Senate passes bill to delay flood insurance hikes

AP 11:24 p.m. EST January 30, 2014

The 67-32 vote reflects widespread alarm about changes enacted two years ago.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., right, meets with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2014.(Photo: By J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Story Highlights

• Bill would delay huge premium increases up to four years
• Opponents say bill unravels long-sought reforms of flood insurance program
• In the government-run program, taxpayers subsidize rates on older homes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of thousands of homeowners in coastal and flood-prone areas would win protection from sharply higher federal flood insurance premiums under legislation muscled through the Senate on Thursday after angry constituents inundated Capitol Hill with complaints.

The 67-32 vote reflects widespread alarm about changes enacted two years ago to shore up the program's finances. In many cases the changes produced unexpected, sky-high insurance rates that are unaffordable for many homeowners in flood-prone areas whose insurance has historically been subsidized by the government and other policyholders.

"Something is just terribly wrong when homeowners are more worried about raging flood premiums than they are about raging floods," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.

The bill would delay for up to four years huge premium increases that are supposed to phase in next year and beyond under new and updated government flood maps. It also would allow homeowners to pass below-cost policies on to people who buy their homes. People who have recently bought homes and face sharp, immediate jumps in their premiums would see those increases rolled back.

Opponents of the bill say it unravels long-sought reforms of the flood insurance program, which has required numerous taxpayer bailouts and owes $24 billion to the Treasury Department as a result.

"It's simply irresponsible for the Senate to gut reforms they overwhelmingly adopted just a year and a half ago," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. He called the bill "an empty, feel-good, four-year delay that will keep people in harm's way, accelerate the insolvency of the program, increase uncertainty about future rates, and cost taxpayers billions."

The measure goes to the GOP-controlled House, where there's tension between supporters of the Senate approach and top Republicans like Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who is largely standing behind the 2012 changes. Hensarling spokesman David Popp said the chairman wants "free-market alternatives" to the government-run flood insurance program.

But allies of delaying the rate hikes demonstrated in a 281-146 vote last year in the House that they have sweeping support for delaying premium increases. That vote, on an amendment by Rep. Bill Cassidy, was included in this month's government-wide funding bill. It effectively guarantees a few months relief to those facing increases late this year because of new maps but doesn't allow people to pass below-market rates on to people who buy their homes.

At issue is the government-run flood insurance program, in which taxpayers and other homeowners subsidize below-risk rates paid on older homes in both coastal areas threatened by hurricanes and big storms and inland areas near flood-prone rivers. A sweeping overhaul that passed virtually unanimously in 2012 was designed to make the federal flood insurance program more financially stable and bring insurance rates more in line with the real risk of flooding.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, supporters of the legislation say, is doing a poor job of producing new, accurate flood maps. The bill also would make it easier for homeowners to challenge faulty maps.

"The rates that would be imposed if the law doesn't get changed will be impossible — not just impractical, impossible," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss. "It's being implemented with faulty data and we need to go back to the drawing board."

Projections of the new rates have caused anxiety among hundreds of thousands of homeowners. The loss of subsidies when homes are sold has put a damper on the real estate market and threatened home values. Some homeowners are snagged in a Catch-22. They face rates that, once phased in, they won't be able to afford. But because of the higher insurance rates, they also face having to sell their properties at distressed prices.

Hours before the final vote, the Senate by an almost 2-1 margin rejected an alternative plan by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., that would have capped the premium increases on most properties — including homes being sold — at 25 percent per year until the premium reflected the true flood risk. Ten Republicans sided with unanimous Democrats to reject the idea.

Thursday's news was welcomed by homeowners in coastal New Jersey towns and New York City neighborhoods that were battered by Superstorm Sandy.

"Most of our homeowners require flood insurance as a condition of their mortgage," said Jonathan Gaska, district manager for the community board that represents the Rockaway peninsula and Broad Channel. "And we were afraid that this would just become a ghost town, that people would just give up their homes because they can't afford it."

The 2012 law has already had a chilling effect on home sales throughout the Rockaways, which is mostly populated by blue-collar workers like police officers and firefighters, Gaska said.

Seaside Park, N.J., resident Chuck Appleby opted to raise his bayside home by 12 feet, in part because of the threat of exponential increases in flood insurance.

"We decided to go up as high as possible," he said. "That should ensure that we get the lowest insurance rate possible. Resale value is a big concern; there's a lot of houses for sale around here. Plus, I have kids and I want to know we'll be safe in the next storm."

But his parents, who live two doors down, restored their house to its pre-storm condition, deciding against raising it. Appleby says his parents cannot believe the insurance hikes will be as bad as feared.

"We had a discussion about it the other day," he said. "My parents said they believe that if it's going to affect so many people so negatively, there's no way the government would ever let it happen."

