Sounds to me like this lawsuit is the result of the “If I’m not benefiting, you don’t get to either.” mentality.
What really gets me is that there are more important things that these people can be fighting for.
Out of curiosity, are these benefits specific to a persons religion? Or could a non-christian, such as a Muslim that also gives tithes to their mosque, benefit from this?
When anyone files an action in court, the first question that must be asked is who has suffered damages? I’m not particularly pro or anti church and I would never purchase this type of policy. But whose rights (to life, liberty, or property) does this “Alliance” claimed have been damaged because of the insurance company’s actions?
There are a lot of perks in life that don’t apply to me. I guess that means that I should file a discrimination claim against every company that offers perks. The Grocery store has preferred parking for expectant mother’s- I’ll never be one… I should sue.
Does this mean that if I am Catholic and this is say, a Lutheran group. I go to their church and make an offering, am I entitled to compensation if I get hurt at home and am unable to work? How can this be discriminatory? I would like to see the conditions on how they figure who is an “insured” and who is not. Also, this would work fine if my offerings were in the form of a check, but what if I gave cash? What if I only attended this church occasionally? I’d like to see how this actually works……Does one have to be a “registered” parishoner? Hmmm…..
Here is what the policy is intended to do. No one has said that you MUST take this policy. It does indeed have a target audience.
GuideOne Insurance, one of the nation’s leading insurers of churches, has combined its expertise in church and personal lines insurance with its commitment to social responsibility to provide unique auto and home benefits for churchgoers and people of faith.
In addition to all of the features and benefits you’d expect from a standard auto or homeowners policy, FaithGuard offers churchgoers the following features at no additional charge.
FaithGuard Auto Features
If the insured is involved in an auto accident while driving directly to or from a church service or other scheduled worship activity, the deductible is waived.
Church tithing or donations up to $750 are covered if the insured suffers a loss of income from a disability caused by an accident in an insured auto.
Medical limits are doubled if the insured is involved in an accident while driving non-family members directly to or from a church service or other scheduled worship activity.
Any existing auto loan payments on covered autos up to $3,000 are paid if the insured suffers a loss of income from a disability caused by an accident in an insured auto while driving directly to or from a church service or other scheduled worship activity.
A memorial gift of $1,000 will be made to the insured’s church if his or her auto is involved in any car accident that results in the insured’s death or the death of a household family member.
FaithGuard Homeowners Features
The deductible is waived if there is a loss of personal property while it is in the care, custody, and control of the church.
Church tithing or donations (up to $750) are paid if the insured suffers a loss of income from a disability caused by any accident at the insured’s residence.
Medical limits for an injury are doubled if the policyholder hosts an activity at home on behalf of the insured’s church and an attendee is injured during the activity.
The insured’s mortgage payments are made (up to $7,500) if her or she suffers a loss of income from a disability caused by an accident at the insured’s residence.
I don’t have a freezer, but my HO policy provides coverage if my freezer quits. It seems that I might be discriminated against and should sue my carrier. While I am at it, I might as well sue Whirlpool.
I think this is a very innovative type of coverage. I agree that people need to find something else to ***** about. If you don’t go to church that’s between you and your God. No one is pulling arms or hard-selling in order to get insureds. Goodness gracious! I guess I should sue Geico and Progressive for always asking me to switch. I pay tithes and offerings and have been out of work due to disability. My church is 90 miles round trip in Atlanta. That in itself is an accident waiting to happen even on an early Sunday morning. This coverage would have helped with back tithes and potential accidents…
Pat,
Can you comment on my questions? I’m puzzled. How exactly is this discriminatory? Does Faithguard offer this same coverage to other denominations?
Thanks!
I looked at GuideOne’s website. Everything is aimed at “Christians”.
I wonder if they would insure a mosque or a temple or even pay benefits on behalf of non-Christians.
If they refuse to insure based on religious beliefs, perhaps that is the reason for the suit.
This wouldn’t even be an issue if they were marketing to Musslims. Nobody would be talking about descrimination. But mention the word Christian and somebody has to be sued.
