Check out this video featuring John Love, the President of TechAssure

At the inception of TechAssure it was agreed that the insurance policies then in existence did not adequately address the major risks of the average technology or life science company. These companies were typically venture-backed and were growing rapidly. TechAssure members came up with a wish-list of coverage enhancements and pricing targets and partnered with the leading insurance carriers in these areas to create best-in-class coverage forms that are offered at preferred rates. TechAssure later did the same thing for Venture Capital and Private Equity Funds creating an Asset Protection Program endorsed by the NVCA that addresses the unique exposures that VC/PE managers and members have in running their funds. It is much like a D&O policy but tailored to cover big liability holes that exist for fund managers and members in the execution of their duties in their respective roles.

By Patrick Yoest
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–The White House on Tuesday publicly backed legislation to repeal the health insurance industry’s antitrust exemption, a small part of the Obama administration’s still-uncertain strategy to pass broader health overhaul legislation.

The bill, which the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Wednesday, would remove insurers’ long-time exemption to competition laws, which Democrats hope will lower premiums in insurance markets by giving consumers more choices. The exemption for insurance companies was enacted in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

Specifically, the bill would strip the exemption for egregious violations such as price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation. The White House Office of Management and Budget in a statement announced its support for the legislation, saying that “this bill will benefit the American health-care consumer by ensuring that competition has a prominent role in reforming health insurance markets throughout the nation.”

House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, (D., N.Y.), a leading proponent of the bill, suggested that it is a matter of fairness that the industry is subject to the same rules as other companies.

“This industry has enjoyed a big giveaway for far too long, and it’s about time that it plays by the same rules as everyone else,” Slaughter said.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, said in a statement Tuesday that the health insurance industry is already highly regulated and that mergers and other business practices are already subject to federal antitrust laws. Further, it cited “legal uncertainty” that would be created by the new law, which it said would chill developments in the industry.

Leading insurers in AHIP include Aetna Inc. (AET), Humana Inc. (HUM), Cigna Corp. (CI) and UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH).

It’s uncertain how Republicans will come down on the bill. A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said Boehner had not announced how he would vote.

Congressional Democrats are still trying to find their footing on health care, even though the White House introduced an 11-page document intended to act as a road map for blending House and Senate-passed versions of the legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said she is “very pleased” with the White House proposal and that it is “getting a good reception” with House Democrats. But Rep. Peter DeFazio (D., Ore.), who appeared with Pelosi as part of a push for the anti-trust legislation, cited his own concerns about the omission from the plan of a government-run health insurance plan and a nationwide exchange for buying insurance.

DeFazio suggested the White House plan has not been presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

“We’re really beginning the process in the caucus over again,” DeFazio said. “There’s no fait accompli. There’s been no whipping, there’s been no pushing.”

-By Patrick Yoest, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-3554; patrick.yoest@dowjones.com

for full article go HERE

In simple terms, from a legal standpoint, the burden of proof is shifted from the insurer to the insured when exclusionary language is moved from the exclusions section of a coverage form to the definitions section. This explains why the definitions sections in policies have been growing. When there is an interpretation in coverage to be made having the restrictive language reside in the definitions section allows the insurer to more safely interpret things in their favor without a court looking over their shoulder and applying the rules for contracts of adhesion we all know so well. The take-away was when possible to negotiate this stuff and to keep the definitions section in a policy as short and concise as possible with out a lot of “xyz does NOT mean or does NOT include exclusion”…

The above was shared by David Shaefer of AH&T Insurance.

To take a look at the PLUS blog go HERE