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read More

Some part-time taxi drivers are putting their insurance at risk

Using your own car as a taxi for hire via a smart-phone app—like a Lyft car in San Francisco, with its trademark on-duty pink mustache (shown above)—might seem like a great idea that is both environmentally green and has the potential of adding the other kind of green to your wallet. Unfortunately, wannabe hack drivers should beware: Your personal auto insurance might not cover you or your car if you have an accident while you're working at this avocation.

So-called "transportation network companies," or TNCs, like Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar have sprung up in cities around the U.S., from Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, and Washington, D.C., to Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, and San Diego.

"Earn cash with your car," is Uber's come-on for prospective drivers. "You drive every day," Sidecar reasons, "Why not get paid for it? Offset the cost of your car . . . Meet new people . . . See the city in a new way." And Lyft, which sells itself to potential riders as "your friend with a car," woos drivers by promising easy money: "Drivers are making up to $35 an hour + choosing their own hours!"

Riders make "donations" using their Lyft app, for example, which then pays 80 percent to the "community driver" by depositing earnings directly into his or her bank account each week. If a rider "forgets" to make his donation, Lyft extracts the "suggested" fare anyway by charging his associated credit card.

Lyft Fares are a combination of $1.65 per mile and 20 cents per minute in Denver, for example, plus $1.25 for the pick-up and a $1 "trust & safety fee"—which pays for driving record and background checks for the cabbies and $1 million in excess liability insurance to protect riders.

It's all very clever and innovative in today's smart-phone-happy world, where apps have an answer for every problem—like that know-it-all nerd who used to bug you in fifth grade.

But meanwhile, TNC drivers risk losing a bundle on their road to taxicab riches (not that we've ever met any millionaire cab drivers): That million-dollar excess liability insurance covers passengers, pedestrians, other cars, and property, but it doesn't cover injuries suffered by the driver or damage to his or her car-cum-cab if there's an accident.

Most standard personal auto insurance policies contain a livery exclusion, which doesn't cover losses that occur while you're operating the vehicle to drive paying passengers, according to the California Department of Insurance.

"These TNCs are really a commercial endeavor," says Robert Passmore, senior director of personal lines policy at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, a national trade group. "TNCs give strangers rides for a fee, and the drivers are getting paid. That would generally trigger the livery exclusion."

Lyft's website says its excess liability insurance is designed to cover liability "for property damage and bodily injury of passengers and/or third parties," but the first party—the driver—is not mentioned. Too, liability insurance is only one type of coverage. There's no mention here of collision or comprehensive coverage, which would protect the driver's vehicle in a crash or from vandals; personal injury protection or medical payments coverage, which can cover driver injuries; or uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance, which would cover damage to the driver's vehicle caused by another driver who doesn't have enough or any liability insurance. 

If you're a TNC driver or thinking about becoming one, you're obligated to report that use of your vehicle to your insurer. (Remember that question on the insurance application about whether you use your car for business, pleasure, or commuting? The correct answer for TNC drivers is "business.")

If you don't tell your insurer about your sideline taxi business and subsequently suffer a TNC-related loss, the insurer is likely to find out and may not pay your claim. Worse, your insurer might cancel or not renew your policy.

If you vehicle is financed and you haven't yet paid off the loan, the lack of insurance could put your auto loan in default, because you're not protecting the lender's collateral against loss according to contract. "Loan agreements require a borrower to maintain proper insurance," says Steven Stapp, president and CEO of San Francisco Federal Credit Union. If a TNC driver gets into an accident and their personal insurance won't cover the damage to the vehicle, the borrower will still be responsible for the cost of the vehicle and paying off the loan, says Stapp.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported today that Uber is dealing with its own unanticipated liability issues, including a lawsuit alleging that an Uber driver was responsible for the wrongful death of 6-year-old Sophia Liu in San Francisco last New Year's Eve. 

What do TNCs say about this? None of the three companies mentioned here responded to our requests for interviews. 

So check with your insurer now, before there's trouble. You'll probably be advised to purchase a commercial auto insurance policy, which can be significantly more expensive than personal coverage. That necessary cost of doing business should be figured into your calculation to determine whether being a TNC driver really is the no-cost easy money proposition that the app developers lead drivers to believe it is.

And, uh-oh! You may be wondering now whether you're in similar jeopardy if you carpool with your co-workers or neighbors or give rides to strangers through state and local commuter rideshare programs. Fear not. Those arrangements are specifically exempt from the livery exclusion—something of an exception to an exception—even if you accept share-the-cost payment from your passenger for gas and tolls.

Copyright © 2005-2014 Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. No reproduction, in whole or in part, without written permission. Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this site.

Read More

336th District Court Felony Dispositions for December, 2013

Fannin County Criminal District Attorney Richard Glaser released a list of people who entered into plea agreements with his office during the December dockets before Judge Laurine Blake of the 336th District Court of Fannin County.  The following individuals either entered guilty pleas and accepted responsibility for their conduct without further court action or their cases went to trial and a Fannin County Jury rendered the verdict and sentence indicated.

