From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Springfield Oregon insurance liability compromised
Organization: insert anything here
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:43:57 GMT

	That was in this week's Bay Windows (9/3-9/92)

	BIGOTRY HAS ITS COSTS

	"Insurance carrier downgrades town's lawsuit coverage"

[heading on the other page: Anti-gay law causes insurance downgrade]

by William McCall

PORTLAND, Ore (AP) - An anti-gay rights ordinance sponsored
by the Oregon Citizens Alliance caused a 24-day gap in insurance
coverage for the city of Springfield, a problem that could crop up state-
wide or nationally.

	The city's liability insurer, Fireman's Fund placed an exclusion
on Springfield's policy from July 1 - July 24 saying it would not cover
any losses arising from discrmination lawsuits over the ordinance,
said assistnat city manager,Gino Grimaldi.

	Fireman's Fund, based in Novato, Calif., has now agreed to cover
such losses but only up to $1 million.  It previously would have
provided coverage up to $3 million.

	No such lawsuits have been filed and Grimaldi said city officials
feel the coverage is adequate.  

	The city should go to court to decide the constitutionality of the 
ordinance "before a plaintiff and small horde of attorneys from around
the country could take actio,"  Donald Waddell, the city's insurance agent, 
said in a June 25-dated letter to the city.

	The possibility of discrmination lawsuits was not an issue in 
the industry before the ordinance was passed, according to Grimaldi and 
the Fireman's Fund.

	"It did come as a surprise," Grimaldi said, "but I don't think there
was much exposure in that area."

	The response of insurance companies to the anti-gay rights 
initiatives will vary "because different carriers have different appetites
for risk," said Debbie Nosowski, a Fire man's Fund spokeswoman.

	"You're not going to get a universal response from the insurance 
industry," she said.

	But a group opposed to Measure 9 said the Springfield ordinance,
passed by voters in the May 19 primary, shows what could happen if
Oregon or other states try to restrict gay rights.

	"Every city, county, library, state agency, public college or 
university faces the real risk of discrimination lawsuits," said Ellen
Lowe, a spokeswoman for the No on 9 Campaign and a director for the
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon.

	"There you have an outside group imposing a risk on government 
over which they have very little control," Lowe said, "Anybody who is
a fiscal conservative should have some real concerns."

	The potential loss of liability coverage was dismissed as a 
minor issue by the head of the Oregon's Citizens Alliance, Lon Mabon.

	"I don't see how that will invite discrmination claims, because 
it doesn't make anything different," Mabon said.

	"We're just saying that what the homosexual community is desiring,
and that is minority status, will not be allowed."

	He predicted Measure 9 will pass, inviting other states to
adopt similar measure.  Colorado already has an anti-gay rights
measure on its November ballot.

	"Insurance companies will adjust to changing, more positive 
standards by communities," Mabon said.  "Or they'll find other carriers."

	The amendment to the Springfield charter prohibited the city
from any action that would "promote, encourage, or facilitate
homosexuality," the same language that appears in Measure 9, the statewide
initiative.


s



Newsgroups: soc.motss