Law Commons^™

Playing With Fire? Testing Moral Hazard In Homeowners Insurance Valued Policies, Peter Molk

Utah Law Review

Insurance policy design and regulation continually grapples with moral hazard concerns. Yet these concerns rest largely on theory-based assumptions about how rational economic actors will respond to financial incentives. Advances in behavioral economics call these assumptions into question.

This Article conducts an empirical test of moral hazard in homeowners insurance markets. Eighteen states’ “valued policy” laws require more generous compensation by insurers for certain total house losses. I test the moral hazard prediction that fire rates will consequently be higher in these states than in others. Using a private insurance database on the cause of loss for over four million …

Harvey, Irma, And The Nfip: Did The 2017 Hurricane Season Matter To Flood Insurance Reauthorization?, Robin Kundis Craig

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has become a coastal hurricane insurance program—a fact that is bankrupting it. As a result of climate change, the ocean surrounding the United States is both rising and becoming warmer, and hurricanes and other coastal storms are projected to become both more frequent and more destructive. While no particular hurricane can yet be blamed exclusively on climate change, these projections nevertheless have real implications for the future of the NFIP.

In 2017, Congress was gearing up to reauthorize the NFIP just as the United States entered its worst hurricane season in over a decade. …

Reading Alexander V. Choate Rightly: Now Is The Time, Leslie Francis, Anita Silvers

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Whatever happens to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) over the next few years, it is fair to assume that state Medicaid programs will be subjected to cost control measures. Despite the recent deployment of substantial arguments to the contrary, the belief still persists that the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander v. Choate over thirty years ago stands for the proposition that disability anti-discrimination law does not impose requirements on the structure of Medicaid benefits. This belief is misleading at best. In this article, we challenge the access/content distinction and the straitened interpretation of Alexander v. Choate that has resulted from …

Erisa And Graham-Cassidy: A Disaster In Waiting For Employee Health Benefits And For Dependents Under 26 On Their Parents’ Plans, Leslie Francis

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

Graham Cassidy § 105 would repeal the ACA “employer mandate”. Although its sponsors claim that the bill will give states a great deal of flexibility, it will do nothing to help states ensure that employers provide their employees with decent health insurance; quite the reverse. It will also give employers the freedom to ignore the popular ACA requirement that allows children up to age 26 to receive coverage through their parent’ plans, at least when their parents get health insurance from their employers. Here’s why.

Human Rights, Civil Rights: Prescribing Disability Discrimination Prevention In Packaging Essential Health Benefits, Anita Silvers, Leslie P. Francis

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The promise of health care as a right has all too often proved hollow for people with disabilities. In this article, we argue that the understanding of health care as a human right, as found in the CRPD, fails to provide the theoretical machinery for responding to the pressing challenges of health care costs. These challenges are real and potentially devastating. We develop instead an account of health care as a civil right. What this right requires is dependent on the context and resources of the time, so long as all have meaningful access to the benefits provided. The ACA …