Posts Tagged ‘insurers’

“When It Comes To Police Reform, Insurance Companies May Play A Role”

To what extent can insurance companies, which seek to minimize payouts for official misconduct, play a constructive role in police reform? “One of the first things I found was this pamphlet from Travelers Insurance about how to do a strip search, and I just thought people in my world have no idea that this stuff is out there and it’s really fascinating,” says University of Chicago assistant law professor John Rappaport, who “says he spent years studying police reform before it dawned on him to ask” what role insurance companies might play. After-the-fact review of use-of-force incidents and training of officers are among existing roles for some insurers. One factor, according to Joanna Schwartz of UCLA: the private companies are relatively free from “the political counterforces that could prevent the city council or mayor from pushing hard on a law enforcement agency to reform.” [NPR] Much more: Radley Balko.

Banking and finance roundup

Environment roundup

March 9 roundup

  • Roundup of James Q. Wilson appreciations [Michael Greve] The controversial book a 29-year-old Wilson never wrote [Helen Rittelmeyer]
  • “Secret Class Action Settlements” [Rhonda Wasserman (Pitt), SSRN, via Stier] “Classic scholarship: Class action cops” [Trask/Class Strategist] Where should class-action scholarship go next? [same, more]
  • So does this mean GOP’s overturn-Kelo bill would kill the Keystone pipeline? [Stoll]
  • Stossel on illegal lemonade stands and vague laws that make everyone guilty; guest star is Cato’s Harvey Silverglate [YouTube]
  • No Fluke? Linda Greenhouse’s recollection of Lilly Ledbetter case is fairly fictionalized [Ed Whelan, earlier]
  • Footsie with plaintiff-lawyer adversaries: “Allstate vs. former Allstate adjuster” [Ron Miller]
  • Benjamin Barton reviews the Winston-Crandall deregulate-lawyers book [MSLR/SSRN via Instapundit, earlier]

September 6 roundup

Sebelius and health insurers: shut up, she explained

Eugene Volokh, Michael Cannon and Ed Morrissey react to the Secretary’s announcement that her Department of Health and Human Services will show “zero tolerance” for regulated health insurers who inflict “misinformation” on the public in the course of blaming ObamaCare for rate increases. More: Monday WSJ editorial (“Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They’re more subtle than this in Caracas.”) And Michael Cannon at Cato at Liberty has a further roundup post of reactions.

Waxman, Stupak demand info from health insurers

A compulsory subpoena could follow if they don’t fork over information on “compensation of highly paid employees” and “expenses stemming from any event held outside company facilities in the past 2 1/2 years”, among other topics. As AP notes, industries that vocally support, rather than oppose, health care reform aren’t targets of the investigation. More: Politico.