Are women who stick around with abusive spouses simply choosing a risky lifestyle, such as skydiving or stock-car racing? That's what some insurers claim. Shocking as it may seem, insurers are using domestic violence as an underwriting criterion, a reason for denying battered women insurance coverage - homeowners, health and life.
It's as if we'd accepted domestic violence as an unavoidable disease, like chicken pox or cancer. While we may never eradicate spousal abuse, we won't be able to lessen its incidence if we simply shrug our shoulders and work it into the actuarial tables.The Women's Law Project and the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence this year documented verified reports of insurance discrimination around the country. In Santa Cruz, Calif., for example, a woman was repeatedly turned down for health insurance following review of her medical records (often required by insurers), which detailed two prior beatings by her husband.
An insurance company in Oregon canceled a woman's homeowner policy after her ex-spouse set fire to her house. A Minnesota woman, who remarried after leaving a battering spouse of 12 years, was denied coverage by two firms for any medical or psychiatric problems relating to her past abuse.
It's impossible to know how much loss insurers may have suffered because domestic violence injuries (4 million reported in 1993) often aren't recorded as such. But a 1994 survey by staff for a congressional subcommittee revealed eight of the 16 largest insurers use domestic violence as a risk criterion.
So far, only State Farm Insurance has vowed to bar domestic violence in the granting and renewing of coverage.
Meanwhile, five states have enacted laws to make such discrimination illegal. Others, including Georgia, will consider proposals next year. Georgia State Rep. Barbara Mobley (D-DeKalb) plans to introduce a bill to prevent what she calls such "pink-lining" - a term coined from anti-redlining laws that address property insurance discrimination in poor and high-crime neighborhoods.
Outrage over the issue has reached Congress where two bills give testimony to how tricky the issue is. H.R. 1920, sponsored by Rep. Susan Molinari (R-N.Y.), prohibits discrimination "solely" on the basis of abuse, but fails to prohibit it in renewals or violence-related injuries. H.R. 1201, sponsored by Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is more comprehensive. It provides for civil penalties, and bars consideration of abuse-related injuries as "pre-existing" conditions.
Steve Mosky, a spokesman for Aetna, says there's no need for legislation. Women's groups, he says, should stay focused on restoring full funding to the Violence Against Women Act instead. Aetna, primarily a group health and disability insurer, issued a position paper to confirm that domestic violence is not used as an underwriting criterion in its individual life insurance policies.
However, says the company, "impair-ments arising from exposure to violence of any kind would be evaluated in the same way as those arising from other causes."
Victims' advocates say it's hard enough to get women caught up in the domestic-violence cycle to seek help. Insurance scrutiny and denial on the basis of their medical reports can only make the tragic problem worse.