Clayton Wayne Barbee, 20, Honey Grove ¨C pleaded true to the allegations contained in the State¡¯s Motion to Adjudicate Guilt and was sentenced to a term of 10 years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C Institutional Division, assessed $294 court costs, $2,139.59 restitution and $1,000 fine for the Second Degree Felony offense of Robbery committed on November 13, 2012.  

Angel Nichole Brown, 40, Wolfe City - pleaded guilty to five allegations of the State Jail Felony offense of Credit/Debit Card Abuse.  Brown was convicted and sentenced to a term of 18 months incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C State Jail Division, assessed $1,270 court costs, and $14,344.08 restitution in each allegation.  Further, Brown pleaded true to the allegations contained in the State¡¯s Motion to Adjudicate Guilt and was sentenced to a term of 2 years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C State Jail Division, assessed $333 court costs, and $1,655 restitution for the State Jail Felony offense of Secure Execution Document by Deception ¡Ý$1,500 <$20K committed on March 13, 2008.  Brown¡¯s sentences in each of the six cases will run concurrently.   

Courtney Dean Brown, 38, Leonard - pleaded guilty to the State Jail Felony offense of Possession of a CS (controlled substance) PG (penalty group) 1 <1G (under 1 gram).  Brown was convicted and sentenced to a term of 18 months incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C State Jail Division, assessed $374 court costs, and $140 restitution. 

Rodney Joe Cisnero, 35, Bonham ¨C pleaded guilty to the Third Degree Felony of Sex Offenders Duty to Register Life/90 Day¡ªEnhanced.  Cisnero was placed on Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision for a period of 10 years, assessed a $2,000 fine, $140 restitution and $254 court costs. 

Richard Brian Dotson, Jr., 32, Bonham - pleaded guilty to the Second Degree Felony offense of Assault Int/Reck Breath/Circulation Family Member Previous Conviction¡ªEnhanced and the Third Degree felony of Assault Family/Household Member w/Previous Conviction¡ªEnhanced.  Dotson was convicted and sentenced to a term of 7 years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C Institutional Division and assessed $558 court costs in each case.  Dotson¡¯s sentences will run concurrently.  

Lafayette Damont Dunlap, 26, Bonham - pleaded guilty to the Class A Misdemeanor offense of Assault Causes Bodily Injury Family Member.  Dunlap was convicted and sentenced to a term of 270 days incarceration in the Fannin County Jail and assessed $254 court costs in each case.  

Sabrina Danielle Frick, 22, Bonham ¨C pleaded guilty to the State Jail Felony of Possession CS PG <1G.  Frick was placed on Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision for a period of 5 years, assessed a $1,500 fine, $140 restitution and $379 court costs. 

Christina Guzman, 26, Bonham ¨C pleaded true to the allegations contained in the State¡¯s Motion to Adjudicate Guilt and was sentenced to a term of 2 years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C State Jail Division, assessed $224 court costs, and $1,000 fine for the State Jail Felony offense of Theft Property <$1,500 2/More Previous Convictions committed on March 25, 2013.

Melanie Nicole Long, 22, Bonham ¨C pleaded guilty to two allegations of the Second Degree Felony of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon.  Long was placed on Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision for a period of 7 years, assessed a $2,000 fine, and $498 court costs. 

Kenneth Orville McIntyre, 63, Paris ¨C pleaded guilty to the Third Degree Felony offense of Driving While Intoxicated 3rd or More.  McIntyre was convicted and sentenced to 10 years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, assessed a $750 fine, $60 restitution and $309 court costs. After sentencing McIntyre, the court suspended his sentence and placed him on community supervision for a period of 5 years.  

Kristie Denise Phifer, 31, Ladonia ¨C pleaded guilty to the First Degree Felony offense of Man Del CS PG 1 ¡Ý4G <200G.  Phifer was placed on Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision for a period of 10 years, assessed a $2,000 fine, $140 restitution and $329 court costs. 

Victoria Nava Springs, 41, Bonham ¨C pleaded guilty to the State Jail Felony offense of Theft Property ¡Ý$20K < $100K.  Springs was placed on Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision for a period of 4 years, assessed a $2,000 fine, and $254 court costs.

Scottie Adrian Steele, 41, Windom ¨C pleaded true to the allegations contained in the State¡¯s Motion to Adjudicate Guilt and was sentenced to a term of 8 years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C Institutional Division, assessed $424 court costs, $140 restitution and $2,000 fine for the First Degree Felony offense of Man Del CS PG 1 ¡Ý4G<200G committed on September 22, 2011.  

Robin Charissa Terry, 48, Bonham - pleaded guilty to the Second Degree Felony offense of Man Del CS PG 1 ¡Ý1G <4G and the State Jail Felony of Man Del CS PG 1 <1G.  Terry was convicted and sentenced to a term of 4 years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C Institutional Division, and a term of 12 months incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C State Jail Division, assessed $628 court costs, and $280 restitution.  Terry¡¯s sentences will run concurrently. 

