Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog

Fighting the flu and reporting from the Orlando Wind Conference.

I plan on attending the Orlando Windstorm Conference this afternoon. The sessions I would like to attend are about preparation for deposition testimony and the use of expert witnesses in windstorm claims. More to come.

7:30 P.M.:  There is more to come on the site of Insurance Claims and Issues Weblog.  Journey over there and enjoy the breaking news out of the 15th Annual Windstorm Conference in Orlando in 2014!

 

WINDSTORM CONFERENCE BREAKING NEWS: DAVE BARRY, BAD FAITH, AND WIND.

           A touch of the flu prevented me from getting to the Windstorm Insurance Conference today as early as planned, but it did not completely prevent me from attending today.

          DAVE BARRY was the keynote speaker at the General Session.  Mr. Barry is a resident of Miami and he is very familiar with the constant predictions of hurricanes which never come.  "There might be a hurricane here."

          Mr. Barry said that he bought a generator after the last hurricanes hit Florida "that could power Cincinnati."  However, despite those continuing predictions he mentioned, no hurricanes have hit Florida for years now.  He thinks that the reason is that he bought that honkin' generator.

          "BAD FAITH LAW" was the breakout session that set the tone for the day of presentations today.  The Wind Conference has a policy of no mechanical recordings, and as far as identifying individual speakers making specific comments:  "What goes on here, stays here."

          It is instructive to contemplate that out of all the First-Party Bad Faith Cases filed in Florida, a review of Florida cases (or claims?) of Bad Faith done by or for one of the presenters yielded half a dozen verdicts.  The rest were settlements, proving once again what we knew before:  Bad Faith cases do not generally go to Trial, they are settled.

          "SEPARATING WIND AND WATER DAMAGE / CONCURRENT CAUSATION ANALYSIS" was a breakout session too.  During this outstanding presentation, each of the three presenters emphasized the necessity of experience and knowledge in adjusting today's catastrophic claims, for example slab claims.

          The presenters pointed out that we are in a new age of complex catastrophe claims.  The heart of those claims is determining cause and origin, they said.  That is whey in their judgment there are separate insurance policies for wind and for flood.  (Or, actually, wind vs. water.)  See generally John K. DiMugno, Stephen Plitt, and Dennis J. Wall, "Catastrophe Claims:  Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters" (Thomson Reuters West, 2014 Supplements in process), and see in particular Dennis J. Wall, , "Overview of the Participants in the Claims Handling Process," "ACCC or 'Lead-In Language'" and "Water and Flood".  Id., §§ 2:1, 7:5 and 7:6.

          "PROVING YOUR CASE AT TRIAL" was a great topper for the day of presentations.  It provides the concluding note for this article:  Consider what one of the presenters voiced as his own experience in trying cases.  He said that Jurors most often decide cases, including insurance cases presumably, based on answering these questions:  "How will the answer to this question be good for me?  How will the answer to this question protect me and my family?"

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.  The author wants to thank the people running the Windstorm Insurance Conference in Orlando this year for all their kind help.  In particular, the author thanks Ms. Susan J. Coone.  She has been a great help, and she clearly has worked very hard along with the rest of the Wind Conference to make this year's Conference a success.  She has done it all with grace.

 Please Read The Disclaimer.

Related articles

Florida Supreme Court: First-Party Bad Faith Claims Only By Statute.

Dude, the Name Alone Is Worth the Trip!

 

FHFA: 'NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR SUPERVISE MORTGAGEES OR SERVICERS.'

   Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Fannie Mae") standard mortgage forms include provisions authorizing force-placed or lender-placed insurance.  On Friday, January 24, 2014, the Federal Housing Finance Agency renounced Fannie's authority to regulate or to supervise "banks, mortgage lenders, or servicers."  The FHFA likewise renounced its own and Freddie Mac's ("Federal National Mortgage Loan Association's") authority to regulate or supervise mortgagees or servicers.  Here are the potential results of the FHFA's position.

   Since the Fannie Mae standard language was first published, Fannie and Freddie both have run into well-publicized financial troubles.  They both essentially have not only run out of money, but their debts would exceed their revenues if not for the Federal Taxpayer.  For that reason, they have involuntarily been placed in a federal "conservatorship" similar to an involuntary bankruptcy.  The Federal Housing Finance Agency or "FHFA" is their "Conservator," the organization in charge of their purchases of mortgage loans for all intents and purposes.

