Prohibits insurers from excluding from coverage the intentional acts of policy holders' minor child. (8/1/14) (EG INCREASE SG RV See Note)
Impact
The bill's enactment would lead to crucial changes in policyholder contracts within the state's insurance framework. By ensuring that parents cannot be denied coverage based on their child's intentional actions, the bill reinforces a more equitable insurance landscape. It emphasizes parental responsibility without imposing undue financial penalties for the actions of minors. The bill is expected to create a more stable insurance environment for families, reducing the potential for legal disputes regarding liability claims based on minors' actions.
Summary
Senate Bill 69 aims to amend Louisiana's homeowner's insurance policies by preventing insurers from excluding coverage for damages resulting from the intentional acts of a policyholder's minor child. The intention behind this legislation is to protect parents from liability exclusions that could leave them exposed to significant financial responsibility due to their children's actions. As a result, provisions in existing policies that seek to exclude this coverage will be rendered null and void, thereby reinforcing the public policy in favor of not holding parents liable in these specific circumstances.
Sentiment
General sentiment around SB 69 appears to be supportive, particularly among families and parents who stand to benefit directly from the protections it offers. Advocates for child welfare and family-oriented organizations likely view this legislation favorably, highlighting the importance of recognizing the unique dynamics of family responsibilities. However, there may be concerns raised by insurance industry stakeholders regarding the potential implications for premium calculations and overall risk assessments.
Contention
While the bill seems to garner overall support, there may be notable points of contention regarding how insurance providers will adapt their policies and adjust premiums in light of these changes. Critics might argue that removing this exclusion could lead to higher rates for all homeowners as insurers compensate for the increased risk. Furthermore, the legal definitions of 'intentional act' and the scope of liability could lead to future legal challenges that may influence its implementation and effectiveness.
Prohibits health insurers from seeking reimbursement from an insurer providing automobile medical payment coverage to the health insurer's insured without written consent of the insured, or member, or his legal representative. (8/15/10)