainder of the premium. The cancellation notice referenced Rakowski’s policy number, which remained constant throughout the various policy periods.</p> <p>Garcia opposed GEICO’s motion. He contended that there was an issue of fact as to whether Rakowski’s payment of $306 before the commencement of the policy period beginning October 10, 2005, secured a fully paid policy providing a full year of coverage for $1,000,000. Additionally, Garcia contended that GEICO had failed to establish, prima facie, that it had validly cancelled the policy, whatever the limit of coverage. The Supreme Court denied GEICO’s motion, holding that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Rakowski’s umbrella policy was severable as to the limits of liability. GEICO appeals.</p> <p>GEICO contends that, as a matter of law, Rakowski’s umbrella policy for the period commencing October 10, 2005, provided coverage of $2,000,000, and that Rakowski’s payment of only a portion of her premium for that policy resulted in GEICO’s valid cancellation of the policy after the prorated period covered by her payment expired. The umbrella policy, and Rakowski’s coverage, terminated upon cancellation at 12:01 a.m. on May 19, 2006, a few hours before Garcia was injured.</p> <p>Garcia, in contrast, contends there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Rakowski’s umbrella insurance contract was, on the one hand, “entire,” or, on the other hand, “severable” or “divisible.” If the policy was severable or divisible, Garcia contends, then Rakowski had a fully paid policy for $1,000,000 that lasted from October 10, 2005, to October 10, 2006. Rakowski’s failure to pay the premium applicable to the “second million” of coverage meant only that she did not have the second million dollars of coverage, at any time. We agree with GEICO.</p> <p>Resolution of disputes about insurance coverage begin with examination of the language of the policy. Interpretation of unambiguous policy provisions, which must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, is a question of law. Further, while ambiguities in an insurance contract are to be interpreted in favor of the insured, ambiguities arise only where there is more than one <em>reasonable</em> interpretation of the policy, as measured by the reasonable expectations of the average insured. In other words, even where policy language is susceptible of more than one interpretation, there is no ambiguity if only one of them is reasonable.</p> <p>More specifically, an insurance contract is divisible when the contracting parties intend that it be divisible. The parties’ intention is to be gleaned from the language of the contract and the application of the rules governing contractual interpretation. The general rule is that an insurance contract is not divisible “when by its terms, nature, and purpose, it contemplates and intends that each and all of its parts and the consideration therefor shall be common each to the other and interdependent. On the other hand, the contract is considered severable and divisible when by its terms, nature, and purpose, it is susceptible of division and apportionment.”</p> <p>The question of divisibility arises when, for example, a policy covers separate properties or separate risks, and the policyholder has breached a condition or warranty as to one property or one type of risk, but not involving the loss at issue. In the context of the insured’s nonpayment of a portion of the premium, the issue of divisibility arises when, for example, a policyholder has made a change to a fully paid policy but has not paid the additional premium occasioned by the change. Depending on the insurance contract at issue, the lines of divisibility may run between the types of risk covered by the contract, such as property damage as opposed to personal injury, or between the different properties covered, such as where different vehicles or properties are covered by the policy.</p> <p>When, however, an insured has increased liability limits of an entire policy as of the inception date of coverage, but has not paid the full premium and the policy has thus lapsed, the Court of Appeals has held that the policy is not divisible to provide coverage in a lesser amount than stated in the policy, at least where no different type of risk had been added to the policy.</p> <p>Here, there is no ambiguity in Rakowski’s umbrella policy as to either coverage or divisibility. Rakowski contracted, before the policy term began, for an umbrella policy covering specified risks, with a coverage limit of $2,000,000. The policy she received unambiguously provided for the amount of coverage she had requested with respect to risks she had specified: the Amended Declarations of the insurance contract, dated August 31, 2005, stated that, for the policy period, of October 10, 2005, to October 10, 2006, the risks pertained to the specified properties and vehicles, and the coverage limit pertaining to those risks was $2,000,000.