I’m not absolutely sure from reading the article, but it appears that this is an endorsement that is an additional premium?
If so, what’s the rub? If you don’t have the “exposure,” don’t buy the coverage. Same with any other endorsement, if I don’t have the exposure necessary to buy the coverage – how does that make the fact that it is available discriminatory?
Manny, I’m sad to say, hit it on the head…anytime “Christian” enters into it, there must be hate and malice involved.
Progressive is now offering coverage for pets injured in accidents, I don’t have any pets so I think I’ll sue as I’m being discriminated against.
All of you that just “knee jerked,” you get the point – if you ain’t hurt by it, and it doesn’t hurt anyone else – it shouldn’t concern you. I don’t care if Progressive policyholders with pets get an additional coverage – great marketing idea as far as I see.
Progressive’s Pet Coverage only covers dogs and cats so they won’t cover my pet reptile. When you sue could you look into taking it civil action? I know my bearded dragon has suffered immense psychological turmoil after finding out Progressive is discriminating against cold-blooded animals.
The National Fair Housing Alliance Inc. of Washington, D.C., and Fair Housing Associates Association of Akron are obviously communist, non-christian members of the ACLU ( American COO-COO Liberals Unitarians )
Although I have had no contact with Guide One for several years my experience with Guide One goes back into the 1990’s. I worked for an advisory organization that provided services to Guide One. At that time they were named ‘Preferred Risk Mutual’. Preferred Risk, related to their special rates in personal lines for non-smokers (cause for yet another suit??). They were, howver, a large writer of churches as well. Most of their business was Protestant denominations or non-denominational churches. I know on no reason they wouldn’t quote a Catholic church (no specific underwriting guidelines) except most of the Catholic churches were written as part of a diocese by a company based in Omaha or handled by Gallagher-Bassett in Chicago.
Their marketing view of the world comes from people living and working around West Des Moines, IA. What they do seems consistent with people located in the heartland.
I checked the website of this organization. They list major ‘partners and sponsors’. Along with the affliated suers you will find State Farm and Nationwide. Interesting.
At one time when they were Preferred Risk, they actually made their customers sign a form that they promised to not smoke or drink while they had the policy with them.
Another question that came to mind was just how many claims they have had from these endorsements. It would seem that it’s mostly about marketing to a small segment.
If the group which has filed suit prevails in this case , then it would open the door to eliminate auto insurance under the same premise. It is dicriminatory to those without cars. I wonder if those who support this litigation have considered that?
I haven’t read all of the comments, so I apologize if i’m repeating someone else’s thoughts…
but i wonder if these people are paying more premium for this benefit? if they are then how can it be discrimination? wouldn’t it be the consumer’s choice to have that kind of coverage?
Wouldn’t you hate to be a claims adjuster for this company?…I can just imagine some of the whacky claims they must get…
uh yeah…I’m a member of Billy Bob’s Backyard Revival church…I’d like for my tithes to be paid to him…he’s my brother-in-law…is that a problem??
Here’s the big truth…belonging to a church does not make you a moral person, and not belonging to a church does not make you immoral. Personal Character is not tied to Church Membership.
I guess I don’t see how the point of being moral vs. immoral based on mebership or non-membership is relevant to the lawsuit. The charges are discrimination.
In a post on Nov. 29 by Pat describing the coverage, Pat states that the coverage is at no additional cost.
Anyway, why do you need coverage for tithing? Tithing is a percentage of your income. 10% of $0 is $0 and if you have a small income, the dollar value of the tithe is reduced. This seems more of a waste of insured’s premium dollars.
The discrimination may come about by the fact that they are providing coverage for church related activities at personal residences for no additional premium, but may be refusing to provide coverage for a meeting of the local IBEW (fill in any other organization name here) at Joe Shmoe’s house.
Granted, it is at no additional charge, the policy also pays your mortgage (up to $7,500) if the insured suffers a disability caused by an accident at the insured’s residence.
I would love my HO policy to do that; I think I’ll sue cause they are getting better coverage than me.
