Audubon chapter rejects offer from The Hartford to reinstate coverage
By James M. Odato
The property and casualty insurer that informed the Southern Adirondack Audubon Society it was ending coverage because of the chapter’s alleged environmental advocacy offered to continue its relationship after publicity of its action drew outrage.
The birders’ group’s president, however, said the damage had been done and rejected the proposition from The Hartford.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
“I think it was completely an appeasement gesture,” said Rob Snell, the head of the 600-member, all-volunteer chapter. “It happened after the fact . . . after your article put pressure on them.”
The Explorer’s story last week about the surprise cancellation notice issued to the chapter stated the cause as the group’s goal of protecting the environment and ties to National Audubon, which does advocacy. The story brought about numerous online and social media comments against The Hartford, one of the country’s biggest insurance companies.
‘Chilling effect’ on free speech: Hartford’s cancellation sparks protests
Also, activist organizations in Connecticut protested, writing a letter to the company denouncing its position. The writers, heads of Connecticut Citizen Action Group, the state’s Sierra Club and Third Act Connecticut, a group of older Americans whose mission is to stand up for democracy and the environment, urged the company to reverse its decision regarding the birders’ group and commit to nondiscrimination regarding political speech.
George Stone, a founder of Third Act in the state, said The Hartford’s underwriting policy has a “chilling effect on free speech and on environmental advocacy.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Other media organizations picked up the story about the Southern Adirondack Audubon Society’s situation, including The Hartford Courant.
More than a week after repeatedly seeking comment on the matter, The Explorer received a statement from The Hartford on Thursday.
It said that it doesn’t use ideology for dropping coverage of groups with a mission to protect the environment.
“The Hartford’s underwriting decisions are based on an assessment of risk and are not informed by political and social viewpoints of any persuasion,” said Matthew Sturdevant, a company spokesman. “Environmental-protection organizations and other advocacy groups are generally ineligible for coverage, principally because of an increased risk profile that falls outside of our Small Business unit’s risk appetite, although there are certain exceptions for organizations that have a lower risk profile.”
Matthew Sturdevant, a company spokesman, The Hartford insurance
He noted that his company remains committed to environmental stewardship in its own operations, including reducing energy and water consumption, using renewable energy sources and reducing waste.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Audubon chapter moves on
Snell said when he got word through his broker that The Hartford was willing to back off on its twice-declared decision to discontinue coverage, he told the agent to keep looking for another company to insure the chapter once the current policy’s term ends in July.
“If that’s their attitude toward us, I would rather insure with someone who is friendlier to our industry,” Snell said. “I’d like to see them change their stance; it seems not reasonable to exclude people who are environmentally concerned.”
The Hartford sent a nonrenewal notice to the organization in April after having contracted to insure the organization last summer. The Audubon chapter had never filed a claim and had been a policyholder in good standing, Snell said.
Its carrier said in the notice and to the chapter’s broker that The Hartford would not do business with an organization that states its mission is to protect the environment. A representative of the company told the broker: “We are not a market for associations who look to protect, analyze, or monitor the environment against misuse or degradation from human forces.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
The chapter desires insurance coverage because it escorts members of the public on birdwatching walks and is engaged with Skidmore College to mount a bird tracking tower atop the school’s science building in Saratoga Springs.
Snell said he had been contacted by several insurance representatives offering help. The agent for the group said she is confident she will find another carrier.
Photo at top courtesy of National Audobon Society
Doesn’t sound like The Hartford is living up to its motto of “We work to earn your trust every day.”
Way to go Audubon!!
Credit The Adirondack Explorer and committed investigative journalist Jim Odato for drawing attention to this. I’m glad that Audubon will get an insurer who doesn’t consider thoughtful environmental advocacy as an “increased risk profile” in 2025 America.
Bravo, Audubon!
Send the Hartford a similarly-worded response that Audubon doesn’t do business with companies that conduct themselves like the Hartford did in this case.
The Hartford better take a look at their AI model for screening clients.
Maybe they got their AI model from the A1 Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
I would like to think this is a joke, but wouldn’t be surprised. Fire the humans and AI has to pick up the slack.
It’s not just Audubon. And it’s not just the Hartford. The 660 million dollar judgement in the SLAPP suit by Energy Transfer. This North Dakota case endangers the existence of Greenpeace. It has sent a chill throughout both the insurance industry and the volunteer and environmental community.
As an active volunteer in a large environmental organization, I have been made aware that things normally as commonplace as a ‘sign on letter’ concerning even the most obvious environmentally dangerous construction must now go all the way to the national office for approval.
“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” said Sushma Raman, Interim Executive Director Greenpeace Inc, Greenpeace Fund. “It’s part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech. These rights are critical for any work toward ensuring justice – and that’s why we will continue fighting back together, in solidarity. While Big Oil bullies can try to stop a single group, they can’t stop a movement.”
Great points! We shouldn’t let 50 years of environmental progress be stymied by idiots and cash.