</p> <p>Garcia argues, and our dissenting colleagues would conclude, that, because of how the premiums were set out in the Amended Declarations, there is an ambiguity as to whether Rakowski received a policy for $2,000,000 or $1,000,000, or as to whether the policy was divisible or severable as to the amount of coverage. We disagree. The fact that the premium was separately stated for the increase in the coverage limit is irrelevant here. The $1,000,000 renewal proposal of the policy from the previous year had already been sent out before Rakowski asked for an increase in the amount of coverage to $2,000,000. The “Amended Declarations,” which, by their terms, “SUPERSEDE[D] ANY PREVIOUS DECLARATION” for the policy period beginning October 10, 2005, were sent to Rakowski after she asked for the changes to her policy. Thus, the additional billing, which separated the original premium from the amount attributable to the increase, was unremarkable and did not give rise to an ambiguity in the policy that Rakowski had asked for and GEICO agreed to provide: a liability limit of $2,000,000 as of the beginning of the new policy period. Garcia is not seeking to divide Rakowski’s policy, but, in effect, to rewrite it to provide what Rakowski never asked for: a policy with coverage of only $1,000,000.</p> <p>As Garcia points out, forfeiture is not favored in the law, and, where cancellation of an entire policy would result in forfeiture, courts may be reluctant to hold that an insurance contract is not divisible. There is, however, no forfeiture here. Rakowski asked for, and received, a $2,000,000 policy, and she had $2,000,000 in coverage from the outset of the policy period, October 10, 2005. Because she only paid part of the premium, her coverage was cancelled, upon notice, when the prorated premium for the coverage she contracted for was exhausted. In other words, Rakowski got everything she paid for, and she forfeited nothing.</p> <p>That Rakowski “just missed” being insured for the injuries caused to Garcia is unfortunate, but nonetheless irrelevant to this analysis. GEICO sent its cancellation notice more than six months before Rakowski’s vehicle struck Garcia. We are not free to alter the meaning of the policy to avoid the result caused by Rakowski’s nonpayment of the premium for her $2,000,000 policy.</p> <p>Next, because there is no ambiguity in what Rakowski contracted for—$2,000,000 in coverage, as stated in the Amended Declarations of the policy—there is likewise no ambiguity in GEICO’s notice of cancellation, which referred to the policy number of Rakowski’s umbrella policy. The cancellation notice could only have pertained to Rakowski’s coverage of $2,000,000, which was the only coverage the policy provided for the policy period.</p> <p>Finally, GEICO established, prima facie, that it properly sent Rakowski notice of the cancellation (<em>see Jones v Allstate Ins. Co.</em>, 221 AD2d 596, 597). In opposition, Garcia failed to raise a triable issue of fact.</p> <p>Garcia’s remaining contentions are without merit.</p> <p>Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted GEICO’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p> <p><span style="color: #808080;">2017 NY Slip Op 05202</span><br /> <span style="color: #808080;"> Decided on June 28, 2017</span><br /> <span style="color: #808080;"> Appellate Division, Second Department</span></p> <p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/failure-to-pay-part-of-premium-results-in-cancellation-of-entire-policy/">Failure to Pay Part of Premium Results in Cancellation of Entire Policy</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>California’s Very Expensive Free Lunch</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/californias-very-expensive-free-lunch/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Guest Author]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Guest Opinion]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8401</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>By Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D. California’s state senate’s unipartisan passing of a sweeping single-payer health care bill, the Healthy California Act, has drawn attention to single-payer as a solution to the decaying Affordable Care Act. The ACA decreased competition and plan availability in health insurance and leaves patients holding the bag of unaffordable premiums, […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/californias-very-expensive-free-lunch/">California’s Very Expensive Free Lunch</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><strong>By Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.</strong></em></p> <p>California’s state senate’s unipartisan passing of a sweeping single-payer health care bill, the <a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fleginfo.legislature.ca.gov%2Ffaces%2FbillNavClient.xhtml%3Fbill_id%3D201720180SB562">Healthy California Act</a>, has drawn attention to single-payer as a solution to the decaying Affordable Care Act. The ACA decreased competition and plan availability in health insurance and leaves patients holding the bag of unaffordable premiums, deductibles, and copays. It’s no surprise that a majority of state residents <a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2F2017%2F05%2F31%2Funiversal-health-plan-would-save-californians-37-billion-and-cover-more-people-study-finds%2F">polled</a> were in favor of universal, government-run health care—as long as it doesn’t raise their taxes.