A View From The Press Box

Brotherhood Mutual made an underwriting decision about the risk of loss, not a moral judgement about the church's position on same-sex marriage or ordination of gays.

The carrier may be right or it may be wrong about the relative loss potential between otherwise similar churches that differ in their positions on those points, but they have the right to be right or wrong. It's not a government agency.

If they are wrong, they have lost a profit opportunity to some other carrier that has made a different judgement, and that sort of diversity and availability of choices is what makes our country great.

But it sounds like you're winding up to demand that the government step in and remove that right, and to make it, in effect, a government agency. More power to the government, the usual left-wing refrain, and less choice for the people.

The issue here is not one of religion, it is one of freedom of expression.

This could quickly become a "slippery slope." Carried further, this could mean that corporations or individuals could be denied coverage based solely upon their political views.

For example, a questionnaire could ask whether a company or person is a member of the National Rifle Association, and then deny coverage based on the theory that NRA members are likely to own guns and the presence of guns increases the liklihood of violence.

It seems like a better dividing line would be whether or not something is illegal, not whether it is considered by some to be immoral and therefore unacceptable.

I read a fair amount about our industry, and I must say that I have never encountered a written account of a church being the subject of arson due to its position on homosexuality. Perhaps I need to read more?

This is not necessarily a phobia. Consider the package premium may be relatively modest.

For example, if a suit regarding some denominational dispute was tendered to the carrier, the cost of a coverage opinion alone could exceed the premium.

Do you have increased VMM exposure on the prop or worse? Maybe.

Passing on quoting this risk--or an abortion clinic, for example--may have nothing to do with an underwriter's value judgments whatsoever.

Would the church here really have a problem getting placed? I doubt it. There are tons of markets out there for churches, and programs galore.

Perhaps too often the subjective judgment of one underwriter or company becomes a proxie for the industry.

The truth is gay rights is a very controversial topic in religious circles.

In the 1950s & '60s, churches would get burned based on whether they were black churches or white churches sympathetic to the civil rights movement. My hope is we have matured as a people and a nation.

I do respect religious institutions who stand by their beliefs, and are not simply social clubs catering to the latest polls.

I am not sure what to make of this story. Unless I missed something, this appears to be a one-off deal. The article does not indicate if this is a trend or if it was even done before.

How many incidents of attacks on churches because of a particular stand on gay rights have there been? I have not heard of any.

So, it would seem like a dumb underwriting variable for actuarial as well as PR reasons. It boggles the mind.

Finally, an interesting coda to the whole church-burning hysteria from a short while back--almost all of them were acts committed by church members for various reasons (arson, insurance fraud, etc.), but very few of them were done because of some kind of act of bigotry.

It was not a case of the KKK riding in and torching places. It was another kind of criminal activity.

SAM RESPONDS:
The fact that the insurer included questions about the facility's positions on gay marriage and ordination indicates that this is an underwriting standard for that particular company. Two other leading insurers for that market said they circulate no such questionnaire when assessing church risks.

I'm with you, Sam.

I fail to see how this is an issue of "risk selection" relative to PROPERTY insurance! What, is there a higher probabilty of vandalism? Or maybe they think lightning is going to strike a church that supports gay rights?

With the questions on social change, I guess my Unitarian congregation wouldn't get quoted, either!

The only thing I can STRETCH my imagine to consider is that maybe Brotherhood is assessing GL Personal Injury, Pastoral Care Liability and the like?? I could sort of see how maybe it could impact Professional Liability??!!?

Sorry, this smells like discrimination to me.

It's not religion or morals the insurer was considering, it was group dynamics and risk management.

Underwriters have an obligation to their pool of insureds not to increase exposure to risks. If one ignores obvious risks like Fred Phelps and his ilk, then you aren't considering risk management for the pool churches or department stores or whoever you insure.

When companies state they support or don't support different 'other' groups, it causes friction amongst the groups. The insurer has a duty to minimize exposure to risk amongst all its insureds--they pool risks.

