Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee hears bill to clarify military exclusion in group life insurance
Summary
The Life and Health Insurance Subcommittee heard House Bill 182 (LC 520667), which would revise statutory language to prevent broad exclusions of active-duty service members from group life insurance coverage when they are not engaged in combat. The bill was presented for information; the subcommittee took no vote.
House Bill 182 (LC 520667) was presented to the Life and Health Insurance Subcommittee to correct language in Georgia insurance law that has led some group life insurers to deny claims for service members who were on active duty but not serving in a combat zone.
The bill’s sponsor, Chairman Lumsen, told the subcommittee HB 182 addresses “an issue that came to light from the Department of Insurance.” He said the language in current group policy exceptions uses the phrase “active duty” in a way that can be read to exclude routine, non-combat service from coverage.
The measure would align the exception language in group life insurance with the intent to exclude only service in a war zone or similar high-risk military activity, according to the bill text presented. Commissioner Frank King of the Department of Insurance discussed a specific case that prompted the change: a soldier who was on leave, traveling by vehicle, and later died after a traffic accident; an insurer denied coverage citing a service-related exclusion. “I want to disclose, you know, obviously, I have some biases,” Commissioner King said, describing his long military service and the family case that prompted the department’s inquiry.
Representative Sandra G. Scott, who identified herself as a staff sergeant in the United States Army, thanked sponsors for pursuing the clarification: “I would just like to say thank you for this bill because we know that, insurance dealing with military is very tricky.” Representative Reeves noted local and statewide numbers of service members to underscore the potential scope: “there are 8,000 active duty service members in Gwinnett County,” he said, arguing the change could affect many families.
Committee members and presenters emphasized that many active-duty personnel perform day-to-day duties indistinguishable from civilian life and that the statutory wording should reflect the narrower set of circumstances—combat or high-risk military operations—where exclusions were intended. A committee member observed that past statutory phrasing used “in an act of war,” which the bill would restore in effect by tightening the current exception language.
No vote was taken; the presentation was informational. The subcommittee concluded the hearing after questions and public explanation from the Department of Insurance and the bill sponsor.
