Senator Reynolds, Senate District 2, has not signed the Protect Private Property Pledge and indeed voted to take the JUA surplus funds. Her opponent, Jeannie Forrester, has signed the pledge (Thank you Ms. Forrester). All policyholders want to protect the JUA. But they also want their vested rights protected and not allow the Insurance Commissioner and Governor to re-write the contracts to confer "phantom" benefits. Let's hope that Senator Reynold's view continues to evolve and she appreciates and takes action to prevent further constitutional violations against policyholders....
From the Citizen:
As to the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Plan, from which Lynch is attempting to remove $110 million in surplus and transfer it into the general fund, Reynolds said the policy holders, foremost among them LRGHealthcare, should proceed cautiously.
The policy holders have criticized Lynch for taking the money they say belongs to them. The N.H. Supreme Court agreed with the policy holders but Lynch continues to pursue regulatory changes that would allow the money to come into state coffers where he feels it belongs.
Reynolds said she reviewed the state's legal case for taking the JUA money and said it appeared sound. She said if the money is declared to be a dividend, then the Internal Revenue Service might want to tax it. There is an ongoing legislative effort to eliminate the tax consequence, Reynolds said, adding, "It's important to protect the fund and the policy holders, too."
The policy holders have criticized Lynch for taking the money they say belongs to them. The N.H. Supreme Court agreed with the policy holders but Lynch continues to pursue regulatory changes that would allow the money to come into state coffers where he feels it belongs.
Reynolds said she reviewed the state's legal case for taking the JUA money and said it appeared sound. She said if the money is declared to be a dividend, then the Internal Revenue Service might want to tax it. There is an ongoing legislative effort to eliminate the tax consequence, Reynolds said, adding, "It's important to protect the fund and the policy holders, too."