How could anybody think this is discrimnatory – it says “for churchgoers and people of faith,” doesn’t say which church or whuch faith. The lawer stated that no one has been turned down for the coverage.
Also, that 10% thing is an Old Testament guideline we have adopted in the New Testament Church. If your church is in a building campaign and you want to contribute, or have pleged to contribute – it would be nice to live up to that.
As stated by someone earlier – if you ain’t hurt by it and neither is anyone else – why do you care?
What your HO carrier does and another HO carrier does is a whole different story. This issue relates to what is going on within one carrier and how they treat different groups of people.
Regarding your statement:
“How could anybody think this is discrimnatory – it says “for churchgoers and people of faith,” doesn’t say which church or whuch faith. The lawer stated that no one has been turned down for the coverage.”
You are assuming every one IS a church goer. There are athiests out there (one recent statistic I read indicates between 15% of the U.S. population) and there are even more people who believe but do not attend church or are unsure about their beliefs. Now, they are free to choose to obtain coverage wherever they want. They do not have to obtain coverage through this insurer; but, this is beside the point, as can be attested to by probably all anti-discriminatory cases.
You stated: As stated by someone earlier – if you ain’t hurt by it and neither is anyone else – why do you care?
Because someone could be hurt by it. How is the insurer paying for claims under this coverage or additional underwriting and production costs if there is no additional premium? It is included in their rate structure. If someone is a non-church goer, they could be paying a higher premium to subsidize this coverage. Like I said before, are they willing to offer coverage for the local IBEW meeting held at a members house? If it is considered a business activity, probably not. In this, perhaps lies the discriminatory nature.
Face it – there’s no real discrimination. If you don’t want to pay the supposed subsidized premium – DON’T. Go someplace else for coverage.
If they are the best premium in town and you don’t happen to benefit by the additional coverage – what do you care? I just don’t see it.
I highly doubt an athiest would even be buying insurance from this company (since their “belief” system should put them at moral odds with their insurance carrier). But if they do, it’s probably on price.
Based on current numbers, in reality regular church goers are now in the minority. Further, based on historical perspective in the US, minority groups usually garner more protection under the law than majority groups. Why is that not the case here? Why is the minority being subjected to these charges – because of the word “Christian” perhaps.
I doubt anyone would care if it were a Musslim carrier giving away free prayer rugs.
Be real – if the premiums are higher due to this, they will lose business, if they are lower – they will gain business. Based on the logic that it makes the premium higher means that NO insurance carrier should give ANY additional protection of any kind in the policy as an incentive or unique offering to set themselves apart from the competition – because not everyone needs it and they shouldn’t have to pay for it if they don’t need it.
I don’t sell on price, as a broker, I sell on coverage (knowing that price is important), but if I have a carrier that throws in something that client might find appealing – GREAT!
Is it discrimination to deny promotions or raises to people at their jobs due to their gender, race, religion etc.? If they don’t like it they can get a job elsewhere…that is…by your logic.
The point is not that they can go somewhere else to obtain equal treatment, it is that they shouldn’t have too.
BTW, My hats off to you for selling on coverage and not price.
Uh, what!? That hurts people, additional coverages you may not need doesn’t. Not even in the same logical sphere.
I don’t “need” several coverages extended by my homeowner policy, does that make them wrong? Some, I don’t think I’ll ever need – does that make it unfair? Read your homeowners policy – see what’s there you may not need or qualify to receive.
BTW – I don’t have the policy being discussed, just think it’s a rediculous accusation.
Everybody written with that carrier can choose the endorsement, so it is fair. I’m pretty sure a “Church” is one that qualifies under the law (the government has rules for everything), so my “church” in my garage would not qualify – but the one that my neighbor goes to does. I don’t consider that unfair since laws (statutory and precedent) apply to all loss situtations.
Wow, that’s definately narrow-casting of insurance. Certainly would appeal to a segment that’s generally not a pro-insurance crowd.
Sounds to me like this lawsuit is the result of the “If I’m not benefiting, you don’t get to either.” mentality.
What really gets me is that there are more important things that these people can be fighting for.