Mikah Leanne Titsworth, 27, Bonham ¨C pleaded true to the allegations contained in the State¡¯s Motion to Adjudicate Guilt and was sentenced to a term of 2 years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ¨C State Jail Division, assessed $710 court costs, and $1,225 fine for the State Jail Felony offenses of Abandon Endanger Child Criminal Negligence and Evading Arrest Detention w/Vehicle committed on September 4, 2008. 

Larry Dewayne Wilburn, 50, Bonham - pleaded guilty to the Class A Misdemeanor offense of Assault Causes Bodily Injury.  Wilburn was convicted and sentenced to a term of 10 months incarceration in the Fannin County Jail and assessed $249 court costs.  

Jack Percy Young, III, 23, Bonham ¨C pleaded guilty to two allegations of the State Jail Felony offense of Possession CS PG 3 <28G Drug Free Zone.  Young was placed on Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision for a period of 5 years, assessed a $1,500 fine, $140 restitution and $628 court costs.

Read More

How much car insurance do you really need?

InsuranceAuto Insurance How Much Car Insurance Do You Really Need?

When you've got that proverbial "set of wheels," you need to know how much, or how little, insurance coverage is best for protecting them.

Shopping for the right amount of car insurance requires some homework and an evaluation of how much coverage your wallet can handle.

What insurance is required?

When determining how much insurance you need, start by investigating the insurance that you must have.

Every state, with the exception of New Hampshire, requires a vehicle owner to carry auto liability insurance. It includes bodily injury coverage, which takes care of other people's medical bills and related costs when they're injured in an accident you've caused, and property damage coverage, which pays for damage to other people's cars or other property when you're at fault.

Liability coverage has limits often expressed by three numbers in a policy. For example: 100/300/50. The first number is the limit on bodily injury coverage for one person hurt in an accident; the second number is the total payout limit for everyone who was injured; and the third number represents the total amount of property damage covera ge available per accident. Each number is expressed in thousands of dollars.

Most states have a minimum bodily injury liability coverage requirement of $20,000 to $25,000 per person and $40,000 to $50,000 per accident, says Bob Passmore, senior director of personal insurance lines for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. State minimums for property damage liability coverage range from $5,000 to $25,000 per accident, according to Edmunds.com.

However, you probably want more than just the bare minimum.

"If you have assets to protect, like if you have a home or any sort of other assets like that, those are things that if you don't have enough insurance (and) you cause an accident where someone's seriously injured ... you could wind up with some of those assets being exposed," Passmore says.

Are there any other musts?

Some states also require drivers to have personal injury protection and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Persona l injury protection covers medical expenses and lost wages for you and your passengers injured in an accident, and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage pays for injuries you sustain if you're hit by a motorist with inadequate car insurance.

You can find out what coverage you are required to carry by checking with your state insurance department.

But wait, you say. Isn't there anything else that must be included in a car insurance policy? Maybe you've heard of "collision," "comprehensive" and "transportation expense coverage." Isn't any of that stuff mandatory? And, if not, would a person need it anyway?

"Everything else you might not need to purchase, so you really have to know what your own desires are and (your) needs are," says Jim Whittle, chief claims counsel for the American Insurance Association.

Compare auto insurance rates to get the best deal.

Car insurance rules of thumb

Factors to consider when evaluating your car insurance needs:

• Your age, assets and driving record.
• The age, make and model of your car.
• Your risk tolerance, or how much you can pay out of pocket in the event of a claim.
• Any discounts available to you.

To help decide how much to spend on coverage:

• Learn what your state requires.
• Educate yourself on the different types of coverage available.
• Consult an insurance agent.
• Shop around.

Source: Insurance industry experts.

How about comprehensive, collision?

If your vehicle is financed, your lender generally will require you to have collision and comprehensive coverage. But once your loan is paid off, you may choose to forgo one or both types of coverage, depending on the age, make and model of your car.

Collision coverage pays for damage your car sustains in an accident; comprehensi ve coverage pays for damage caused by something other than a collision, such as hail or theft.

"If your car is older, then you have some decisions to make ... and really what you want to think about is: 'What's my financial position? What's the premium going to be if I carry those coverages? And would I be able to financially take the hit of a loss if I didn't carry those coverages?' " Passmore says.

Use online tools, such as Kelley Blue Book, to assess your car's worth, he adds. This will help you determine whether it still makes sense to carry collision and comprehensive coverage.

Do I want other add-ons?

Many insurers offer "roadside assistance," including towing and labor coverage, in the event that your car breaks down, runs out of gas or faces a similar emergency. If you already pay membership fees to AAA or a similar auto club, then it may be financially savvy for you to decline this optional coverage.

MedPay -- short for medical payments cover age -- pays medical bills for you and your passengers if you're injured in an accident, regardless of who is at fault. The coverage is required in some states, but if you have health insurance you may decide to go without it.

Rental car reimbursement, or "transportation expense" coverage, also is optional. You may decide to go without it if you have a second car and wouldn't need a rental while your primary one is in the shop after a crash.

