What rights do insurance providers have?

[dondigitalia]

First, this thread is not about insurace companies, but about individuals who hold insurance policies covering their dependents, like in spousal relationships and parent-child relationships.

This question came to mind discussing California Proposition 73, which you can read in the "Prop Season" thread, located in the Current Events forum.

The question is: Does providing an insurance policy to a dependent give the provider the right to decide how the insurance policy is to be used? The specific application that came to mind was abortions--do parents have the right to prohibit their daughter from using the family insurance policy to pay for an abortion? The same principle can be applied to any other medical procedure, for instance procedures that may be against the parents' religious beliefs, or that the parents don't agree with for some other reason.

[Edited to add link--Matt.]

Edited October 19, 2005 by Groovenstein

[DavidOdden]

Does providing an insurance policy to a dependent give the provider the right to decide how the insurance policy is to be used?

The named insured has the right, and a dependent / non-policyholder does not have the right to make a claim. Insurance can be cancelled if a lot of claims, especially trivial ones, are made against the policy. The contract is between A and Insureco, so no other party has the right to make a claim on the insurance policy. Though I don't see how Prop 73 bears on this, if indeed it does.

I think there's a separate question behind the "religious objections" case, namely whether parents have an obligation to provide certain things for their children, such as medical treatment that saves the child's life. If you argue that a cild has a right to have their abortion paid for by their parents (I would not argue that), then that would still leave the parents with the right to make an insurance claim or to pay out of pocket.

[dondigitalia]

The named insured has the right, and a dependent / non-policyholder does not have the right to make a claim.

Do you know if this right is protected under current law?

Though I don't see how Prop 73 bears on this, if indeed it does.

It doesn't really, but the discussion about Prop 73 is what brought this question to mind.

If you argue that a cild has a right to have their abortion paid for by their parents (I would not argue that),

I don't argue that a child has that right, but if I were the parent of a pregnant daughter, I probably would pay for it.

[DavidOdden]

Do you know if this right is protected under current law?

No, but I suspect it is. I had an incident involving the need to make a claim on the house insurance when we were out of the country and a relative was living there (covered by the "immediate family" clause) and I had to fax a bunch of permission slips to the company to get the process started. Legal butt-covering tend to point in the direction of what laws say. There may not be any statutory guarantee for the insured having control, since insurance is highly regulated, but again there may be a regulation.