By Daniel James Devine, World Magazine.
Rumors swirled last week after someone leaked a memo from a church insurance company. The internal bulletin addressed same-sex marriage and said a church that refused to marry a gay couple, if sued, would not be covered under the company’s regular liability policy. That seemed to suggest a serious new problem: Would insurance companies abandon churches that believe marriage can only be between one man and one woman?
“Homosexual agenda causing churches to lose insurance,” one website headline warned.
Now the president of the insurer that issued the bulletin, Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company, says he wants to set the record straight.
“I can’t speak for the industry, but I can absolutely tell you, when it comes to Southern Mutual Church Insurance, that is false,” Robert Bates told me this week. “Churches are not in jeopardy of losing their insurance coverage because of the belief that they choose to practice.”
Following the Supreme Court’s June decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage across the country, church leaders are worried about the possibility of being sued if they refuse to host a gay wedding.
The insurance bulletin, sent to sales agents by Southern Mutual’s vice president of underwriting, David Karns, said churches have been calling the company with their concerns.
“We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages,” said the bulletin, published online by National Review. “The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.
“The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury.”
The bulletin continued: “If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.”
Bates told me the bulletin was not a position statement and was not intended to deny coverage, but the opposite.
8 Comments. Leave new
Woah now, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The president of an insurance company says that the invented drama people have been making up is wrong? What could he possibly know about insurance. He’s likely just some liberal plant. Just because an insurer disagrees with all the chicken littles who have been yelling about the falling skies since 14F was passed, shouldn’t stop them from continuing to do so.
It’s called confirmation bias. Please ignore this information as it doesn’t corroborate the martyr narrative you all want to believe.
Here again, we have the classic church vs state issue.
Wow, Tom…are you not even curious why that internal company memo that was originally leaked in the beginning even existed if all this worry was just a figment of the chicken little’s? And you can be sure of one thing….if governments (and even other orgainizations such as businesses) go out of their way to deny things over and over…if history is a teacher… you better get ready for the denied action to be reality.
Nope, I’m simply not interested and cannot bring myself to care about other people’s invented melodrama and phony martyr complexes.
As I wrote above, please ignore this information as it doesn’t corroborate the martyr narrative you all want to believe. Thank you for proving my point. QED.
Hey Tom…anybody home in that cranium?….they do not deny that the memo existed….it did…they are just saying that coverage will not be denied….but obviously it was all under consideration. I believe that YOU just proved your point about people being so blinded by ideology that they do not look or care about all the facts. Grow up little one.
Did you actually read the original memo and the full article about it? It is clear that you did not.
The full article makes it clear that this company was never considering revoking coverage. They were clarifying that liability coverage would not cover churches in this situation because that’s not what liability coverage is for.
And I quote (since you haven’t read it): “The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury.”
The bulletin continued: “If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.”
“Bates told me the bulletin was not a position statement and was not intended to deny coverage, but the opposite. Southern Mutual’s regular church liability policy, written according to industry standards, only covers lawsuits in which injury or property damage is alleged. So last year the company created a form of add-on coverage—Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage—in response to churches concerned they wouldn’t be protected in a case where no injury or damage was alleged.”
So they never talked about denying coverage, the memo itself never said that they were.
And yet, you still refuse to acknowledge what they clearly wrote in their own memo, and which was later affirmed by their own President.
Why? Because you’re another one of these folks who have never let the facts get in the way of the narrative they want to tell.
(And thanks for the advice to “grow up”, you can be certain that I’ll give your opinions all the consideration they deserve.)
YES, I KNOW TOM…IT WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW IT WASN’T COVERED UNDER THE REGULAR POLICY….BECAUSE THAT ISN’T REGULAR LIABLILTIY…..WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN READ…..MY POINT WAS JUST THE FACT THE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP WOULD OBVIOULSY CAUSE CONCERN WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON…..AND HE STATED HE COULD NOT, I REPEAT, COULD NOT SPEAK FOR ANY OTHER COMPANY. What is your point…do YOU deny what is going on in this country with the push of the gay agenda? If 14F isn’t important or has no effect on our churches, then why did its supporters spend decades and destroy a once living denomination to pass it….becasue it means nothing?…. And I suppose you think Planned Parenthood is a wholesome organization that “plans” parenthood. And I certainly do hope you grow up or wake up…or actually do try to learn all those facts you somehow view yourself as knowing.
No, I believe that *now* you read it, which is why you changed your tune from “they are just saying that coverage will not be denied….but obviously it was all under consideration.” (it obviously was not to “that isn’t regular liability.”
Yes, I can read. And I can read between the lines. Now that you realize you were wrong initially, you can’t possibly admit that. So instead, you’re trying to confuse matters and turn this into something else with a spittle-flecked all-caps rant.
That’s why you bring up the complete nonsequitar “And I suppose you think Planned Parenthood is a wholesome organization that “plans” parenthood” because you need to lash out now that you’ve been shown to be wrong.
What does PP have to do with insurance? Nothing. So why bring it up?
Because you’re a two year old who can’t handle the fact that he was just publically shown to be wrong.
*sigh*
I’ll let you have the last word, because it is clear you have some deep-seated need for it.
Carry on.