(Washington, D.C.) - Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, spoke on the Senate floor about her disappointment in Republican's latest actions to scuttle bipartisan negotiations on health care stabilization by introducing a new, partisan bill.

In her remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Murray reiterated her desire to find a bipartisan solution, and reminded her colleagues of the previous bipartisan health care legislation she and Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced with broad support--which Republican leadership refused to hold a vote on. Senator Murray promised to continue focusing on the goals of her original negotiations and introduced an amendment to reduce premiums and stabilize the market--a shared priority for Democrats and Republicans.

Key Excerpts of Senator Murray's speech:

"Unfortunately, Senator McConnell blocked our bipartisan agreement, because he wanted to pressure his caucus into supporting yet another harmful Republican repeal bill. That Trumpcare bill failed, M. President--and I was hopeful that after it did, we could make progress on our bipartisan legislation. Instead, Senate Republican leaders opted to do the exact opposite--they jammed through a terrible tax bill that actually raised families' premiums to pay for tax cuts for massive corporations."

"... imagine my frustration when, at the very last minute--just days ago--Republican leaders once again made clear that they didn't want to lower families' premiums. They didn't want to stabilize a health care system that, as one House Republican said, they never supported anyway, and Senate Republicans opted instead to surprise Democrats with a new, last-minute partisan so-called "stabilization" bill--one that included poison pills Republicans knew Democrats would never agree to."

"...this partisan bill also pulled the most worn page out of the Republican ideological playbook: making extreme, political attacks on women's health care. This partisan bill would take huge steps beyond current law--making it so that women can't even buy abortion coverage using their own money."

"And I think that was made pretty clear when Republicans surprised us with this last-minute change in a press release--without inviting any Democrats to join. Because M. President--I believe--and I think most people would agree--that the massive expansions of restrictions on women's access to safe, legal abortion that we see in this partisan bill have nothing to do with lowering families' premiums or making health care work better in our country. That's not something that was in our original deal that had bipartisan support--and it's not something that should be in this bill now."

"... we are frustratingly close to an agreement--and I still believe we can get there. This shouldn't be about the blame game. It shouldn't be about pointing fingers. It should be about getting a result. So I hope Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting the amendment I am offering today--and that even if they don't, I hope we can get back to the table and resume talks. I truly believe there are Republicans who want to do the right thing for patients and families--even if their leadership is determined to avoid a real debate and vote on a so-called 'Obamacare bailout.' Our work last fall showed that we can reach agreement when we put aside partisan politics and focused on what's best for families--and I'm ready to get back to work as soon as Republicans are."

Full text below of Senator Murray's speech:

"M. President, reserving the right to object--I want to take a moment to discuss how we got to this point, and why I am hopeful that despite Republican leaders' decision to once again scuttle bipartisan negotiations on health stabilization, that we can return to the table and work together to do what patients and families want: strengthen health care and lower their premiums next year.

"M. President, Chairman Alexander has said that in September, every Democrat in the Senate was ready to pass the original Alexander-Murray legislation. He's right. We wanted to work with Republicans to undo as much of President Trump's health care sabotage as possible, because of how it is hurting families and forcing them to pay more for care.

"Unfortunately, Senator McConnell blocked our bipartisan agreement, because he wanted to pressure his caucus into supporting yet another harmful Republican repeal bill. That Trumpcare bill failed, M. President--and I was hopeful that after it did, we could make progress on our bipartisan legislation. Instead, Senate Republican leaders opted to do the exact opposite--they jammed through a terrible tax bill that actually raised families' premiums to pay for tax cuts for massive corporations.

"Even after that, M. President--I and Democrats were still at the table and ready to do what we could to stabilize markets and lower families' health care costs.

"So, M. President, imagine my frustration when, at the very last minute--just days ago--Republican leaders once again made clear that they didn't want to lower families' premiums. They didn't want to stabilize a health care system that, as one House Republican said, they never supported anyway, and Senate Republicans opted instead to surprise Democrats with a new, last-minute partisan so-called "stabilization" bill--one that included poison pills Republicans knew Democrats would never agree to.

"M. President, the partisan bill Republicans surprised us with would undermine access to care for people with pre-existing conditions, by writing President Trump's junk plans rule into law, and by taking away protections included in my original agreement with Chairman Alexander to make sure the sickest patients don't find themselves in a dramatically more expensive market.

"And, M. President, this partisan bill also pulled the most worn page out of the Republican ideological playbook: making extreme, political attacks on women's health care. This partisan bill would take huge steps beyond current law--making it so that women can't even buy abortion coverage using their own money.