</p> <p>But as the fanfare died down, pragmatists in the state assembly put the bill on hold as “<a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fjennifervanlaar%2F2017%2F06%2F24%2Fcalifornia-universal-healthcare-bill-taken-off-life-support-n2346150">woefully incomplete</a>.”</p> <p>The unrealistic bill provides that every California resident, regardless of age, employment, or immigration status, would be eligible for coverage with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles. Additionally, patients could see any “willing” provider without a referral and receive any service deemed medically appropriate, including chiropractic, vision, dental, ancillary health or social services, and National Institutes of Health-approved alternative therapies. Insurers are only allowed to offer coverage for services that are not offered by the state.</p> <p>“Providers” would be paid on a fee-for-service basis unless and until the Healthy California board establishes another payment methodology. The government thus has the unilateral ability to fix prices and payment methods–including State <a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2009%2F07%2F02%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2FCalifornia_IOUs%2F">IOUs</a>.</p> <p>According to the California senate’s own study, the estimated cost of the single-payer program is $400 billion, while California’s total budget for 2018 is $179.5 billion. The bill naively or slyly makes no mention of funding. The top <a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fla-pol-sac-single-payer-explainer-20170601-htmlstory.html">contenders</a> are (of course) a 15 percent employer tax, a 2.3 percent sales tax increase, a 2.3 percent gross receipts tax, and existing healthcare-directed federal, state, and local funds.</p> <p>California’s default funding method is fleecing the taxpayers and then redirecting targeted tax revenues. Recently, voters approved California’s 2016 Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act, which added a $2 per pack tax, because the funds would go to physician training, disease prevention, medical research, Medi-Cal, and tobacco-use prevention and reduction. Gov. Brown now plans to <a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmanet.org%2Fnews%2Fdetail%2F%3Farticle%3Dbrowns-budget-steals-prop-56-revenue">shift</a> some of the revenue to the general fund.</p> <p>And then there’s the lure of the Golden Bear. The Supreme Court ruled in <a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F415%2F250%2F%25E2%2580%25A6.">Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County</a> [Arizona] that the one-year residence requirement to receive free non-emergency medical services from the county violated the Equal Protection Clause by creating an “invidious classification” that impinges on the right of interstate travel by denying newcomers “basic necessities of life.” California has three border states and a large border country. If the Supreme Court has their say, the law could cover every soul who has a foot on California’s golden soil. Who will pay for the free-riders after the middle class has been taxed out of the state?</p> <p>It is no wonder the assembly wants the senate to provide a “workable legislation that addresses financing, delivery of care, and cost control.”</p> <p>Let’s face it. Why would we trust the government to manage our medical care? The obvious example is the Veterans Health Administration. Congress has introduced a staggering <a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govtrack.us%2Fcongress%2Fbills%2Fbrowse%3Fcongress%3D115%26text%3Dveterans%2520health%23sort%3Drelevance">1,440 bills</a> relating to veterans’ health since January 1, 2017. Several of these bills are directed toward the ability to fire demonstrably incompetent or rule-breaking employees who have remained on the job for years and receive pensions and bonuses.</p> <p>The real tragedy is that the call for single payer ignores what patients really want. <a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42473323&msgid=452077&act=4STU&c=917709&destination=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2.deloitte.com%2Fus%2Fen%2Fpages%2Flife-sciences-and-health-care%2Farticles%2Fhealthcare-consumer-experience-survey.html%3Fid%3Dus%3A2em%3A3na%3Ahcc%3Aawa%3Achs%3A021417">Deloitte’s 2016 Consumer Priorities in Health Care Survey</a> found that patients overwhelmingly wanted “personalized provider interactions.” Of course, with a universal, government-run system comes universal privacy eradication and intrusion into our medical records. Secondly, people wanted “economically rational coverage.” They did not say free; they just want value for their dollar. They want convenient access. None of these things will be found in a government-run health care factory staffed by “willing” providers.