Other ways to cut your premium costs include increasing your deductibles and seeking out any and all discounts that may be available to you.

"As a customer, you have a lot of control over the cost of the insurance, probably more than you think," says Nationwide's Thursby.

Ultimately, how do you determine whether you have too little, or too much, car insurance?

Work with the experts, your insurance agent and insurer, says Whittle, of the American Insurance Association. "They're trained to ask questions to make sure th at they're giving you the coverage you need."

More From Bankrate.com

• Home insurance: How much?
  
• How much health coverage?
  
• Life insurance: How much?
  

• Insurance
• Investing Education
• Car Insurance

Read More

Why crime victims need their own voice in the criminal justice process

Last week, I argued before the Supreme Court in Paroline v. U.S. & Amy.  As the case caption itself suggests, our criminal justice system is shifting, at least to some modest degree, from a two-sided, "State v. Defendant" model to a three-sided model in which crime victims are free to enforce their own rights.  This change is long overdue, as crime victims have their own independent concerns in the process that ought to be recognized.

In this post, I don't want to revisit the merits the case — a subject I blogged about last week and have written about at greater length in this law review article appearing this week.  (I was pleased, however, to see this supporting op-ed appear Sunday here in the Washington Post.)  Instead, what may be more interesting is the larger issue of how our criminal justice system is transitioning, in fits and starts, from barring crime victims from any role to allowing them to be heard, independently of the prosecutor, in defense of their own interests.

Paroline v. U.S. & Amy has an interesting procedural history illustrating this transition.  The case began nearly five years ago, when my co-counsel on the case, James Marsh, submitted a detailed restitution request for Amy, a victim of child pornography crimes.  The request was supported by a forensic psychological evaluation and econometric projection.   She sought restitution in the amount of $3,367,854 for lifetime psychological counseling costs and lost income.  The government supported Amy's request.  Following two evidentiary hearings, the district court denied Amy's request, finding that it was not possible to identity precisely what part of those losses was specifically attributable to the defendant, Paroline, as opposed to thousands of other criminals who were victimizing Amy.

The case might have died there if Amy had no rights in  the process, as the government was not interested in pursuing any appeal.  But Amy sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filing a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court.   Under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), crime victims are entitled to seek appellate review of a denial of their rights under the act.  Amy argued that the district court's failure to award her any restitution under the CVRA violated her "right to full and timely restitution as provided in law."  The defendant argued against Amy, and the government joined him in arguing that the district court had acted within its discretion in denying Amy any award.  Acting on an accelerated time frame, the Court of Appeals in a terse 2-1 opinion that denied Amy any relief.

Amy next asked the Court of Appeals to reconsider this denial.  Following new briefing and full oral argument, the Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that Amy was entitled to restitution for the "full amount" of her losses under the plain text of the restitution statute covering child pornography crimes.

Paroline and the government then both sought rehearing en banc, and the full Court (15 judges) agreed to reconsider the case.  In the briefing before the en banc Court, Paroline continued to defend the district court decision while the government staked out new turf.  The government argued that the proper way to calculate restitution for Amy was to take the number of defendants who had been ordered to pay restitution to her (about 170) and divide that into her total losses.

Following an en banc argument, the Fifth Circuit supported Amy's request for full restitution, rejecting the government's and the defendant's positions.  The Court remanded to the district court for an award of full restitution.

Paroline then sought certiorari before the Supreme Court, pointing to the split in the circuits as to how to interpret the restitution statute.  While the government opposed certiorari, Amy asked for a cert grant to clarify the law on restitution.  The Court granted cert last summer and — recognizing the trilateral nature of the issues — gave  Paroline, the government, and Amy each 20 minutes to make their case.  The Court held oral argument last week.

A number of press reports described how the oral argument went before the Court.  The striking thing about those reports was how they all consistently noted the three different positions being articulated to the Court.  For example, The Post's report was organized along the lines that Paroline was arguing for no restitution, I was arguing for full restitution, and the government was arguing for some, undefined, middle ground.

This three-sided argument is emblematic of how crime victims increasingly have their own interests in the criminal justice process, apart from the government.  Indeed, the differences could not be more striking in this case, where Amy is seeking a very substantial restitution award, while the government is seeking only a very modest amount (perhaps as little as $50 or $100 — the government has refused to give Amy a figure for how much restitution it is willing to support for her in this case).

This kind of involvement by crime victims in the criminal justice process is a salutary development.  The child pornography restitution statute is, after all, a law enacted by Congress.  While often the government will interpret the law consistently with how victims would like to see it interpreted, that will not always be the case.   When victims disagree with the government, a court should hear from the victims and thus have the full range of interpretive options before them.

In response to this point, some might argue that victims can be heard — but should only be heard through the filing of an amicus brief.  But an amicus filing is a poor substitute for the ability to directly enforce rights in a criminal case.  Again, this case provides a convenient illustration.  If Amy had been limited to mere amicus participation, the district court would have ruled against Amy and should would have had no way to seek appellate review of that ruling — a ruling that 10 of 15 judges in the en banc Court later found to be clearly and indisputably wrong.

