New York Department Investigating Life, Disability, and Long-term Care Insurers for Alleged Discrimination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.16.18
Following a report in the New York Times, the New York Department of Financial Services announced February 14 that it will investigate assertions that life and disability insurers writing in New York denied coverage to persons taking an anti-HIV drug, Truvada, as a means of preventing the onset of AIDS. The Superintendent of DFS stated that such denials would be considered evidence of illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Section 4224 of the New York Insurance Law prohibits “unfair discrimination” by life and health insurers and where sound actuarial justification for such discrimination is absent. Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law empowers the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief, and restitution and damages, against any business engaged in repeated illegal acts.
Clients writing life, disability, and long-term care policies in New York are subject to being examined by the Department and investigated by the New York Attorney General for potential discriminatory denials of coverage to persons taking Truvada. Those clients may find it advisable to undertake immediate steps to completely retain and comprehensively review their underwriting records, including all relevant e-mails and inter-company communications, to determine the extent to which such denials of coverage occurred.
For further information please contact Senior Counsel Richard Liskov, a former Deputy Superintendent and General Counsel of the New York Insurance Department, at rliskov@crowell.com.
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