</p> <p>In truth, single payer is not a cure for a broken system, but another manifestation of the attempt to depersonalize patients and doctors and convert them to obedient participants trapped in a system with no exit. They will have no choice but to ignore the reality that when the government runs out of money and the taxpayers are drained dry, payments and services will be reduced.</p> <p>We must think local. Tap into physicians’ love and joy in delivering charity care, and use insurance for its intended purpose: major unexpected expenses. Most importantly, ensure that patients and physicians can always deal directly with one another in an atmosphere of a trusting personal relationship.</p> <p>With time to reflect, let’s hope our legislators realize that losing the hallmarks of good medicine is not worth the cost of free single-payer.</p> <p>*****************</p> <p><a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Marilyn-M.-Singleton.png"><img decoding="async" class=" wp-image-4515" src="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Marilyn-M.-Singleton.png" alt="" width="126" height="148" srcset="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Marilyn-M.-Singleton.png 228w, https://www.insurance-advocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Marilyn-M.-Singleton-200x234.png 200w" sizes="(max-width: 126px) 100vw, 126px" /></a></p> <p><em>Dr. Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist, professor and </em><a href="http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=42461316&msgid=440238&act=JD8X&c=917709&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aapsonline.org%2F"><em>Association of American Physicians and Surgeons</em></a><em> Board of Directors member. She graduated from Stanford and earned her MD at UCSF Medical School. Dr. Singleton completed two years of Surgery residency at UCSF, then her Anesthesia residency at Harvard’s Beth Israel Hospital. While still working in the operating room, she attended UC Berkeley Law School, focusing on constitutional law and administrative law. She interned at the National Health Law Project and practiced insurance and health law. She teaches classes in the recognition of elder abuse and constitutional law for non-lawyers.</em></div> <p><em>Dr. Singleton can be contacted directly at </em><a href="mailto:marilynmsingleton@gmail.com"><em>marilynmsingleton@gmail.com</em></a><em>, 510-421-5800 (reporters and journalists welcome!). <strong>For permission to republish</strong> this op-ed, contact </em><a href="mailto:AngelPublicity@aol.com"><em>AngelPublicity@aol.com</em></a><em>.</em></p> <p> </p> <p><em> </em></p> <p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/californias-very-expensive-free-lunch/">California’s Very Expensive Free Lunch</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Here’s the Thing About Millennials and Insurance</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/heres-the-thing-about-millennials-and-insurance/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Kelly Donahue-Piro]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[In Focus]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8403</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Millennials and how to work and manage them. It seems like there is a daily article posted just about this in the insurance space. Why are millennials so hard to understand, manage and find as team members in your agency?  Well, they are just different. In full transparency, I am by definition a millennial. Born […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/heres-the-thing-about-millennials-and-insurance/">Here’s the Thing About Millennials and Insurance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Millennials and how to work and manage them. It seems like there is a daily article posted just about this in the insurance space. Why are millennials so hard to understand, manage and find as team members in your agency? Well, they are just different. In full transparency, I am by definition a millennial. Born in 1981, I am right on the cusp of Generation X and Millennial. However, just like you I also struggle managing and mentoring millennials.</p> <p>Now in full disclosure, while I am a millennial I think I may be more of an Xennial. Xennials are a microgeneration between Millennials and Generation X, defined as being born between 1977 and 1983. We played outside, didn’t get cell phones until college, but still grew up with technology. Our entire childhood was not documented on social media and most likely our parents worked and so did we.</p> <p>So, what makes millennials such a challenge for us old timers? I have recently concluded three major reasons we are all struggling so hard with this topic. Let me help break it down for you and your agency with some insight and guidance that may provide a few “aha” moments!