MONTREAL — The local society of Jewish lawyers and jurists last week was seeking to resolve why one of its members was denied his first-ever life insurance policy – offered as a group plan to members of the Quebec bar at preferred rates – on the grounds that he travels to Israel’s “occupied territory”
The territory in question is Holon – part of Israel proper.
Dan Goldstein sent relevant documentation to the Lord Reading Law Society after he was notified in September that his application for life and long-term disability insurance was turned down by Medavie Blue Cross.
He was informed that he was turned down because of his “travels to Israel, specifically to the city of Holon.”
Lord Reading president Irwin Rudick told The CJN that it has struck a committee to investigate the matter.
“This has very much upset me,” Goldstein, a 35-year-old labour lawyer with the firm of Schneider & Gaggino, told The CJN. “I remain uninsured.”
On Sept. 21, Goldstein received a letter from the insurance brokerage firm of Michel Rhéaume & Associés Ltée, notifying him only that he was being denied coverage by Medavie Blue Cross for “other reasons (other than medical),” based on the criteria of “risks” determined by the company.
Michel Rhéaume & Associés recommends and is authorized to sell Blue Cross’ group plan, but it is Medavie Blue Cross – the actual insurer – that approves or rejects individual applications.
When Goldstein then sent a follow-up letter seeking more specific reasons for being turned down, he was told in an Oct. 6 reply that it was because he travels to Holon.
According to Jean-Pierre Carbonneau, an adviser on group insurance for Medavie Blue Cross, Goldstein, when asked where he travels as part of his general insurance evaluation, mentioned Israel and Holon, a town of 170,000 within the Tel Aviv district, where his wife Liat’s grandparents reside. Goldstein and his wife travel there annually to visit them and his parents in Jerusalem.
It is a question of “underwriting standards,” was Carbonneau’s explanation to The CJN. “Mr. Goldstein does travel to [Holon] an occupied territory in Israel… the territory is recognized as dangerous territory.”
When informed that Holon is part of Israel proper, Carbonneau said he would pass the information on to company underwriters “and they can double check that.”
Asked why Goldstein could not have been issued an individual policy with an “exclusion” clause that would deny benefits in the event of a terrorist incident or war, Carbonneau answered: “My specialty is group policy, so when it comes down to writing an individual policy, I’m not the best-informed person.
“Why is there not an exclusion to the effect that if something happens there, nothing will be paid? I don’t know.”
Goldstein laughed over the phone when informed of all this, noting that “nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in Holon,” which lies on the coastal strip just south of Tel Aviv and is not known to have ever been targeted by terrorists or seen warfare.
In an earlier e-mail to The CJN, Goldstein said: “There has never been a terror attack in Holon, and I don’t know of a single Canadian tourist dying in Israel since 1990 [when Marnie Kimmelman, a 17-year-old from Toronto, died in a terrorist explosion on a Tel Aviv beach].”
Goldstein speculated that Medavie Blue Cross could be confusing Holon with Hebron, which is located in the West Bank. Both place names begin with the letter H, have two syllables, and end in “o-n.”
A mix-up of the names, he suggested, would be a more plausible explanation for what happened, but would still require a reversal of the decision.
Lord Reading’s Rudick said he was not aware at this point of any other lawyer who has similarly been turned down under the Medavie Blue Cross group plan for life insurance because of a perceived risk in visiting Israel. The committee looking into the matter was struck at Lord Reading’s last board meeting on Oct. 15.
“We should hear something by the end of this month or the beginning of next to at least ascertain what the facts are and what course of action is being recommended,” Rudick said. “This is the first time we’ve heard of a situation like that. Is this an ‘Israel problem’ or more than that? I don’t know.
“Some of us mused aloud about whether there would be a similar problem if other lawyers travelled to, say, Afghanistan. We are definitely looking into this – no question.”