Out of curiosity, are these benefits specific to a persons religion? Or could a non-christian, such as a Muslim that also gives tithes to their mosque, benefit from this?
When anyone files an action in court, the first question that must be asked is who has suffered damages? I’m not particularly pro or anti church and I would never purchase this type of policy. But whose rights (to life, liberty, or property) does this “Alliance” claimed have been damaged because of the insurance company’s actions?
There are a lot of perks in life that don’t apply to me. I guess that means that I should file a discrimination claim against every company that offers perks. The Grocery store has preferred parking for expectant mother’s- I’ll never be one… I should sue.
Does this mean that if I am Catholic and this is say, a Lutheran group. I go to their church and make an offering, am I entitled to compensation if I get hurt at home and am unable to work? How can this be discriminatory? I would like to see the conditions on how they figure who is an “insured” and who is not. Also, this would work fine if my offerings were in the form of a check, but what if I gave cash? What if I only attended this church occasionally? I’d like to see how this actually works……Does one have to be a “registered” parishoner? Hmmm…..
Here is what the policy is intended to do. No one has said that you MUST take this policy. It does indeed have a target audience.
GuideOne Insurance, one of the nation’s leading insurers of churches, has combined its expertise in church and personal lines insurance with its commitment to social responsibility to provide unique auto and home benefits for churchgoers and people of faith.
In addition to all of the features and benefits you’d expect from a standard auto or homeowners policy, FaithGuard offers churchgoers the following features at no additional charge.
FaithGuard Auto Features
If the insured is involved in an auto accident while driving directly to or from a church service or other scheduled worship activity, the deductible is waived.
Church tithing or donations up to $750 are covered if the insured suffers a loss of income from a disability caused by an accident in an insured auto.
Medical limits are doubled if the insured is involved in an accident while driving non-family members directly to or from a church service or other scheduled worship activity.
Any existing auto loan payments on covered autos up to $3,000 are paid if the insured suffers a loss of income from a disability caused by an accident in an insured auto while driving directly to or from a church service or other scheduled worship activity.
A memorial gift of $1,000 will be made to the insured’s church if his or her auto is involved in any car accident that results in the insured’s death or the death of a household family member.
FaithGuard Homeowners Features
The deductible is waived if there is a loss of personal property while it is in the care, custody, and control of the church.
Church tithing or donations (up to $750) are paid if the insured suffers a loss of income from a disability caused by any accident at the insured’s residence.
Medical limits for an injury are doubled if the policyholder hosts an activity at home on behalf of the insured’s church and an attendee is injured during the activity.
The insured’s mortgage payments are made (up to $7,500) if her or she suffers a loss of income from a disability caused by an accident at the insured’s residence.
I don’t have a freezer, but my HO policy provides coverage if my freezer quits. It seems that I might be discriminated against and should sue my carrier. While I am at it, I might as well sue Whirlpool.
Pat,
Just a quick question about that FaithGuard policy as you seem to be familiar with it.
Can this be purchased for all faiths/denominations?
I think this is a very innovative type of coverage. I agree that people need to find something else to ***** about. If you don’t go to church that’s between you and your God. No one is pulling arms or hard-selling in order to get insureds. Goodness gracious! I guess I should sue Geico and Progressive for always asking me to switch. I pay tithes and offerings and have been out of work due to disability. My church is 90 miles round trip in Atlanta. That in itself is an accident waiting to happen even on an early Sunday morning. This coverage would have helped with back tithes and potential accidents…
Pat,
Can you comment on my questions? I’m puzzled. How exactly is this discriminatory? Does Faithguard offer this same coverage to other denominations?
Thanks!
“award unspecified monetary damages.”
How much clearer can it be? This is the the real reason for the “lawsuit.”
I don’t think I would want to sue to anyone that literally has God on their side.
I looked at GuideOne’s website. Everything is aimed at “Christians”.
I wonder if they would insure a mosque or a temple or even pay benefits on behalf of non-Christians.
If they refuse to insure based on religious beliefs, perhaps that is the reason for the suit.