"From the start of negotiations last fall, I have made it abundantly clear that I will not allow women's reproductive freedoms to become a political football in these conversations. But I also made clear I understood, like it or not, that current prohibitions on taxpayer funding for abortion services would apply to our agreement.

"But that's not what this is--not at all.

"And I think that was made pretty clear when Republicans surprised us with this last-minute change in a press release--without inviting any Democrats to join. Because M. President--I believe--and I think most people would agree--that the massive expansions of restrictions on women's access to safe, legal abortion that we see in this partisan bill have nothing to do with lowering families' premiums or making health care work better in our country. That's not something that was in our original deal that had bipartisan support--and it's not something that should be in this bill now.

"M. President, I am extremely disappointed that we have reached this point--but that does not mean I am giving up on getting this done. I know many Republicans have said this is the end of the road for bipartisan negotiations on health care--but if it is, that's only because they have chosen that route.

"Today I'm laying out what I hope Republicans and Democrats will ultimately be able to agree on. This is legislation that includes current-law prohibitions on taxpayer funding for abortion--what Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed was acceptable just months ago. It would take strong steps to lower premiums and make health care more affordable for patients. And it would uphold protections for people with pre-existing conditions, as so many Republicans and Democrats have said we should.

"M. President, we are frustratingly close to an agreement--and I still believe we can get there. This shouldn't be about the blame game. It shouldn't be about pointing fingers. It should be about getting a result. So I hope Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting the amendment I am offering today--and that even if they don't, I hope we can get back to the table and resume talks.

"I truly believe there are Republicans who want to do the right thing for patients and families--even if their leadership is determined to avoid a real debate and vote on a so-called 'Obamacare bailout.'

"Our work last fall showed that we can reach agreement when we put aside partisan politics and focused on what's best for families--and I'm ready to get back to work as soon as Republicans are.

"So, M. President, I ask unanimous consent that..."

Read this original document at: https://www.murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/newsreleases?ID=80A0EDA7-5D24-4DF7-A3B1-715FD1C3CE73

(Legal Newsline) — A federal judge won’t prematurely end a class action accusing State Farm of misleading thousands of life insurance customers by selling policies issued by a company it knew was facing a massive capital shortfall.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall denied State Farm’s motion to dismiss a complaint from clients in nine states who bought PHL Variable Life Insurance Company policies from State Farm and its subsidiaries between 2001 and 2009.

According to Kendall, the complaint alleged four counts on behalf of a putative nationwide class: breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Subclasses from Illinois, California and New Jersey would bring state law allegations. Kendall said she ordered additional briefing on choice-of-law issues for the state law claims and noted those issues preclude her from resolving the dismissal request.

“Judicial economy favors addressing class certification before reaching the merits of the claims,” Kendall wrote in the ruling. “The 14 named plaintiffs are from nine different states and are bringing state law claims on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class.”

Although both sides argued Kendall didn’t need to analyze which laws should apply in order to rule on the motion to dismiss, given no differences in state law would dictate different outcomes, she said that framing “is difficult to accept given the parties’ apparent misapprehension of the laws they invoke. Throughout their briefing, the parties conflate the distinct roles of insurer, insurance agent and insurance broker and cite legal rules applicable to those roles interchangeably. Even a cursory review of the relevant states’ laws reveals material differences across jurisdictions.”

For example, she said, under Illinois law, only brokers, and not agents or insurers, have a fiduciary duty to insured customers. But “the Insurance Placement Liability Act bars liability for a breach of fiduciary claim brought against an insurance broker unless it involves the wrongful retention or misappropriation of funds,” she wrote, while “none of the other eight states limits liability for breach of fiduciary claims in this way. Seven states recognize breach of fiduciary duty claims in the insurance context, albeit with their own caveats and nuances.”

She further explained how Illinois law on insurance-based negligence claims conflicts with other states and said she is obligated to consider nuances when deciding which laws to use while analyzing the underlying allegations, especially since the complaint proposes a nationwide class.

Were she to rule on the dismissal motion before the choice-of-law analysis, that may require her “to determine the laws governing the claims of the nine named plaintiffs, potentially dismiss some claims, and then revisit those same state-law differences in determining whether and to what extent a nationwide class may be certified,” Kendall wrote. “Further, resolving class certification first may substantially narrow the case if the court narrows the nationwide class or declines to certify it.”

Kendall acknowledged State Farm might’ve been cost conscious in moving for dismissal before the plaintiffs sought certification, but reiterated that “is not the most efficient course” regarding this litigation and said she wouldn’t rule on dismissal until she addresses certification. Although the plaintiffs haven’t yet filed such a motion, she advised both sides to discuss next steps at a status hearing and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice.