Insurance pact bill is ‘racist,’ foes say

Non-English speakers who buy auto or home insurance in Arizona could soon be bound to a version of a contract that they can’t read.

State lawmakers are considering a bill that would make the English-language version of all insurance agreements the legally binding form, even if a customer receives the contract in another language that contains conflicting wording.

The bill has stoked a fiery debate between some Republican legislators and immigrant activists, who say the proposal is “racist” and would make immigrant groups vulnerable to fraud.

On Monday, the House Banking and

“This is inherently a very prejudiced and racist bill. This bill contains very dangerous language.” Tomas Robles Executive director, Living United for Change in Arizona

Insurance Committee voted 5-3, along partisan lines, to move the bill forward after a terse exchange between lawmakers.

Bill sponsor and committee chairman Rep. David Livingston disputed complaints that the bill House Bill 2083, is racially motivated. He said it is actually intended to give insurance companies an incentive to offer more policies in languages other than English.

“Just for the record, I did not appreciate the grandstanding,” said Livingston, R-Peoria. “I think there’s been a lot of misrepresentation about this bill.”

Livingston’s argument was echoed by a lobbyist for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. who testified that it would make it easier for the company to offer non-English services because it would have a “layer of protection” in case of a lawsuit.

Democratic lawmakers and several immigrant advocates who testified to the House committee, often in Spanish, said the bill gives insurance companies an unfair advantage over nonEnglish consumers, who would agree to the terms of contracts they cannot read.

They worry that those customers would have no legal recourse if they file claims and find that the English version of their contract reads differently than the one in their language.

“I just don’t think that’s fair,” said Rep. Athena Salman, D-Tempe. “The fear and concern is that we’re creating structural barriers that are going to impact people.”

The bill would affect contracts for a wide variety of insurance types, including auto, home and life policies. An existing state regulation requires insurers to provide a sworn statement from a translator that the translated insurance documents are identical in substance to the English version of the contract.

Tomas Robles, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), an immigrant-advocacy group, testified that the bill would make it lawful for anyone to misrepresent contract language to non-English speakers.

“This is inherently a very prejudiced and racist bill,” he told lawmakers. “This bill contains very dangerous language.”

Democrats also questioned why Nationwide doesn’t use translation services that already are available through the Arizona Department of Insurance. They said other companies have offered non-English services without changing state law.

Nationwide was the only insurance company represented at the hearing, but lobbyists for several others, including Geico, State Farm and Farmers, support the move.

Meanwhile, Republicans on the committee repeatedly pushed back against concerns that the bill is motivated by racism. They said state law already prohibits insurance fraud, arguing that the bill is needed to make clear which form of contracts are legally controlling.

“I don’t see this as being racist,” said Rep. Paul Mosley, R-Lake Havasu City. “We live in America, and in America, we speak English.”

Livingston amended the bill on Monday, adding a requirement that the non-English version of a contract must have a disclaimer on the cover that reads: “The English language version of this policy controls in the event of a conflict of varying interpretation of the coverage provided under this policy.”

The bill now advances to the House Rules Committee, where it will receive further vetting.

Monday’s hearing ended with a spat between Livingston and Salman.

At the conclusion, Livingston chided Democrats on the committee — without mentioning names — for “grandstanding.” He said if members “bring activists in to speak,” they could have arranged for translators.

Salman attempted to respond to Livingston, saying, “Mr. Chairman, a point of order.”

But Livingston graveled the meeting to a close without calling on Salman. “No, thank you . ... We’re adjourned.”

“Wait a minute,” Salman said as the gavel banged.