Standing by the Grieving Families Act

State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal has represented Manhattan’s West Side since he was elected to the state Senate in 2012. He currently chairs the Judiciary Committee and has sponsored the Grieving Families Act, which would expand the state’s wrongful death laws, and the Child Victims Act, which would allow victims of child sexual abuse to bring criminal charges and civil suits against their abusers. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You’re the sponsor of the Grieving Families Act. Any indication whether the governor might support it this year? Insurers argue that it would be too costly for them – how do you respond to that? If it’s vetoed again, what’s the plan for 2025?

I will say that the governor has obviously vetoed the bill twice. I remain hopeful, we have not engaged in any substantial way with the Second Floor on the bill. They have not engaged with us. The format is that we pass the bill, we hold it until they request it, and before they request it, we might negotiate or she might sign it out right. To my knowledge there are no conversations thus far.

Nov. 17 was the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. It highlighted a need for the Grieving Families Act, because of our callousness apparently is endemic in road crashes on the part of drivers who haven’t taken responsibility for causing death and injury to pedestrians. It’s another indication that this is not just about medical malpractice but about a whole host of harm that’s caused by irresponsible actors. And we think that the Grieving Families Act would create the necessary incentives for institutions and individuals to behave more responsibly.

The wrongful death statute that our bill would seek to reform, dates to 1847 when James K. Polk was president of the United States. In addition to roadside crashes, this is truly a civil rights issue. The people most impacted by the current statute who are unable to seek redress for the deaths of their loved ones are generally speaking people of color, people without higher education, people with disabilities, women, LGBTQ people. Because the lives of their loved ones are valued based solely on their economic output, whether they were the breadwinner of the household and how much money they made. For people who are not high earners, or have potential to be high earners, their claims to compensation are often zero. And we’re talking about young children and babies whose economic output is unquantifiable. The statute should be changed to consider other factors, as it is in 48 other states, including loss of companionship, consortium, guardianship and love. Things that generally speaking we consider to be more important than how much money you make on the job. This is in my mind one of the most important civil rights initiatives we can take to level the playing field in our statutes among the very wealthy and working-class New Yorkers. It’s also important because in a hospital-based situation where the loved one might die due to medical malpractice, it is difficult for someone who is less resourced to give answers about what happened to their loved one. How was it that they died in childbirth, or in the middle of an operation?

Wealthier people have an easier time getting those answers; hospitals listen to them more than those with lower incomes. It’s about getting to the bottom of a death of a loved one and the physician taking responsibility for it so it doesn’t happen again.

You also introduced legislation last year that would prevent “New York-based insurers from insuring polluting new fossil fuel projects.” Why does this bill matter? It doesn’t look like you have any co-sponsors yet, is this going to be an uphill battle? We know that insurance companies are contributing to climate exchange in a number of ways – they insure fossil fuel projects, oil gas and coal … they raise rates or refuse to insure – that have started to see an increase in the effects of climate change, such as wildfires, sea level rise, extreme weather events like hurricanes.

I think Albany needs to redouble its resolve on climate. Now with the EPA under control of Lee Zeldin and the Trump climate deniers in charge, we should do our part to keep our climate goals on track and other initiatives like this to hopefully create a state-by-state response to climate action in the absence of federal action.

More broadly, how is climate change affecting the insurance market? Are there any other avenues to keep the insurance industry functioning in the face of the rising risk of natural disasters?

I do know that as of this month there have been 24 climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion across the country, and some insurance companies have pulled out of extreme weather states like California and Florida. When they pull out, we know homeowners end up footing the bill. Travelers in California was approved to raise homeowner rates by an average of 15%. We’re starting to feel similar effects in New York for apartment buildings with at least 50 units. The average insurance premium rose 15% in Manhattan. I can’t attribute that to climate change, but this is going to price people out of the market. We’re concerned that we have strong anti-discrimination requirements for insurance to include climate risk, and we want to see the state Department of Financial Services start to study and report on the impact of climate change and identify communities that need additional protection against climate change.

You’ve also introduced legislation to make oral antiviral treatments for COVID-19, such as Paxlovid, free for all New Yorkers covered by Medicaid or private insurance. Why is this important? What are its chances?

With this upcoming administration, one doesn’t know whether immunizations or treatments like Paxlovid will be funded by the federal government moving forward. Paxlovid was free to patients during the pandemic, now we’ve seen insurance companies move away from covering this drug and forcing patients to have high out-of-pocket costs, even if they’re insured.

It’s been shown to be a life-saving medication that can reduce the rate of serious illness and death of COVID by as much as 90%. This is a proven treatment for COVID-19. We don’t know whether the federal government is going to be in its support and you have Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the world’s leading anti-vaxxer at the helm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He’s threatening to sue medical journals for their scientific review of drugs and therapies. We can’t trust RFK Jr. or the Trump administration to protect New Yorkers from COVID-19. The state has to take this problem into its own hands and produce a sound policy.

Some advocates argue that insurers are not complying with the Child Victims Act, which you sponsored, but insurers argue they were defrauded by entities like the Catholic Church and do not need to make payouts. Who’s right? What’s next? 

I think both things can be true at the same time, but I don’t know. I would hope that both sides will produce the necessary documentation to prove their case. I think the foot-dragging has to come to an end. The only group that’s suffering and continues to suffer are the survivors. I read the New York Archdiocese is selling a large office building or putting it on the market but they haven’t engaged in any settlement talks with survivors because they’re hiding behind a dispute with their insurance companies.

I think it’s appalling that the church, of all institutions, refuses to provide closure to New Yorkers whose innocence was stolen under their watch. And now it’s just an insult to injury by hiding behind a dispute with their insurance companies. We did send a letter to DFS to try to get them to help move along settlement talks but they say that their hands are tied.

Are there any other insurance-related measures you supported this past session? Anything on that front you’re looking at for 2025? 

We passed legislation preventing insurance from requiring prior authorization. For New Yorkers seeking HIV drugs, the governor signed my bill to prohibit insurers from requiring copayments for drugs for HIV like PrEP. There’s always room for improvement. For health insurance, New York has remained below the national average, for the national percentage of uninsured people, which is good. A large part of that is the Affordable Care Act. I was just on a call today with the New York Nurses Association about how the proposal for a single-payer health care system is more important than ever with the incoming Trump administration.

And one more bill, I had the bill of the Equality and Fertility Treatment Act, requiring IVF coverage for parents, and that coverage is unavailable to gay couples who don’t have it themselves, who aren’t undergoing IVF and other couples where neither partner is undergoing IVF. We think it’s an unnecessary qualification to have IVF have insurance coverage available to all who are seeking it.