   In 2012, Fannie Mae issued a notice that it would no longer purchase mortgages which involved lender-placed insurance based on commissions or reinsurance premium payments to subsidiaries of the mortgagees offering the mortgages for sale to Fannie.  Freddie Mac followed suit and did the same thing. 

    In a Notice published in the Federal Register dated Friday, March 29, 2013, the FHFA asked for comments on its own plan concerning "appropriate administration of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) guaranteed loans" which involve "lender place insurance". FHFA Notice No. 2013-N-05, "Lender Placed Insurance, Terms and Conditions," 78 Fed. Reg. 19263 (March 29, 2013).  In other words, the FHFA was weighing in on the same practices that Fannie and Freddie had previously tried to address in the context of loans they guarantee, proposals which the FHFA stated in a February, 2013 telephone conference call with banking and insurance company representatives that the FHFA would refuse to enforce.  The only record of the FHFA action ever taking place, is the reporting by a few journalists, mainly Jeff Horwitz, "FHFA Kills Fannie-Mae Force-Placed Insurance Plan" (American Banker, February 11, 2013), at  http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/178_29/fhfa-kills-fannie-mae-force-placed-insurance-plan-1056687-1.html?zkPrintable=true\.

   The proposals on which the FHFA invited comments were two-fold:  (1) Fannie and Freddie would both prohibit "sellers and servicers" from receiving sales commissions in exchange for placing or maintaining coverage with insurance providers on an approved list, and (2) Fannie and Freddie would also both prohibit "sellers and servicers" from receiving reinsurance premiums from a captive reinsurance company affiliated with the sellers and servicers. The FHFA Notice does not use the term, "captive reinsurance company," but it contains a description of the same thing.    

    The author was one of many commentators in response to the FHFA Notice.  (All of the comments provided to the FHFA, including the author's, can be accessed on the FHFA website as of this writing.)  After the period for public comments expired, the FHFA issued a press release that it was directing Fannie and Freddie "to prohibit servicers from being reimbursed with expenses associated with captive reinsurance arrangements."  FHFA News Release, "FHFA Directs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to Restrict Lender-Placed Insurance Practices" (released November 5, 2013), available on the FHFA website.

   Once again, no official record of the FHFA action has been found to date, other than the FHFA's November, 2013 press release.

   Pointedly, the November FHFA press release mentioned only one of the two concerns addressed by FHFA's March proposal.  It addressed the matter of arrangements for lender-placed insurance companies to pay premium money to captive reinsurers affiliated with the sellers or servicers of the mortgages in question.  The FHFA press release did not mention anything expressly about "sales commissions" which might include payments for something other than reinsurance premiums.

   In December, 2013, Fannie Mae issued a relatively obscure, hard-to-find "update" to its "Fannie Mae Single Family Servicing Guide" for servicing mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae.  In it, Fannie targeted the mortgage servicer's practices of lender-placed insurance.  "Fannie Mae now requires," it said, "that the servicer's lender-placed insurance carrier for a lender-placed insurance policy for a Fannie Mae mortgage loan must not be an affiliated entity of the servicer."  Fannie Mae Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-27, "Lender-Placed Insurance Requirements" (December 18, 2013 (*With Corrections)).  

   However, Fannie's update did not stop there.  The Fannie Mae update to its Single Family Servicing Guide in December, 2013 also advised mortgage servicers that "Fannie Mae is now requiring that the lender-placed insurance premiums charged to the borrower or reimbursed by Fannie Mae must exclude any lender-placed insurance commission or payments earned or received by the servicer, or other entities or individuals affiliated with the servicer (employees, agents, brokers, etc.)."  [Emphasis added.]  Fannie scheduled these requirements to take effect by June 1, 2014.

    As of this writing, the FHFA has apparently not taken any action in response to the December, 2013 update to Fannie's  Servicing Guide.  However, the FHFA has taken a position on the subject matter of Fannie's update.  On Friday, January 24, 2014, the FHFA advised the author in an EMail as follows:

Please be advised that neither FHFA nor the Enterprises have regulatory or supervisory authority over banks, mortgage lenders, or servicers.

EMail of Friday, January 24, 2014 to the author from [email protected], Consumer Communications, Federal Housing Finance Agency.  "The Enterprises" referred to by the FHFA are of course Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for which the FHFA is the Conservator as was previously mentioned.