I have also heard defense attorneys argue against victim participation by claiming that this is ganging up on the defendant — double counting the prosecution's view by adding in the victim's view.  Here again, that's not quite right.  While victims often are aligned with prosecutors, other times they may align with defense attorneys.  Victims' interests are not necessarily the same as prosecutors' interests.  Indeed, restitution may be an area where victims and defendants could make common cause.  While prosecutors focus on long prison terms, victims are often worried about receiving compensation for their injuries.  Victims might prefer, for example, a sentence under which the defendant is placed on work release and can make payments towards restitution instead of one that simply locks him up and throws away the key. Doug Berman has made exactly this same point about U.S. v. Paroline & Amy, explaining in a recent post that shifting our focus away fr om purely punitive criminal justice responses is why he is cheering for Amy to win a complete victory before the Supreme Court.  My former law clerk and now federal defender, Benji McMurray, has expanded on this point at length in "The Mitigating Power of a Victim Focus at Sentencing," 19 FED. SENT'ING RPTR. 125 (2006).

So while I'm very optimistic that Amy will win her case on the merits before the Court, in a larger sense, Amy may have already won an important victory.  Amy's case is the first time (so far as I am aware) that a crime victim has argued before the Supreme Court to enforce her own rights in a criminal case filed by the government.  My VC colleague Will Baude helped me add the qualifier about the criminal case being filed by the government, as in Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson, a crime victim argued in her own, "private prosecution" — although the case was ultimately dismissed as improvidently granted.  The fact that her presence in the case — as a party — was taken for granted is the sign of a maturing crime victims' rights movement and perhaps signals that victims will be further integrated in the criminal justice system in years to come.  Having the victims' voice heard in the process takes nothing away from prosecutors or defendants, bu t adds a valuable, alternative perspective that courts should be allowed to consider.

Read More

Popular Flood Insurance Law Is Target of Both Political Parties

Houses on Long Beach Island, N.J., that were damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Luke Sharrett for The New York Times

A major flood insurance bill was a rarity when it passed what is widely derided as a do-nothing Congress in 2012, but a year and a half later, there is now an enthusiastic bipartisan effort to gut it.

This week the Senate is expected to approve a measure that would block, repeal or delay many of the key provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, which was sponsored by Representative Judy Biggert, an Illinois Republican, and Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat.

Tucked into broader transportation legislation, the bill had enthusiastic support across the political spectrum, from liberal environmentalists to fiscal conser vatives.

But Ms. Waters is now leading an effort in the House to gut the legislation she sponsored. And this week, the Senate is expected to pass a measure that would stymie the law, an effort that has support from across the political spectrum, from prominent liberals like Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, to conservatives like Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida.

Senator Mary L. Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, is working to delay a flood insurance law. Doug Mills/The New York Times

What happened?

It appears to be another Washington story of unintended consequences, and a warning, environmentalists say, of the rising costs of climate change. Most important, the bill may be a preview of the fights to come over who will pay those costs.

The Biggert-Waters measure sought to reform the nation's nearly bankrupt flood insurance program, ending federal subsidies for insuring buildings in flood-prone coastal areas. Over the past decade, the cost to taxpayers of insuring those properties has soared, as payouts for damage from Hurricanes Katrina, Irene, Isaac and Sandy sent the program $24 billion into debt.

The aim of the measure was to shift the financial risk of insuring flood-prone properties from taxpayers to the private market. Homeowners, rather than taxpayers, would shoulder the true cost of building in flood zones.

Deficit hawks liked the idea because it would curb a rapidly rising source of government spending. Environmentalists liked the bill because they said it would reflect the true cost of climate change, which scientists say is ushering in an era of rising sea levels and more damaging extreme weather, including more flooding.

But a year after the law passed, coastal homeowners received new flood insurance bills that were two, three, even 10 times higher than before.

In Beach Haven West, N.J., for example, Diane Mazzuca, a furniture showroom designer, had been paying $595 annually for flood insurance on her $90,000 home. After Biggert-Waters ended federal flood insurance subsidies last June, she got an updated bill — for $4,492.

"Our house never flooded before Sandy," Ms. Mazzuca said. "The new insurance statement said we were in the storm surge line."

Ms. Mazzuca is still struggling with her insurance company over payments to repair damage to her home from Sandy, and cannot pay the costs on her own, or the new insurance rates.

A view of storm damage in Seaside Heights, N.J., in 2012. Doug Mills/The New York Times

"I'm going to have to walk away from my house and my life savings," she said.

Ms. Mazzuca has plenty of company. The insurance rate increases hit many of the 5.5 million coastal home and business owners covered under the National Flood Insurance Program, and came as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which runs the program, was updating flood maps and placing thousands of homes inside flood zones for the first time. Last summer and fall, homeowners near coasts, rivers and wetlands saw their insurance rates soar and their property values plummet.

