Florida’s Citizens, Regulators Agree to Restrict Eligibility for New HO-8 Policies

January 4, 2013Email ThisPrintNewslettersTweetArticleComments

Florida’s state-backed property insurer and state regulators have cleared the path for the insurer to begin issuing a new HO-8 policy by limiting it to low-value older homes, addressing concerns that the policies low rates could lead to a potential influx of policies into the insurer.

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. was required by law to start making the HO-8 policy available by January. As initially envisioned, the policy was intended to make Citizens less competitive with the private market by offering a more austere policy, although at a significant lower price.

An HO-8 policy typically provides less coverage than the popular HO-3 policy and pays actual cash value as opposed to replacement cost for damages. However, the HO-8 policy for Citizens became bogged down in controversy when the insurer and regulators could not agree on coverage details, underwriting criteria and rates.

Topping the list of concerns was that the policy would be offered to consumers who qualified for a standard HO-3 all-peril policy at rates roughly 20 percent cheaper, even though regulators required Citizens to offer full replacement coverage to make the policy acceptable to mortgage lenders.

Citizens Board Member Greg Rokeh said at a meeting in December that the policy would prove a draw, not a disincentive for consumers to choose Citizens.

View the Original article

Markel Adds DataBreach Mitigation to Management Liability Policies

November 28, 2012Email ThisPrintNewslettersTweetArticleComments

Markel is now offering DataBreach Mitigation coverage for its management liability product line. The policy includes a sublimit for PR expense coverage, notification and related legal expenses, and voluntary credit monitoring. This coverage extension is offered by Markel on an admitted basis in many states.

The coverage is endorsed as a sublimit to the management liability policy. Markel also offers a broader stand-alone DataBreach policy.

 

Email ThisPrintNewslettersTweetCategories: National NewsTopics: data breach, endorsements, management liability, Markets/CoveragesHave a hot lead? Email us at newsdesk

View the Original article

ACLU Successfully Challenges Missouri Prison Censorship Policies

Share PrintEmailFacebookTwitterShareBookmark & ShareXGoogleDeliciousDiggRedditStumbleUponTechnoratiCurrentPermalink November 16, 2012

JEFFERSON CITY, MO —United States District Judge Nanette Laughrey granted a preliminary injunction yesterday that requires all Missouri prisons to notify senders whenever written materials they send are censored, seized and withheld from prisoners. The judge also ordered that after getting such notice, senders must have an opportunity to appeal the censorship.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU Foundation of Kansas & Western Missouri filed a lawsuit in August on behalf of Bobbie Y. Lane, owner of the publishing business named Caged Potential, against officials of the Missouri Department of Corrections. Starting in late 2010, Caged Potential received nine orders from inmates at Crossroads Correctional Center in Cameron, Missouri, for a prisoner-authored book. Crossroads mailroom staff seized the novels and refused to deliver them to the inmates but never gave Caged Potential notice that the books had been seized or an opportunity to challenge the seizures.

“Inmates and publishers were denied their constitutional right to communicate ideas because publishers weren’t given notice that the prison had seized or censored their publications and other mailings,” added Doug Bonney, legal director of the ACLU Foundation of Kansas and Western Missouri. “We successfully argued that without notice, someone who writes or sends a prisoner written material has no way of knowing that their communication has not reached its intended recipient and therefore they cannot appeal the decision to censor it,” said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.

“This decision will have a significant positive impact not only for publishers, but for anyone who communicates with prisoners,” notes Brenda L. Jones, executive director of the ACLU-EM. “They’ll now know with certainty if their letters reach their intended recipients and have some recourse if they don’t.”

The case was tried in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, Central Division. The ACLU attorneys included Bonney, Rothert and Grant Doty. Copies of the court documents can be found on the ACLU-EM’s website.

campaign

Safe Communities, Fair Sentences Blog of RightsRelated PostsBreaking the Addiction to Incarceration: Weekly HighlightsMarty Atencio (1967-2011): Another Victim of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s JailsBreaking the Addiction to Incarceration: Weekly HighlightsSee AllTrending Topics Police Surveillance Video Surveillance Freedom of Expression Government Surveillance Online Privacy Civil Liberties in the Digital Age Internet Free Expression Twitter Single-Sex Education War on Drugs

See All

Features Big Profits, Broken Dreams Let People Vote: Removing Restrictions and Barriers to Voting in America We Can Stop Solitary See All» Take Action Ensure Due Process for the Incarcerated

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) imposes insurmountable obstacles to justice. The PLRA was intended to stem “frivolous” lawsuits by prisoners, but too often it denies justice to victims of rape, assault and other rights violations. Take Action Now

Related Links CasesLettersReportsACLU CentersPress ReleasesMiscellaneous Our History

View the Original article