I'm not following your accusation that this is somehow wrong for an underwriter to exclude membership based on their guidelines. If I smoked, I wouldn't expect great rates on life insurance or health insurance.

Why if I publicly announce a controversial position should my risk-exposure burden groups that are less likely to attract a group of protesters, who may or may not want to introduce their flames of hell upon my decadent behavior?

Churches are burned, defaced, and vandalized for various reasons, and to consider some of them as risk exposures, well, how smart is that?

People are crazy to think they can do what they want to make their point, but they make their points anyway, thinking that is their right and guaranteed freedom.

Different groups make up America. Why this push to make everyone and everything the same?

There would be nothing interesting to discuss if they all behaved like we normal folk think they should. >wink, wink

I like Jose's comment: "I do respect religious institutions who stand by their beliefs, and are not simply social clubs catering to the latest polls."

For business reasons, whether right or wrong, Brotherhood is standing up for what it believes.

Sam, as to your part about, "It's ironic that religious institutions have often been blasted for their narrow-minded and mean-spirited prejudice against society's minorities. Here we have a courageous and kind house of worship that does not close its doors to anyone, callously being shown the door by a shortsighted insurer," it is society's view that "religious institutions have often been blasted for their narrow-minded and mean-spirited prejudice against society's minorities."

When it comes to race/color, that was wrong but that was a civil rights issue. There is nothing in the Bible that espouses such a view against race/color.

On the other hand, the "society minority" in question--gays or LBGT's--appear by society to be discriminated against when in fact churches are only engaging in their First Amendment right to express their sincerely held religous beliefs. A gay lifestyle is sin, plain and simple.

I do feel that churches should also open their door to all sinners. But it is their choice, just as it is the choice of Brotherhood to make a business decision on whom to insure.

I don't agree with Brotherhood's decision or their practice of using those particular questions on their risk-assessment questionnaire.

However, that's the great thing about the United States. They can deny business to whomever they want. Thankfully, another carrier was willing to underwrite the risk.

Seems like a smarter way of doing business would be to keep the client but charge a higher premium.

I also don't often hear (if ever) of church vandalism due to being pro-gay rights.

On the other side of this interesting little coin, we have the Westboro Church, famous for their "God Hates F*gs" picket signs. Talk about a need for property damage coverage including vandalism! I wonder if Brotherhood Mutual would be willing to accept that risk?

The first commentator at the top of the page puts a nice spin to justify this type of prejudice.

Of course, Brotherhood Mutual is not a goverment agency, but I'm sure it is licensed by the goverment to serve the public.

As such, it is unconscionable that they can use underwriting criteria against people of a certain sexual orientation.

It seems that it is a left-wing conspiracy whenever someone speaks in favor of a minority of people.

Grow up!

I don't understand why it's so hard to see where Brotherhood was coming from when making this decision.

I don't believe it was an underwriter's moral or religious beliefs. I believe it was strictly ununderwriting decision.

Think about it--think about the news stories and newspaper articles...Gays are constantly getting "bashed." I can see where there would be a higher risk of vandalism and possible stalking of church members.

A lot of people just don't accept this type of lifestyle. I don't see what is so hard in seeing why they made this decision.

WAKE UP PEOPLE! It happens!

I don't believe it's an "acceptance" of lifestyle issue that should play any part in whether a church that caters to a specific group receives insurance or not.

If the insurer wants to openly disclaim their willingness to write coverage for gay churches or any other business or institution run by such groups, then, by all means, go for it.

Every insurer has a class list in which they clearly delineate which businesses or classes they do not want to write or will not write. (I say that tongue in cheek as I have seen so many exceptions in some cases that the exceptions became the rule)

Those establishments may be liquor licensees, casinos, adult businesses, non-sprinklered habitational occupancies over three stories, pet stores, or just about anything they so choose--as long as they develop a reason within their underwriting guidelines showing a correlation to a "significant deviation from norm to loss potentials," etc.

So why not just call it as they see it if they're not ashamed to do so? Or are they hiding in the closet on this one?