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 | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
