XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.guns, alt.california   
   XPost: sac.general   
   From: gp@dont-email.me   
      
   One can imagine similar actions targeting Planned Parenthood,   
   tobacco companies, or even rival political campaigns.   
   The National Rifle Association announced May 11 that it has   
   filed suit against the New York State Department of Financial   
   Services; its superintendent, Maria T. Vullo; and the state’s   
   governor, Andrew Cuomo, alleging the state and its agents   
   violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights in a recent regulatory   
   ruling.   
      
   I will leave to constitutional scholars to debate the First   
   Amendment question. But in terms of regulating the business of   
   insurance in an effective, efficient, and nonpoliticized manner   
   — a topic about which I am the author of an annual report — the   
   department’s behavior sets a dangerous precedent that should   
   trouble citizens across the political spectrum.   
      
   The lawsuit stems from settlements the DFS reached earlier this   
   month with Kansas City–based insurance broker Lockton Cos. and   
   underwriter Chubb Ltd. The companies were fined $7 million and   
   $1.3 million, respectively, in connection with alleged   
   violations of New York insurance law. The purported wrongdoing   
   stemmed from Lockton’s work as broker for the NRA’s “Carry   
   Guard” insurance program, which provides liability insurance to   
   NRA members for firearm-related accidents and for legal costs in   
   self-defense cases.   
      
   The charges against Lockton varied from the technical to the   
   flimsy to the picayune, but they all give the appearance of   
   pretext for what the department was actually seeking, and got: a   
   consent decree in which the broker agrees “not to participate in   
   the Carry Guard Program, any similar programs, or any other NRA-   
   endorsed programs with regard to New York State.”   
      
   In fact, Lockton had already cut ties with the NRA, one of a   
   number of corporate partners to do so in the wake of the mass   
   shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,   
   Fla. But the Department of Financial Services has made clear its   
   willingness to pressure other firms to do the same. In an April   
   letter from Vullo to the state’s banks and insurance companies,   
   she wrote that the department “encourages its chartered and   
   licensed financial institutions to continue evaluating and   
   managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may   
   arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion   
   organizations.”   
      
   Ironically, we have simultaneously seen recent legislative   
   efforts by some gun-control advocates, including in the general   
   assembly of neighboring Connecticut, to actually require gun   
   owners to maintain liability insurance. The type of coverage   
   usually envisioned by such proposals, which would compensate the   
   victims of offensive uses of firearms, is unlikely ever to come   
   to market, as intentional acts are generally agreed to be   
   uninsurable. But as a result of the New York regulator’s action,   
   one expects a chilling effect that would cause insurers to   
   withdraw from offering even the more limited coverage included   
   in the NRA program, or in many homeowners insurance policies.   
      
   Indeed, Lloyd’s of London, the world’s largest market for hard-   
   to-place risks, has responded by directing its underwriters “to   
   terminate any existing programs of this type and not to enter   
   into any new ones,” with specific reference to concerns about   
   the New York DFS inquiry into “programs offered, marketed,   
   endorsed or otherwise made available through the National Rifle   
   Association of America.” The Lloyd’s decision was a feature, not   
   a bug, of the department’s action. The goal pretty clearly was   
   to use the regulator’s office, which is supposed to apply   
   impartial, technocratic rules to see to it that insurance   
   companies responsibly and competently manage their underwriting   
   and investment risks and that they deal with consumers in good   
   faith, to achieve political ends.   
      
   This temptation is not unique to the political Left. In early   
   2015, Oklahoma insurance commissioner John Doak issued a warning   
   shot to property insurers in the state who might seek to invoke   
   exclusions for “manmade” earthquakes stemming from oil and gas   
   exploration. Despite strong evidence that deep-well injections   
   play a role in the thousands of earthquakes Oklahoma experiences   
   every year, Doak asserted there was “no agreement at a   
   scientific or governmental level concerning any connection   
   between injection wells or fracking and ‘earthquakes.'”   
      
   Seeing regulators open this Pandora’s box should be deeply   
   concerning to those on both the right and the left. One easily   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)