This wouldn’t even be an issue if they were marketing to Musslims. Nobody would be talking about descrimination. But mention the word Christian and somebody has to be sued.
I’m not absolutely sure from reading the article, but it appears that this is an endorsement that is an additional premium?
If so, what’s the rub? If you don’t have the “exposure,” don’t buy the coverage. Same with any other endorsement, if I don’t have the exposure necessary to buy the coverage – how does that make the fact that it is available discriminatory?
Manny, I’m sad to say, hit it on the head…anytime “Christian” enters into it, there must be hate and malice involved.
Progressive is now offering coverage for pets injured in accidents, I don’t have any pets so I think I’ll sue as I’m being discriminated against.
All of you that just “knee jerked,” you get the point – if you ain’t hurt by it, and it doesn’t hurt anyone else – it shouldn’t concern you. I don’t care if Progressive policyholders with pets get an additional coverage – great marketing idea as far as I see.
Agreed, well put!
Progressive’s Pet Coverage only covers dogs and cats so they won’t cover my pet reptile. When you sue could you look into taking it civil action? I know my bearded dragon has suffered immense psychological turmoil after finding out Progressive is discriminating against cold-blooded animals.
The National Fair Housing Alliance Inc. of Washington, D.C., and Fair Housing Associates Association of Akron are obviously communist, non-christian members of the ACLU ( American COO-COO Liberals Unitarians )
Although I have had no contact with Guide One for several years my experience with Guide One goes back into the 1990’s. I worked for an advisory organization that provided services to Guide One. At that time they were named ‘Preferred Risk Mutual’. Preferred Risk, related to their special rates in personal lines for non-smokers (cause for yet another suit??). They were, howver, a large writer of churches as well. Most of their business was Protestant denominations or non-denominational churches. I know on no reason they wouldn’t quote a Catholic church (no specific underwriting guidelines) except most of the Catholic churches were written as part of a diocese by a company based in Omaha or handled by Gallagher-Bassett in Chicago.
Their marketing view of the world comes from people living and working around West Des Moines, IA. What they do seems consistent with people located in the heartland.
I checked the website of this organization. They list major ‘partners and sponsors’. Along with the affliated suers you will find State Farm and Nationwide. Interesting.
At one time when they were Preferred Risk, they actually made their customers sign a form that they promised to not smoke or drink while they had the policy with them.
Another question that came to mind was just how many claims they have had from these endorsements. It would seem that it’s mostly about marketing to a small segment.
If the group which has filed suit prevails in this case , then it would open the door to eliminate auto insurance under the same premise. It is dicriminatory to those without cars. I wonder if those who support this litigation have considered that?
I haven’t read all of the comments, so I apologize if i’m repeating someone else’s thoughts…
but i wonder if these people are paying more premium for this benefit? if they are then how can it be discrimination? wouldn’t it be the consumer’s choice to have that kind of coverage?
I don’t consider myself a Christian and I agree with you whole heartedly…
Wouldn’t you hate to be a claims adjuster for this company?…I can just imagine some of the whacky claims they must get…
uh yeah…I’m a member of Billy Bob’s Backyard Revival church…I’d like for my tithes to be paid to him…he’s my brother-in-law…is that a problem??
Here’s the big truth…belonging to a church does not make you a moral person, and not belonging to a church does not make you immoral. Personal Character is not tied to Church Membership.
I guess I don’t see how the point of being moral vs. immoral based on mebership or non-membership is relevant to the lawsuit. The charges are discrimination.
In a post on Nov. 29 by Pat describing the coverage, Pat states that the coverage is at no additional cost.
Anyway, why do you need coverage for tithing? Tithing is a percentage of your income. 10% of $0 is $0 and if you have a small income, the dollar value of the tithe is reduced. This seems more of a waste of insured’s premium dollars.
The discrimination may come about by the fact that they are providing coverage for church related activities at personal residences for no additional premium, but may be refusing to provide coverage for a meeting of the local IBEW (fill in any other organization name here) at Joe Shmoe’s house.
