By David Chesanow, JTNews Correspondent
Hearings on new hate-crime legislation, initiated by the Seattle office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), were held in Olympia last week.
House Bill 1128 and its companion measure, Senate Bill 5193, would prohibit insurance companies from canceling or refusing to renew coverage on property due to a claim stemming from “malicious harassment,” the legal term for a hate crime. The bills would also require insurance companies to report to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner concerning underwriting action taken against any policyholder who has filed a loss claim in the preceding five years due to an incident that police have classified as malicious harassment.
The legislation does not deal with the cost of insurance, which is already regulated.
HB 1128 and SB 5193 correspond to laws passed in California in 2001 and Illinois in 2002. The Washington state legislation was initiated at the request of the OIC on the urging of the Anti-Defamation League. Pacific Northwest Region. Rep. Shay Schual-Berke (D-33) is the prime sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives; Sen. Don Benton (R-17) is the prime sponsor of the Senate version.
Diane Baer, chair of the ADL Pacific Northwest Region’s government affairs committee, testified before the House Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee on Jan. 28. She explained that the California law had been a response to the non-renewal of insurance at one of three Sacramento-area synagogues that were victimized by hate-crime arson in June 1999. While there have been no cases in Washington state of insurers withdrawing coverage as a result of a hate-crime attack, Baer pointed out that Illinois did not have such a case, either, before passing its hate-crime and property insurance law.
“California responded to a cry for justice from victims of hate crimes,” Baer told the committee. “Illinois, however, acted proactively, and [this] was a very good example of the insurance industry and the legislature and concerned individuals working together, recognizing that…this was an important piece of legislation. And that is what we are hoping will happen here.”
Baer also pointed out that the California statute does not address changes in coverage on property owned by individuals. By contrast, the Illinois statute and the legislation now under consideration in Olympia include the insuring of hate-crime-targeted property owned by individuals as well as institutions.
Leon Reisberg, president of Temple Beth El’s board of trustees, noted that eight of the 12 incidents described by Kleiner resulted in property damage but that the temple had not filed claims for them. On the prospect of insurance cancellation, Reisberg testified, “It is a real concern. It’s not hypothetical—it’s a real concern.”
According to an ADL fact sheet, HB 1128 and SB 5193 are supported by various groups, including the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, the Washington chapter of the National Organization of Women, the Washington Association of Churches, the Lutheran Public Policy Office of Washington, the Washington State Catholic Conference, and Seattle’s Idriss Mosque.
Hisham Farajallah, director of the Idriss Mosque, submitted written testimony to the Jan. 28 hearing in which he described post-Sept. 11 hate attacks on the Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, and Idriss mosques. He termed it “conceivable” that insurance companies would cancel coverage on his mosque, thereby victimizing the victims a second time.
“We support this legislation because we believe that not being able to retain insurance for our property because we are victims of a hate crime is not right,” Farajallah wrote. “Furthermore, we can imagine similar things happening to other groups in society—refusal to insure synagogues that may have had threats; refusing to insure black churches which have been targeted by hate crimes.”
The bills have gone back to their sponsoring committees for further discussion and possible revision.