Insurer Judges a Church's Stance as Too Risky

Wall Street Journal ^ | January 8, 2008 | M.P. MCQUEEN

[Between the Lines]

A small Protestant church in Adrian, Mich., has weathered controversies surrounding abolition, the Civil War, desegregation and Vietnam since it was established in 1836. Now, because its denomination supports gay rights, the church has been deemed too risky for property insurance.

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co. of Fort Wayne, Ind., turned down the West Adrian United Church of Christ, citing its national governing body's approval of gay marriage and the ordination of homosexuals.

"Based on national media reports, controversial stances such as those indicated in your application responses have resulted in property damage and the potential for increased litigation among churches that have chosen to publicly endorse these positions," Marci J. Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual -- one of the nation's largest insurers of religious institutions -- wrote in a letter to the church last summer.

For years, same-sex marriage and gay rights have been among the nation's most divisive social issues in both religion and politics. Several Episcopal churches have voted to leave the global Anglican Communion because its American branch supports gay rights and ordained an openly gay bishop in 2003.

Churches and other policyholders have sometimes had their coverage revoked in the past in response to specific acts of violence or property damage related to social or political tensions. Some churches in the South reported cancellations after a wave of arson attacks in the mid-1990s, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Many of the incidents occurred at predominantly black churches in the South.

But the West Adrian United Church of Christ may be among the few such institutions denied coverage because of fears about a destructive backlash against its stance, rather than in the aftermath of an incident.

[DBCJR]

Businesses have a right to assess the risks of the contracts they enter into and refuse to do so. No where is this more essential than in the insurance industry. If I hold myself out as a political activist, or an avid skydiver, hangglider, r mountain climber, I am exercising my rights to choose to do those things but an insurer has the right to refuse to contract to insure me. Free speech does not impose an obligation to insure.

[Salman]

One insurance company turned this church down.

I do not believe they cannot get insurance. Are all the churches who support gay rights uninsured? Are they the only one in Michigan?

Rather this story is an attempt to put political pressure on one particular insurance company.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Insurer Judges a Church's Stance as Too Risky

Would that be because it is an unusually wide stance? Hmm?