   The quoted position taken by the FHFA puts in doubt not only Fannie's December, 2013 update to Fannie's mortgage Servicing Guide, but it also draws into question all of the standard contract provisions which Fannie and Freddie have published and which mortgagors, mortgagees, sellers and servicers and others have been required to use before Fannie and Freddie will consider guaranteeing the mortgage loans.

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

WHERE IS THE SANDY RELIEF MONEY?

          The Governor of New Jersey has fallen from grace very quickly.  He is criticized now in ways he simply was not criticized in earlier times.  He is even being mocked by his opponents.  See Michael Barbaro, Jonathan Martin and Nicholas Confessore, "G.O.P. Advice for Christie:  Pick a Better Team" p. 1, col. 2 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Sunday, January 19, 2014).  Potentially cruel people are even calling him "Governor Sumo".

          Critiquing the official performance of any Governor, including the Governor of New Jersey, should be based on the facts.

          The Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey told a television interviewer that associates of the Governor of New Jersey, such as the Lieutenant Governor and the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs of New Jersey, notified her that she must approve a development project in Hoboken or financial relief from damage caused by Sandy would be jeopardized.  Reportedly, "[d]espite being almost entirely submerged during the hurricane, Hoboken has received a small fraction of the recovery money it requested from the state".  See Michael Barbaro and Kate Zernike, "Mayor of Hoboken Says Relief Was Threatened" p. 21, col. 1 (New York Times, Sunday, January 19, 2014).

          In response to the Hoboken Mayor's comments in her television interview, a spokesperson for the Governor of New Jersey criticized the network on which the interview was televised.  Barbaro and Zernike, New York Times, supra.

          But where did the Sandy relief money go?

          Some Sandy relief money was used, with Federal approval, to make videos illustrating the recovery of the New JerseyShore.  Without Federal approval, apparently, a higher bid for the video contract which featured the New Jersey Governor's family, was paid for with Sandy relief money.  "Federal investigators announced that they would audit Mr. Christie’s use of Hurricane Sandy relief money on a $25 million ad campaign that featured his family to promote the JerseyShore."  Kate Zernike, "Another Mayor Felt Christie-Tied Reprisal" (New York Times Online, Monday, January 13, 2014).   The ad campaign featuring the Governor's family was released during his re-election campaign for Governor of New Jersey.

          Sandy caused a lot of damage to people in New Jersey as well as in other Northeastern States.  One round of injury is enough.  Natural disasters are one thing.  Man-made disasters are another thing altogether.  See generally Dennis J. Wall, "Claims Handling Practices Issues:  Sandy Exposes Risks," §2:16 in John K. DiMugno, Steven Plitt, and Dennis J. Wall,  "Catastrophe Claims:  Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters" (Thomson Reuters West & 2014 Supplements).

 

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

 Please Read The Disclaimer.

HUNDREDS OF HURRICANES! Two.

Failure is not an option, it is a way of life.

   Every year, a mysterious front organization in the Rocky Mountains issues predictions that every year there will be hundreds of hurricanes in Florida and the other Atlantic and Gulf Coast areas.  The first time that this mysterious group was awarded a contract paying your Federal Tax dollars for these predictions was during the George W. Bush era.  Their track record of wrong predictions gave rise to questions from early on.  See "Counting All Hurricanes!  Forecasters Fumble, Rockies Crumble, Florida Humble" (Insurance Claims and Issues Blog, November 9, 2011).  The Federal Taxpayer money contract to pay the Rocky Mountain group for their Hurricane predictions has continued every year ever since.

   This group's predictions for 2013 were false.  That is consistent with this group's record of successes and failures in predicting hurricanes.  They have not been good at it.

  Even for the Rocky Mountain Gang, their actual record of predictions for 2013 cannot be improved upon.  They predicted many hurricanes, as usual, and several "named hurricanes" too.  There were two hurricanes to hit anywhere in the United States in 2013.  The damage those two hurricanes  caused taken together did not make anyone's list of major damage caused by weather in 2013 in the U.S., including the Federal Government's list (see linked USA Today newspaper report, below). 

   The Rocky Mountain Gang was wrong about the number of named hurricanes in 2013, too, of course.  

   It is reported that weather-related damage -- i.e., damage from storms, floods, tornadoes and so on -- was overall actually less than predicted in the U.S. last year.  See Doyle Rice and Frank Pompa, "2013 a Calm Year in U.S. for Hurricanes, Tornadoes / U.S. Had a Warm, Wet Year in 2013 / Seven Separate Weather-Related Disasters Caused at Least $1 Billion in Damage" (USA Today Online, Thursday, January 16, 2014).

