Insurance Claim, Insurance Policy

Since insurance carriers cannot yet accurately factor this risk into their claims-paid formulae, any that provide domestic partner coverage are likely to hedge their bets with a general increase in premiums. Such a strategy would be unpopular with carriers and clients alike, and most insurers have taken up wait-and-see positions with respect to the domestic partnership issue, hoping against hope that it will go away of its own accord.

In S.D. Myers v. City and County of San Francisco, a landmark 1999 U.S. District Court decision upheld a 1997 San Francisco ordinance requiring all vendors doing business with the city to prove that their group medical plans provide coverage for domestic partners. At that time, only Hawaii among the 50 states required that carriers provide this coverage. Frantic vendors deluged the city with insurance carrier affidavits indicating that such coverage was not available, effectively bypassing the ordinance. Following recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the constitutionality of sodomy laws—and as the state of Massachusetts flirts with legislation that would make it the first state in the Union to recognize same-sex marriage—such administrative dodges are quickly losing steam.

At present, only a limited amount of states require insurance carriers to provide domestic partner coverage. An additional handful of medical carriers offer such coverage as an optional rider to traditional policies. A competent insurance broker will be able to locate domestic partner coverage on an individual basis in most states. For groups larger than 50 members, such coverage—whether as a rider or as a separate policy—is quickly becoming an industry standard.