The homeowners' frustration erupted into a grass-roots lobbying campaign to roll back the Biggert-Waters act, and lawmakers in Washington quickly got the message.

"Never in our wildest dreams did we think the premium increases would be what they appear to be today," Ms. Waters said.

Similarly, in Louisiana, where hurricanes and flooding have devastated coastal residents and the new insurance rates were viewed as a further affront, Senator Mary L. Landrieu, a Democrat who faces a tough re-election fight this fall, paid close attention to angry constituents.

Ms. Landrieu teamed with Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, and Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, to sponsor a bill that would delay most insurance rate increases by four years.

"The Biggert-Waters bill is not going to save the flood insurance program. It's going to collapse it," Ms. Landrieu said. Supporters of her effort to delay Biggert-Waters say that the spike in flood insurance rates will drive homeowners out of coastal zones altogether.

But budget watchdogs, insurance groups and environmentalists are fighting the effort. They say that while the original Biggert-Waters law was imperfect, the effort to delay it would bankrupt the program and leave c oastal property owners more vulnerable to future damages, and that taxpayers would be forced to pay the bill.

On Monday, the White House released a statement criticizing the effort to gut the law, saying it would further erode the financial position of the national flood insurance program, and that it would reduce the government's ability to pay future claims. But the administration did not threaten a veto.

The Senate bill is expected to pass on Wednesday or Thursday, after which it will head to the Republican-controlled House.

Although the effort there is being led by Ms. Waters, she already has more than 180 co-sponsors from both parties, and H ouse Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, indicated that G.O.P. leadership may consider the effort.

Read More

Fitch Affirms Citizens Property Insurance Corp., LA's Assessment Revs at 'A-'; Outlook Stable

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Fitch Ratings has affirmed the 'A-' rating on approximately $773.52 million of outstanding assessment revenue bonds of the Citizens Property Insurance Corp., Louisiana (Citizens).

The Rating Outlook is Stable.

SECURITY

The bonds are payable from pledged revenues, primarily emergency assessments. The rating is derived from Citizen's ability to levy emergency assessments on nearly every property insurance policyholder in the state for an unlimited duration and in a sizable, cumulative amount to pay debt service on the bonds.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

STRONG ASSESSMENT BASE: The rating reflects Citizens' ability to levy emergency assessments on nearly every insurance policy holder in the state for an unlimited duration and in a sizable, cumulative amount to pay debt service on its bonds.

INSULATED FROM INSURANCE OPERATIONS: Although the emergency assessment is not a special tax, it shares many characteristics of a special tax. Its collection is separate from Citizens' insurance operations, and its levy would support a significant level of bond issuance to cover major catastrophic scenarios. Additional security is provided by debt service reserves held by the trustee.

STABILIZED INSURANCE MARKET: The Louisiana insurance market has stabilized since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. The private insurance industry remains strong as the state continues to demonstrate a commitment to maintaining a viable insurance market. Favorably, Citizens' share of the insurance market continues to decline due to successful depopulation efforts.

RESOURCE DEPENDENT STATE ECONOMY: The Louisiana economy continues to be centered on resource development, although the state has undertaken concerted economic diversification efforts. The unemployment rate remains below the national average, and recent employment growth is slightly below national averages. Fitch maintains an 'AA' general obligation bond rating on the state.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The rating on the assessment bonds is sensitive to unusually severe hurricane activity that depletes Citizens' claims-paying resources or necessitates significant additional borrowing; an increase in written policies that notably increases Citizens' exposure; or legislative action that affects Citizens' operations or its ability to leverage claims-paying resources.

CREDIT PROFILE

Citizens, a state-run property insurer of last resort, has statutory authority to levy assessments on insurers and policyholders in Louisiana to cover claims and debt service on issued bonds. The 'A-' rating on Citizens' bonds, which were initially issued in 2006 to fund claims that arose from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, reflects this access to special tax-like emergency assessments, the strength of the collection mechanism, and state involvement in ensuring the availability of property insurance in Louisiana.

Citizens is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt entity, established by Louisiana statute to provide coverage for those unable to obtain insurance or affordable insurance in Louisiana's voluntary market. Legislation has been adopted such that it is deemed a governmental entity, with board members appointed by the governor and other state officers, and not an insurance company, and is thus not allowed to declare bankruptcy. It is regulated by the Louisiana Department of Insurance (DOI), although it is not required to obtain or hold an insurer's license issued by the DOI as is required for private insurance companies domiciled in the state. Citizens operates two distinct insurance plans - the Coastal plan and the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plan - for purposes of calculating different rates to insureds. The financial operations of the two plans are commingled.

Ultimate security for the bonds is derived from Citizens' ability to levy 'emergency assessments' on nearly every property insurance policyholder in the state, including its own policyholders, for an unlimited duration and in a cumulative amount up to statutory regulations to pay debt service on the bonds. The emergency assessment base, derived from the premiums written on property and casualty insurance policies in the state, is large and diverse and provides strong support for bondholders. The assessment is levied as a uniform percentage and cannot exceed the greater of 10% of the prior year's aggregate statewide direct written premium (DWP) on the subject lines of insurance or 10% of that specific year's 'plan year deficit' plus additional related charges. A plan year deficit results when there is a negative operating result for the year in either plan that exceeds all previous accumulated profits and excess reserves over and above reasonably recurring operating costs.