   It is a safe prediction, however, that these facts will not stand in the way of the Rocky Mountain Gang making hurricane predictions for Florida and other coastal areas in 2014.  It is interesting to note the fact reported in the linked report from USA Today, above, that the Federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has its own National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina.  Why not use them for predictions about hurricanes?  Why not put our Federal Taxpayer money into their already-existing budget to predict hurricanes particularly since they often stand in the way of hurricanes, being located in North Carolina and all? It is something of a recurring mystery why Government resources, particularly those available through NOAA, are not respected for their demonstrated competence, let alone why they are not used more often.  See "Postscript to Not-a-Hurricane Sandy and Your Hurricane Deductible" (Insurance Claims and Issues Blog, November 19, 2012).

   Back to the Rocky Mountain Gang at Colorado State University and their hurricane predictions paid for by Federal Taxpayers.  Being wrong never has stopped them before, so why should their consistent record on successful predictions stand in their way now?

   Do you think they will give the money back?

 

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

Related articles

Hurricane Experts Meet In Colorado To Discuss 2014 Season

A tame year for extreme weather in U.S., but California really needs rain

 

BANK EMPLOYEE INDICTED IN MORTGAGE FRAUD CONSPIRACY!

          In a Grand Jury indictment written by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, filed on January 7, 2014, one of the seven (7) indicted defendants was indicted as "a loan officer for Sun Trust Mortgage."  (Paragraph 32, p. 6, in Download US Atty SD FLA Indictment Bank fraud and wire fraud (M Fraud N.,C.) F'd 01.07.14.)  This individual is one of the few bank employees/officials to be criminally indicted as a result of allegedly criminal activities during the great financial crisis, if he is not the first of his kind.

          The alleged conspiracy in which the former bank officer allegedly participated, included the signing and processing of false affidavits and declarations, and other things which were arguably released in the national mortgage fraud settlement as to five mortgage servicers.  Two of the mortgage servicers released by the Federal Government and by the State Attorneys General who participated in that national settlement, are also two of the Banks which were allegedly the object of the conspirators in the recently filed criminal indictment:  Bank of America and Wachovia n/k/a Wells Fargo.

          This means that at least as to the extent of the conduct released in the course of the national mortgage fraud settlement, the parties released including B of A and Wells Fargo would claim that they are immune from suit now, assuming that a civil release would bar a criminal prosecution in this case.

          Two other Banks are also identified in the current indictment as objects of the conspirators' mortgage fraud:  Regions Bank and the indicted individual loan officer's employer, Sun Trust.  They are neither of them named in the releases in the national mortgage fraud settlement.  It is difficult to see how either Regions or Sun Trust could have standing to raise the national mortgage fraud settlement releases as a defense to their criminal prosecution.

          Which raises questions here.

 Why is an individual loan officer of Sun Trust indicted because of his alleged fraudulent, conspiratorial mortgage-related conduct (see ¶ 37 p. 6; Count I ¶ 2 pp. 7-8 and ¶¶ 8-19 pp. 10-14; and Count II ¶ 2 pp. 15-16 and ¶ 5 pp. 17-22), but not his bosses or any of his co-workers at Sun Trust?

Particularly when at one point, the indictment lists fifteen (15) specific instances of alleged criminal mortgage fraud conduct (specifically, alleged bank fraud) including "[s]ubmission of fraudulent mortgage loan application, closing, and related documents" for the purpose of obtaining loans to purchase land and for the purpose of obtaining loans to begin construction on that land -- and 9 out of the 15 specific instances involved fraudulent submissions accepted by Sun Trust?  Is it credible that one and only one loan officer had the power to totally review every document in every single one of these (and certainly other) loan submissions -- and that no-one else at the bank, not his superiors, not his coworkers, no-one -- reviewed either a single one of these documents or this one loan officer's job performance?

 These are only some of the questions raised here.  Let's start with asking these questions and we'll work our way through others.

The national mortgage fraud settlement is examined in a four-part series here and on Insurance Claims and Issues Weblog.  The series began on Monday, Jan. 30,2012 on Insurance Claims and Issues Weblog.  Part 2 was posted on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012 on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, and Part 3 was posted on February 1, 2012 on Insurance Claims and Issues Weblog.  The final leg of the series, Part 4, was posted here on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on February 2, 2012. 