</p> <p>Have you ever had a millennial employee who said some pretty unprofessional things? Like words just fly out of their mouth without much thought to professionalism, who they are speaking to, or caring about the consequences? It happens, and it happens a lot! Millennials grew up with social media and most of them had cell phones by the time they were 13. This means that at any point in time, they can Tweet, Instagram and Facebook whatever is on their mind. Do you remember being 13? Remember the feelings and emotions you had? Well when you were growing up, outbursts of emotion were most likely met with parental resistance.</p> <p>Today’s millennial takes their emotion to social media—where a quick outburst over having to clean your room led to a slew of their peers liking, loving and commenting on how unfair this is. Millennials actually received positive reinforcement, quickly and oftentimes from strangers or distant acquaintances confirming their position on a rather trivial manner. Bringing this into the workplace, they can often spout off without much regard. This can be very challenging to deal with, when previous generations were groomed to see hierarchy, professionalism and restraint.</p> <p>This leads me to my next observation. Many Millennials don’t have much to lose. Parenting has changed dramatically. Millennial parents often took a friend’s approach (please note this is some, not all, parents). They were friendly with their children, often trying to negotiate with them rather than setting clear boundaries. As teens they were encouraged to focus on studies rather than work, $1000 Apple iPhones were given to them, $2000 Macbooks were common, and forget about the sneaker collections. When they didn’t like dance class, they didn’t have to go. Most teenage Millennials had more than I did after being a professional for five years. This leads to many Millennials living in Mom and Dad’s basement well into their twenties.</p> <p>Why leave the basement when you have food, are still on your parent’s insurance, laundry is done, and have privacy and the safety of not having to worry about spreading your wings and paying bills? However, this means that in the event of conflict in the workplace, they don’t need a job. They would rather leave than work through conflict. There is not a driving need for a job, so they look at them more like “the company needs me more than I need them.” This can drive a struggle for engagement and productivity.</p> <p>Finally, due to parenting styles and social media, there is no hierarchy. On Twitter you can Tweet your dislike of a company’s product and get immediate gratification (even if you were completely wrong). Or you can Tweet a CEO and get a response. You can also Tweet major brands and celebrities and feel like they are responding to you directly. This means that there is no perceived hierarchy. Everyone is equal and you can speak to anyone at any time to get a response. Past generations valued hierarchy and chain of command. Most Millennials don’t understand hierarchy.</p> <p>So the bottom line is how do we manage, attract and captivate Millennials? Here is the good news. They are growing up. Millennials like me can be in our 30s, have real student loan debt, and are getting mortgages and having kids. Children change a lot in people’s lives. What we need to remain certain of is the generation following Millennials and how to manage and attract them!</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/heres-the-thing-about-millennials-and-insurance/">Here’s the Thing About Millennials and Insurance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>ShelterPoint Martials Experts on NYS Paid Family Leave</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/shelterpoint-martials-experts-on-nys-paid-family-leave/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gina Marie Balog-Sartario]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[News Notes]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8405</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>ShelterPoint Life Insurance Company has created an expert educational panel that will be discussing the impact of New York State’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) mandate on employers, employees, and the business community. The first discussion, titled, “What is Paid Family Leave (PFL)? What does it mean for employers and employees?” took place on Wednesday, July 12, 2017. […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/shelterpoint-martials-experts-on-nys-paid-family-leave/">ShelterPoint Martials Experts on NYS Paid Family Leave</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ShelterPoint Life Insurance Company has created an expert educational panel that will be discussing the impact of New York State’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) mandate on employers, employees, and the business community. The first discussion, titled, <strong>“What is Paid Family Leave (PFL)? What does it mean for employers and employees?”