Granted, it is at no additional charge, the policy also pays your mortgage (up to $7,500) if the insured suffers a disability caused by an accident at the insured’s residence.
I would love my HO policy to do that; I think I’ll sue cause they are getting better coverage than me.
How could anybody think this is discrimnatory – it says “for churchgoers and people of faith,” doesn’t say which church or whuch faith. The lawer stated that no one has been turned down for the coverage.
Also, that 10% thing is an Old Testament guideline we have adopted in the New Testament Church. If your church is in a building campaign and you want to contribute, or have pleged to contribute – it would be nice to live up to that.
As stated by someone earlier – if you ain’t hurt by it and neither is anyone else – why do you care?
What your HO carrier does and another HO carrier does is a whole different story. This issue relates to what is going on within one carrier and how they treat different groups of people.
Regarding your statement:
“How could anybody think this is discrimnatory – it says “for churchgoers and people of faith,” doesn’t say which church or whuch faith. The lawer stated that no one has been turned down for the coverage.”
You are assuming every one IS a church goer. There are athiests out there (one recent statistic I read indicates between 15% of the U.S. population) and there are even more people who believe but do not attend church or are unsure about their beliefs. Now, they are free to choose to obtain coverage wherever they want. They do not have to obtain coverage through this insurer; but, this is beside the point, as can be attested to by probably all anti-discriminatory cases.
You stated: As stated by someone earlier – if you ain’t hurt by it and neither is anyone else – why do you care?
Because someone could be hurt by it. How is the insurer paying for claims under this coverage or additional underwriting and production costs if there is no additional premium? It is included in their rate structure. If someone is a non-church goer, they could be paying a higher premium to subsidize this coverage. Like I said before, are they willing to offer coverage for the local IBEW meeting held at a members house? If it is considered a business activity, probably not. In this, perhaps lies the discriminatory nature.
Face it – there’s no real discrimination. If you don’t want to pay the supposed subsidized premium – DON’T. Go someplace else for coverage.
If they are the best premium in town and you don’t happen to benefit by the additional coverage – what do you care? I just don’t see it.
I highly doubt an athiest would even be buying insurance from this company (since their “belief” system should put them at moral odds with their insurance carrier). But if they do, it’s probably on price.
Based on current numbers, in reality regular church goers are now in the minority. Further, based on historical perspective in the US, minority groups usually garner more protection under the law than majority groups. Why is that not the case here? Why is the minority being subjected to these charges – because of the word “Christian” perhaps.
I doubt anyone would care if it were a Musslim carrier giving away free prayer rugs.
Be real – if the premiums are higher due to this, they will lose business, if they are lower – they will gain business. Based on the logic that it makes the premium higher means that NO insurance carrier should give ANY additional protection of any kind in the policy as an incentive or unique offering to set themselves apart from the competition – because not everyone needs it and they shouldn’t have to pay for it if they don’t need it.
I don’t sell on price, as a broker, I sell on coverage (knowing that price is important), but if I have a carrier that throws in something that client might find appealing – GREAT!
Is it discrimination to deny promotions or raises to people at their jobs due to their gender, race, religion etc.? If they don’t like it they can get a job elsewhere…that is…by your logic.
The point is not that they can go somewhere else to obtain equal treatment, it is that they shouldn’t have too.
BTW, My hats off to you for selling on coverage and not price.
Uh, what!? That hurts people, additional coverages you may not need doesn’t. Not even in the same logical sphere.
I don’t “need” several coverages extended by my homeowner policy, does that make them wrong? Some, I don’t think I’ll ever need – does that make it unfair? Read your homeowners policy – see what’s there you may not need or qualify to receive.
BTW – I don’t have the policy being discussed, just think it’s a rediculous accusation.
Everybody written with that carrier can choose the endorsement, so it is fair. I’m pretty sure a “Church” is one that qualifies under the law (the government has rules for everything), so my “church” in my garage would not qualify – but the one that my neighbor goes to does. I don’t consider that unfair since laws (statutory and precedent) apply to all loss situtations.
Thanks for the “hats off.”