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

NEW RULE! THE CASE OF "THE OVERREACHING RELEASE".

         In Government Emp's Ins. Co. v. Prushansky, 2014 WL 47734 (S.D. Fla. January 7, 2014), a Federal District Judge found a new rule in Florida jurisprudence.  The Federal Judge denied a liability insurance company's motion for summary judgment in a bad-faith-failure-to-settle case in part because there is inherently a fact question "where an overreaching release is proposed".

          In the Prushansky case, the overreaching-release-fact-question came about when counsel for the underlying claimant testified that the underlying defense counsel representing the defendants-insureds told him, the counsel for the underlying claimant, that the insurance company refused to delete indemnity language in a proposed release.   Government Emp's Ins. Co. v. Prushansky, 2014 WL 47734 *10 (S.D. Fla. January 7, 2014)   (citing two Florida cases linked in the opinion available on Westlaw).

          The counsel for the claimants testified that he filed the underlying lawsuit in the first place because the carrier failed to remove indemnity language from its proposed release "and offer more than" the policy limit.  Government Emp's Ins. Co. v. Prushansky, 2014 WL 47734 *6 (S.D. Fla. January 7, 2014).

          Later, after the underlying lawsuit was filed, the claimants' counsel rejected the liability insurance company's tender of its policy limits accompanied by a release with the indemnity language intact.  Government Emp's Ins. Co. v. Prushansky, 2014 WL 47734 *7 (S.D. Fla. January 7, 2014).

          A new rule emerges like an island in the ocean of bad-faith-failure-to-settle cases.  Who knew a rule was even there, or about to arise?  Or that heaven forbid we need a new "rule" when in Florida such a case as was presented here would likely go to the Jury anyway?

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

DOWNTON ABBEY KILLS. COLD BLOOD, BAD FAITH?

          Two of the many good things about owning a blog is that, at least after 8 years on the job so to speak,  you can say what you think is worth saying, and you can say that when you think the time is right to say it.  Such as these reflections on what seems to be bad faith off screen in Downton Abbey.  The television series continued (finally!) on Sunday night here in the U.S.

          Dan Stevens is the actor who portrayed Matthew Crawley until his character was killed off in the final show of last season.  The actor wanted to leave the show.

          At the time, comments by those responsible for Downton Abbey seemed to reflect bad faith.  They gave rise to a lingering suspicion something along the lines of "If Dan Stevens is going to leave, he'll never come back.  We'll kill his character and he'll never be able to come back on the show."

          Recently published comments indicate that the passing of time has allowed an opportunity to also express other thoughts perhaps more palatable to television audiences.  Made a year or so later, these comments suggest alternative reasons for killing Matthew, other than spite, ill will ... or bad faith.  See Sarah Lyall, "Life Goes On, at Long Last" p. 1, col. 2 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Arts&Leisure" Section, Sunday, January 5, 2014).

          In truth, human beings usually have more than one reason for doing a thing.  In this case, these recently published comments are only now becoming widely available. 

Postscript of Wednesday, January 8, 2014:

The long-awaited season debut of "Downton Abbey" on U.S. TV on Sunday, January 5, 2014 has no superiors in the long history of U.S. television ratings.  As many television viewers in the U.S. watched that show as have watched any other television show in U.S. history.  See Bill Carter, "'Downton Abbey' Returns to a Record Audience" p. C3, col. 3 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "THEARTS" Section, Wednesday, January 8, 2014).

 

Copyright 2014 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.

Related articles

'Downton Abbey' Returns to a Record Audience

 

CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE NEVER TO BE OFFERED, RARELY TO BE USED.

            I confess.

          I am confused by recent newspaper reports about the Little Sisters of the Poor and their lawsuit against contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.  I decided I needed to pay more attention to understand the grave constitutional issues that seemed to be involved.

          So I went to the opinions and the briefs and memos.  After reading them, I am not as confused.

          I am astonished.

          Parties have filed one of many lawsuits because they want to enforce their asserted constitutional right to practice a religion that professes the strong belief that conception is a moral wrong.  But they will never have to provide conception coverage to their employees.  But their group health plan administrator cannot be required to provide contraception coverage, either.  Yet, they all assert that their constitutional rights are being denied, somehow.