</strong> took place on Wednesday, July 12, 2017. “The creation of this cross-disciplinary event stems from ShelterPoint Life’s foundational belief that we have a responsibility to simplify the process and educational curve of this new law for employers and employees,” stated Brian Dunham, Chief Actuary of ShelterPoint. “With a deep understanding of the PFL mandate, this panel will educate attendees on the impact of PFL on all stakeholders to help ease the transition and reduce the uncertainty as we move toward the January 1, 2018, implementation date.” Panel participants included leadership from ShelterPoint Life (New York’s largest DBL carrier, based on 2015’s DB-680 reports) and the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM), as well as legal subject matter experts from Jackson Lewis PC and Genser, Dubow, Genser & Cona LLP. Panelists delved into topics such as how to mitigate risk regardless of a business’ number of employees; how to address compliance considerations and protect both business and employee interests; how to best prepare for the mandate and understand the law’s financial and administrative burdens; and how the law may impact business operations.</p> <p>For more information about ShelterPoint, please visit <a href="http://www.shelterpoint.com/">www.shelterpoint.com</a></p> <p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/shelterpoint-martials-experts-on-nys-paid-family-leave/">ShelterPoint Martials Experts on NYS Paid Family Leave</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>CMSV Releases Fishlinger Optimism Index Results: Americans More Optimistic about Social Progress</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/cmsv-releases-fishlinger-optimism-index-results-americans-more-optimistic-about-social-progress/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gina Marie Balog-Sartario]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[News Notes]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8407</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>  The Fishlinger Optimism Index™, a measure of public opinion centered on Americans’ optimism about the future, published by the Fishlinger Center for Public Policy Research at the College of Mount Saint Vincent, rose to 69 percent in June—possibly attributable to the stock market’s record performance during the first half of the year. Americans’ optimism, […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/cmsv-releases-fishlinger-optimism-index-results-americans-more-optimistic-about-social-progress/">CMSV Releases Fishlinger Optimism Index Results: Americans More Optimistic about Social Progress</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> </p> <p>The Fishlinger Optimism Index™, a measure of public opinion centered on Americans’ optimism about the future, published by the Fishlinger Center for Public Policy Research at the College of Mount Saint Vincent, rose to 69 percent in June—possibly attributable to the stock market’s record performance during the first half of the year.</p> <p>Americans’ optimism, particularly regarding Social Progress, rose significantly, according to the results. This was influenced by former F.B.I. director James Comey’s testimony to Congress, the special counsel investigation into alleged Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, and the Senate’s failure to pass an unpopular plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Internationally, the beginnings of recovery in Europe as well as French president Emmanuel Macron’s victory over Marine Le Pen may have also helped boost optimism.</p> <p>More than an economic measurement, the Fishlinger Optimism Index™ is built on opinion data for public officials, social/political issues, beliefs about the United States’ place in the world, and a series of value statements dealing with individuals’ feelings of success and security, as well as from ratings of government policies and officials. In measuring national leadership, the Fishlinger Optimism Index™ assesses public expectations for the effectiveness of federal policy and quality of governance both domestically and in global affairs. Social progress examines the potential for progressive reform. Personal prosperity explores individuals’ sense of achievement and economic stability.</p> <p>In this study, the Fishlinger Center conducted online national surveys focusing on political issues in the United States. The fieldwork for the polls was conducted using a blended national panel form Survey Sampling, Inc. Interviews were conducted November 29-December 15, 2016 and January 3-June 30, 2017. The credibility interval for 1,000 respondents is plus or minus three percentage points. The credibility interval is larger for subgroups and for differences between polls.</p> <p>In addition to credibility interval, the polls are subject to other potential sources of error including, but not limited to, coverage and measurement error. Data was rim-weighted to match the national population on age, sex, Hispanic origin, and race. Question wording and topline results are available at <a href="mailto:fishlingercenter@mountsaintvincent.edu">fishlingercenter@mountsaintvincent.edu</a>.