09/25/2007
Insurance Co: Gay-Friendly Church a "Higher Risk" Property
A branch of The United Church of Christ in Adrian, Michigan was recently solicited by an insurance company, asking if they wanted an insurance quote. The church replied "yes" but the insurance company, Brotherhood Mutual, then refused to give it to them after learning about their gay-friendly policies.
"Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, based in Fort Wayne, Ind., told West Adrian United Church of Christ in Adrian, Mich., that its denomination's gay-affirming stances made it a 'higher risk' for property and liability insurance. 'Our company's decision to not submit a quote to your organization arose out of information that was supplied in a supplemental application, indicating that your organization 'publicly endorses or practices the marriage of same-sex couples' and 'publicly endorses or practices the ordination of the homosexual clergy,'' wrote Marci J. Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual, in a July 30 letter to the church. Ironically, the church was fully insured by another company, and happily so, but was sought out by a local agent of Brotherhood Mutual who asked to provide the church a quote and then, subsequently, refused to do so."
You may remember, United Church of Christ produced the much-publicized "Ejector Seat" and "Bouncer" ads promoting their openness to accepting people of all races and sexual orientations to their denomination.
Here's a copy of Brotherhood Mutual's letter (PDF).
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:11 AM EST by Andy in Discrimination, Michigan, News, Religion | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Thanks for posting this story Andy.
This is just but one example of the price my denomination, the UCC, pays for standing up for and welcoming people from marginalized, stigmatized and oppressed communities.
I hope this congregation sues the pants off of this company.
Even if GLBT people aren't covered under state or federal anti-discrimination laws, religion most certainly is and this company discriminated against our church based on our religious belief that ALL people, including gay and lesbian people, are created equal and are entitled to FULL civil rights and FULL inclusion in the spiritual life of the church.
This should also be a wake up call to those who feel that people aren't discriminated against based upon their real or perceived sexual orientation. When a company can refuse goods or services to a CHURCH simply because it accepts gay people it's pretty clear that gay people themselves are easy targets for discrimination.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 25, 2007 9:36:22 AM
Looking at this from an actuarial standpoint, it's probably financially justified to say that a church with these policies is at a higher risk. Unfortunate though it may be, the UCC and its property stands a greater chance of being targeted by extremist groups who oppose such doctrines. I'm not saying that the refusal to cover wasn't based on discrimination, just that it might not have been.
Posted by: Ryan | Sep 25, 2007 9:49:04 AM
Ryan,
I'm not an actuary, but I can't imagine that an actuarial analysis would show that the church's position on homosexuality significantly raises the risk profile of the property. It may raise it slightly, but mostly they are insuring against accidents, acts of god, etc. I would bet that the number of claims based on damage to church property by anti-gay vandals is actuarially insignificant.
Also, I wonder if this insurance company uses the same analysis in their review of anti-gay churches, which are more likely to be targeted by groups like Act Up.
Like I said, I'm just guessing and have no statistical or actuarial basis for this opinion, but I really think that Brotherhood Insuranace Co. is just a company with homophobic management and policies. But I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: darb | Sep 25, 2007 10:06:11 AM
This from the Brotherhood Mutual website: "We will uphold the Biblical values upon which the company was founded and treat our customers, employees, and business partners with integrity and respect."
Anyone still believe that their decision not to offer a quote was based on good faith financial concerns?
Anyone believe that Brotherhood Mutual also denies insurance to churches that take "controversial stances" of a more conservative variety?
Any Michigan lawyers out there know if this type of discriminatory insurance practice is illegal?
Posted by: darb | Sep 25, 2007 10:19:25 AM
"Also, I wonder if this insurance company uses the same analysis in their review of anti-gay churches, which are more likely to be targeted by groups like Act Up."
since when are members of Act Up known for their violent actions against anti-gay churches? Unfortunately, Act Up isn't well known for doing much at all these days.
Posted by: b mac | Sep 25, 2007 10:25:55 AM
Ryan -
I would have said underwriting standpoint and initially thought the same thing ... a company could make a stretch argument to this effect.
But it does appear this is just some small, religious company. And unfortunately there's no legal discrimination or basis to sue as an insurer can decline to bid on any coverage - insurers aren't legally forced to extend coverage to anyone/everyone who applies.
This church should just make sure everyone in the community knows about this company's practices.
Posted by: ATLSteve | Sep 25, 2007 10:36:41 AM
BMac
You're right, that was probably a bad example.
Was just trying to make the point that I don't believe this company cares about whether a church takes a "controversial stance", as stated in their letter. I believe they only care if that stance is a liberal one (and especially a pro-gay one).
Certainly taking a controversial stance on the conservative side could result in a similar risk of property damage or litigation, but I really don't think that's what they care about -- regardless how they choose to dissemble in their letter.
Posted by: darb | Sep 25, 2007 10:58:09 AM
I wonder if predominantly African-American denominations are denied insurance due to the fact that they are at high risk of being vandalized in the South.
I think the wording of the letter clearly shows a level of homophobia and judgment that goes beyond any actuarial concerns.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 25, 2007 11:02:52 AM
It seems to me to be a set up to make a point. The quote was totally unsolicited and then the company grandstand with a stupid letter to support their no bid? Few companies would go to such legnths to explain a no quote without ulterior motives. Who is Brotherhood Mutual anyway?
Posted by: Vi Agara | Sep 25, 2007 11:36:29 AM
In case any of you are interested, here's the link to Brotherhood Mutual's list of Officers, Directors, and Board Members. Drop them a line if you like.
http://www.brotherhoodmutual.com/about/about3.htm#board
Posted by: anthony in nyc | Sep 25, 2007 1:07:50 PM
blah blah blah
Posted by: unohu | Sep 25, 2007 8:34:02 PM
I wrote the following to Brotherhood Mutual:
I recently learned of your refusal to quote a rate for the United Church of Christ in Adrian, Michigan.
In your letter to the church (copy attached), you claimed that a church choosing to publicly endorse the marriage and ordination of homosexuals has a higher loss risk than other churches, and that it was this higher risk that led you to decline to extend a quote. As your letter cited no data in support of its claim, I do not believe your stated rationale for its action in this case.
On its website, Brotherhood Mutual makes a number of representations, including to "uphold the Biblical values upon which the company was founded and treat our customers, employees, and business partners with integrity and respect."
Among other things, the Bible tells us not to bear false witness against our neighbor. In refusing to quote the United Church of Christ a rate quote on the grounds that its viewpoint makes it a higher insurance risk, I believe that Brotherhood Mutual told a lie to a potential customer. In doing so, you contravened both the teachings of the Bible and your stated policy.
In recent years, I have observed a willingness by many self-proclaimed Christians to ignore the teachings of Christ in certain cases. This habit, which goes by the label "situational ethics," is insidious. It undermines our institutions, our beliefs, and our integrity.
Regardless of Brotherhood Mutual’s feelings about homosexuality, its employees and executives should not lie to those with whom they do business. Lying is wrong.
Posted by: CP | Sep 29, 2007 9:32:28 PM