          Let's begin at the beginning.  The Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged is a nonprofit corporation in Colorado which runs a nursing home.  The Little Sisters of the Poor, Baltimore, Inc., is a Maryland nonprofit corporation which also runs a nursing home.  Each corporation is an "employer" for purposes of the ACA or "Obamacare" law.

          The Little Sisters corporations together filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Colorado against the ACA.  Specifically, both employers seek to overturn the preventive services Regulations mandated by the ACA, at least to the extent that the Regs require contraceptive coverage to be offered in the case of the ordinary employer.

          The Little Sisters corporations contend that they are not ordinary employers but that their rights are violated by the Act and by the Regs anyway.  To distill the legal arguments out of their complexity, the Little Sisters corporations do not have to pay for or otherwise provide coverage for contraception in their group health plans for their employees.  However, they would as an alternative have to provide a "self-certificate" that they are religious organizations and that they object to a certain provision of the Act on religious grounds, or in this case, that they object  to a certain provision of the Regs on religious grounds.

          If they provide that self-certificate to their third-party administrator for their self-insured group health plan, then supposedly the administrator of their plan would be required by other laws to provide or arrange for payment of contraception coverage.  This requirement is not imposed on the Little Sisters and it is not imposed by the Affordable Care Act.  This requirement is imposed on the health plan administrator, however, if the Little Sisters provide a "self-certificate," and further, the requirement is imposed as a result of a separate law, ERISA or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

          However, in the case of the Little Sisters corporations, their administrator is not subject to ERISA.  Their self-insured group health plan is with the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust.  Their administrator is another Catholic religious organization which does not arrange for contraception coverage and never has, the Christian Brothers Services.

          And it does not have to.  To say again, the Trust is not subject to ERISA and so the administrator is not required to provide contraception coverage.  The Federal Government admits that it has no power to require the Little Sisters corporations to place their plan with an administrator which is subject to ERISA and thus to the requirement that the administrator provide contraception coverage or arrange for payment of contraception coverage.

          So, the 16 counts of the Little Sisters' complaint against contraception coverage come down to this:  If they comply with the law, then they will be participating in a legal scheme which they do not condone.  In other words, they do not like the law, even though it requires nothing more from them than a "self-certificate" which has no effect.  With all due respect, that argument is not worthy of the Little Sisters.

        Second, leave it to judges and other lawyers not to mention the fact that the two Little Sisters corporations run nursing homes.  And they are talking about their fears of providing contraception coverage?   I remember a time when the main concern of organizations like Little Sisters of the Poor would be the poor.

          Parenthetically, this point is illustrated by a declaration prepared for one of the Little Sisters that asserts her opposition to "post-conception contraception".  I have never met a nun who speaks like that.  The nuns I know would sooner stand you up in the front of the classroom and let everyone know what a stupid thing you just said if they caught you saying that.  This declaration is supposed to be evidence of an opposition to preventing conception after a woman has conceived, is it?  

          The District Court decision is published as Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, etc., et al v. Sebelius, etc., et al,  2013 WL 6389900 (D. Colo. December 27, 2013).  The declaration of opposition to "post-conception contraception" is at page *8 thereof.  Justice Sotomayor's temporary stay on New Year's Eve of the District Judge's ruling of constitutionality, after the Tenth Circuit refused a stay, is found at 2013 WL 6869391.  Representative newspaper reports are found at Robert Pear, "Justices Are Asked to Reject Nuns' Challenge to Health Law / Order Objects to a Requirement That It 'Opt Out'" p. A9, col. 4 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Saturday, January 4, 2014); and Adam Liptak, "News Analysis / Health Law Challenge Opens Up New Front" p. A7, col. 5 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Thursday, January 2, 2014).

Postscript on Wednesday, January 8, 2014:

The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times agrees.  The objection argued on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor is "hard to fathom".  The Times Editorial Board goes even further in their recent editiorial on this case.  Even if the Little Sisters of the Poor "was using a non-religious insurer, and even if the insurer provided the [contraception] coverage" -- and in this case, in reality, the Little Sisters are using a "religious insurer" which does not have to provide the contraception coverage -- "[t]hat others might ultimately pay for the coverage isn't the charity's business."  Editorial, "The Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Obamacare / The Roman Catholic Nuns' Challenge to the Contraceptive Coverage Mandate of the Affordable Care Act is Hard to Fathom" (Los Angeles Times Online, posted Tuesday, January 7, 2014).

© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to original U.S. Government works.

Related articles

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns - New York Times