</p> <p>**********************</p> <p><strong>The Fishlinger Center for Public Policy Research</strong> opened in February 2015 at the College of Mount Saint Vincent. The Center conducts deep and broad studies of public opinion on key public policy concerns through independent and objective research conducted by students, faculty, and other members of the academic community. The Center is sponsored by William and Joan Fishlinger who wish to offer a forum for discourse that can stimulate intelligent dialogue about issues that deeply affect all Americans. The Center aims to enhance the relationship between the work of the College and the common good. Founded in 1847 by the Sisters of Charity, CMSV offers nationally-recognized liberal arts education and a select array of professional fields of study on a landmark campus overlooking the Hudson River in Riverdale, in the North West Bronx.</p> <p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/cmsv-releases-fishlinger-optimism-index-results-americans-more-optimistic-about-social-progress/">CMSV Releases Fishlinger Optimism Index Results: Americans More Optimistic about Social Progress</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>P/C Net Income Drops 42.2 Percent in Q1</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/pc-net-income-drops-42-2-percent-in-q1/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gina Marie Balog-Sartario]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[News Notes]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8410</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>The private U.S. property/casualty insurance industry saw its net income after taxes drop to $7.7 billion in first-quarter 2017 from $13.4 billion in first-quarter 2016—a 42.2 percent decline—and its overall profitability, as measured by its annualized rate of return on average policyholders’ surplus, fall to 4.4 percent from 7.9 percent, according to ISO, a Verisk […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/pc-net-income-drops-42-2-percent-in-q1/">P/C Net Income Drops 42.2 Percent in Q1</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The private U.S. property/casualty insurance industry saw its net income after taxes drop to $7.7 billion in first-quarter 2017 from $13.4 billion in first-quarter 2016—a 42.2 percent decline—and its overall profitability, as measured by its annualized rate of return on average policyholders’ surplus, fall to 4.4 percent from 7.9 percent, according to ISO, a Verisk Analytics (Nasdaq:VRSK) business, and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).</p> <p>The industry experienced $7.3 billion in direct catastrophe losses—the highest first-quarter catastrophe losses since the 1994 Northridge earthquake—and $2.3 billion above the direct catastrophe losses for first-quarter 2016. Insurers’ combined ratio deteriorated to 99.6 percent for first-quarter 2017 from 97.4 percent for first-quarter 2016. Insurers also saw some improvement from a year earlier. Net written premium growth accelerated to 4.0 percent for first-quarter 2017 from 3.2 percent for first-quarter 2016. Net investment gains increased by $1.2 billion to $14.4 billion in first-quarter 2017, from $13.2 billion for first-quarter 2016. The industry’s surplus reached a new all-time high value of $709 billion as of March 31, 2017, increasing $8.1 billion from $700.9 billion as of December 31, 2016.</p> <p> </p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/pc-net-income-drops-42-2-percent-in-q1/">P/C Net Income Drops 42.2 Percent in Q1</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>LICONY Lists Wins in Albany</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/licony-lists-wins-in-albany/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gina Marie Balog-Sartario]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[News Notes]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8412</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Three important pieces of legislation that will help New Yorkers increase their retirement investments, use existing policies to pay for long-term care expenses, and utilize technology to make board decisions passed both the Senate and Assembly and will be sent to the Governor for approval. The three bills were all 2017 legislative priorities for the […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/licony-lists-wins-in-albany/">LICONY Lists Wins in Albany</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three important pieces of legislation that will help New Yorkers increase their retirement investments, use existing policies to pay for long-term care expenses, and utilize technology to make board decisions passed both the Senate and Assembly and will be sent to the Governor for approval. The three bills were all 2017 legislative priorities for the Life Insurance Council of New York (LICONY). Life Insurance Council President and CEO Mary A. Griffin said, “The success of these bills further demonstrates that the Legislature and Department of Financial Services (DFS) understand that life companies are vitally important to New York, both in terms of economic development and in financial planning. I want to thank our members for advocating for these bills, and thank Senate Insurance Chair James Seward, Assembly Insurance Chair Kevin Cahill, and the DFS for working with the industry to make the passage of these bills a reality.”