The levy of emergency assessments can occur in multiples, i.e. the levy for the 2005 plan-year deficit of up to 10% of the assessment base, supporting outstanding bonds, can be in addition to a levy for a future plan-year deficit, also up to 10% of the assessment base. The subject business lines are very broad and include all property and casualty insurance, including fire and vandalism, windstorm and hail, homeowners, and commercial multi-peril. The assessment base has steadily grown over time, oftentimes at a double-digit rate. The emergency assessment base is approximately $2.4 billion (derived from calendar year 2012 statewide direct written premium), resulting in potential generation of up to $242 million per year per plan year deficit in support of debt service. The emergency assessment rate for the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2014 is set at 3.54% and is expected to produce over $85.5 million for debt service payments.

Providing bondholder protection, emergency assessments are collected by insurers in the state and deposited directly with the bond trustee, keeping their collection separate from the financial operations of Citizens. There is also a reserve fund equal to maximum annual debt service (two-thirds of which is funded through surety bonds and one-third of which is cash funded) and an emergency assessment stabilization fund, currently funded in the amount of over $85 million that provides for another year of debt service payment.

Emergency assessments, however, are not the first source of liquidity for Citizens to meet catastrophe-related claims. Citizens would first tap its available funds on hand, which include accumulated surpluses, lines of credit, and reinsurance policies. Current cash on hand is estimated by Citizens at $72 million at Dec. 31, 2013; a diminishment from higher cash levels in early fiscal 2012 due to payments on litigation settlements as well as damages related to Hurricane Isaac, which struck Louisiana in August, 2012. The settlements are the outcome of several class action lawsuits against Citizens and resulted in cash payments to date of $160 million. There are also several ongoing lawsuits of which Citizens is a party to and the corporation has set aside reserves to address these potential liabilities.

Hurricane Isaac struck the state of Louisiana in August 2012, resulting in damages that required about $100 million in claims' payments to Citizens' policyholders. Of these payments, $50 million came from Citizens' own resources and $50 million was covered by reinsurance policies in place. Total alternate resources in place total $725 million and include a $75 million line of credit and $650 million of reinsurance, net a $50 million deductible. These alternate resources are estimated by Citizens to provide sufficient resources to cover an approximate 1-in-100 year storm event.

Should storm losses exceed these resources, per statute Citizens would first levy a regular assessment, similar in calculation to the emergency assessment but not inclusive of Citizens' own ratepayers. The levy on the regular assessment base of $2.2 billion would produce potential annual revenue of $220 million. Together with the levy of a regular assessment, Citizens would also levy a surcharge on its own policyholders in the ratio of the total regular assessment to the DWP, which would currently generate almost $20 million annually. Fitch believes that, in most situations, these resources would prove sufficient to fund claims related to significant wind events. Should these resources provide insufficient funding for claim payments, Citizens could then levy an emergency assessment.

Regular assessments are paid to Citizens by insurers, who can then recoup those amounts from their policyholders in the subsequent year through premiums; the surcharge is collected by Citizens. Citizens has only levied a regular assessment and a surcharge once, in 2005, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The regular assessment and surcharge revenues are not pledged or available to pay debt service on the bonds.

While the assessment for the outstanding bond issues does not seem onerous, the capacity of ratepayers in Louisiana to absorb multiple levies of emergency assessments is a risk factor. Citizens' share of the insurance market has declined over time, from 16% in 2007 to 8% in 2012, which does limit its exposure and provide some offset. The state has demonstrated strong support for Citizens and the enabling statute contains a non-impairment clause from the state for the benefit of bondholders. Additionally, the state allows for a state income tax credit for insurance ratepayers for their annual, individual emergency assessment.

Additional information is available at 'www.fitchratings.com'.

Applicable Criteria and Related Research:

--'Guidelines for Rating Assessment-Secured Debt Issued by State-Sponsored Property Insurers', dated Feb. 14, 2013;

--'Tax-Supported Rating Criteria', dated Aug. 14, 2012;

--'U.S. State Government Tax-Supported Rating Criteria', dated Aug. 14, 2012.

Applicable Criteria and Related Research:

Rating Debt Issued by State-Sponsored Property Insurance Entities

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=701509

Tax-Supported Rating Criteria

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=686015

U.S. State Government Tax-Supported Rating Criteria

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=686033

Additional Disclosure

Solicitation Status

http://www.fitchratings.com/gws/en/disclosure/solicitation?pr_id=817641

ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEBSITE 'WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM'. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE 'CODE OF CONDUCT' SECTION OF THIS SITE. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH WEBSITE.

AP Photo/Jim Mone