WASHINGTON, July 23 -- The office of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, issued the following news release:

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) asked clergy members from across West Virginia to encourage their congregations to share their stories about why protecting access to health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions is important to their families. The Attorney General of West Virginia has joined 19 other states in suing to allow insurance companies to once again deny coverage to West Virginians with pre-existing conditions.

"Repealing this provision will have detrimental impacts for families across West Virginia. I have always said that our nation's current healthcare system is in need of repair. But every West Virginian deserves access to quality, affordable healthcare regardless of their health conditions. I will not stand by while we risk going back to a time when insurance companies could play God as they picked and chose those they wished to insure," Senator Manchin said in part.

Last month, Senator Manchin asked West Virginians to share their stories about healthcare access for those with pre-existing conditions by emailing them to [email protected]. Senator Manchin will read these stories on the Senate Floor.

Read the full letter below or click here: https://www.manchin.senate.gov/download/senator-manchin-sends-letter-to-wv-clergy

As you may know, an ongoing lawsuit, led by 20 U.S. Attorneys General which as of June 8, 2018, will no longer be defended by the U.S. Department of Justice, would allow insurance companies to once again deny coverage to West Virginians with pre-existing conditions. More than 800,000 West Virginians have a pre-existing condition, including 90,600 children, including West Virginians with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma or women who have been pregnant.

Repealing this provision will have detrimental impacts for families across West Virginia. I have always said that our nation's current healthcare system is in need of repair. But every West Virginian deserves access to quality, affordable healthcare regardless of their health conditions. I will not stand by while we risk going back to a time when insurance companies could play God as they picked and chose those they wished to insure.

I recently hosted a roundtable with members of West Virginia's clergy to discuss the pending lawsuit and the impact it would have on their congregations. This roundtable was just the beginning of the conversation because for a lot of West Virginians with pre-existing conditions, insurance coverage is the difference between life and death. That is why I am reaching out to you today. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, this is a human issue. As a community leader and a person of faith, you know firsthand the difficulties that many West Virginians with preexisting conditions face on a daily basis.

As you may be aware, I have asked West Virginians to send me their stories about the importance of protecting access for those with pre-existing conditions and I have been reading these letters on the Senate floor. Please share this with your congregations and encourage them to email their stories to [email protected].

(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.