</p> <p>The three bills that passed both houses of the legislature are: S.2525-B (Seward)/A.7152-A (Otis) which would provide people who own certain annuities with the option to automatically reinvest policyholder dividend distributions; S.2114-B (Seward)/A.7584-B (Crespo) which would refine the long-term care trigger to provide more New Yorkers who own certain life products with the ability to use existing benefits to cover long-term care expenses; and S.2095-A (Seward)/A.7531-A (Kavanagh) which would authorize domestic mutual life insurance companies to offer alternate methods for voting in uncontested board elections and receive voting materials electronically.</p> <p>The bills will now be sent to Governor Cuomo for his review and LICONY is hopeful these bills will be signed into law. The life insurance industry is a vital part of the New York economy. According to the American Council of Life Insurers, the life industry invests approximately $458 billion in New York’s economy. Of that, about $371 billion is invested in state, county and city stocks and bonds that help finance business development, job creation, and services in the state.</p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/licony-lists-wins-in-albany/">LICONY Lists Wins in Albany</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Alice Kane, Former GC of Zurich and New York Life, Joins Clifford Chance</title> <link>https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/alice-kane-former-gc-of-zurich-and-new-york-life-joins-clifford-chance/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gina Marie Balog-Sartario]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:38:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[2017]]></category> <category><![CDATA[July 24]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Past Issues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[News Notes]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.insurance-advocate.com/?p=8415</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Clifford Chance has welcomed Alice Kane to its US Insurance practice. Well known in the field for several decades, Ms. Kane advises property and casualty, life, and health insurance clients on a wide range of regulatory and transactional matters. She previously served as the group general counsel at two Fortune 100 insurers, Zurich Insurance Group, […]</p> The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/alice-kane-former-gc-of-zurich-and-new-york-life-joins-clifford-chance/">Alice Kane, Former GC of Zurich and New York Life, Joins Clifford Chance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Clifford Chance</strong> has welcomed <strong>Alice Kane</strong> to its US Insurance practice. Well known in the field for several decades, Ms. Kane advises property and casualty, life, and health insurance clients on a wide range of regulatory and transactional matters. She previously served as the group general counsel at two Fortune 100 insurers, Zurich Insurance Group, and New York Life Insurance Company, where she led teams of in-house and outside counsel on complex M&A transactions, settled major government and insurance department investigations, and spearheaded the successful resolution of SEC enforcement actions, among other regulatory and governance matters.</p> <p>More recently, Ms. Kane has focused on insurance regulatory matters, representing clients before the New York State Department of Financial Services and other state insurance departments. Over the past several years, she monitored both international and national insurance regulatory reforms at both the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). She also represented clients on US health care reform before the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CMS), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.</p> <p>Her business experience extends to asset management. She served as executive vice president in charge of asset management for New York Life and as president of the mutual fund business for American General’s Variable Life and Annuity Division. She also founded a woman- and minority-owned institutional asset management business, Blaylock Asset Management.</p> <p>Ms. Kane’s arrival coincides with the return to Clifford Chance of corporate partner Joseph Cosentino, who himself has significant experience in the insurance sector. Together, the two further bolster a growing US Insurance M&A practice that includes partners Gary Boss and Nicholas Williams.</p>The post <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com/2017/08/07/alice-kane-former-gc-of-zurich-and-new-york-life-joins-clifford-chance/">Alice Kane, Former GC of Zurich and New York Life, Joins Clifford Chance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.insurance-advocate.com">Insurance Advocate</a>.]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>