I work for a major insurance company known nationwide and which can be found in all states… and no, it is not Nationwide or Allstate. I started working for this company just over eight years ago. I started out in a call center taking calls for our auto insurance policy holders. People called in for various requests or questions, but I spent most of my days amending policies. After about a year I was sought out by management to work on a small and specialized team of people for purposes of policy ‘retention’. I basically spent all day trying to persuade people not to cancel their policies and convincing them that our company is better than whatever else they had in mind. After a couple more years I became a Claims Adjuster. I have been an Adjuster now for over five years. Throughout my time working in insurance I received formal work training and read through our insurance policies (the actual policy booklets that we all agree to when we purchase the policies, but that nobody really reads). I read through and have been tested on our auto policy at least three times. I was promoted early on and had to learn our policies for Homeowners (includes condominiums and renters), Classic/Collector Cars, Watercraft, and Personal Umbrella. No—I did not learn about insurance for hand-carried devices designed to keep people dry, but if you have never heard of Personal Umbrella Insurance and you have a lot of assets, then you might want to look into this type of insurance for a ‘rainy day’!
Similarities Between Torah and Insurance Policies
What does any of this have to do with Torah? I’ll get there. First, let me explain how I drew this connection. When I started working in insurance some eight years ago, I had recently become a Christian. I had been a Christian for just over a year prior to working in insurance in 2008. The Bible was still very new to me and I had started reading it book by book. I remember reading through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy for the first time and wondering how any of the laws contained therein could possibly apply to me (or modern society for that matter—except maybe farmers!). Take for example the following passages from Torah which are quoted at length and just read through them in succession:
“If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him. Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule. If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.” (Exod 21:28–32)1
“If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.” (Exod 21:33–34)
“If one man’s ox hurts another’s so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide its price equally; and also they shall divide the dead ox. Or if it is known that the ox was previously in the habit of goring, yet its owner has not confined it, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall become his.” (Exod 21:35–36)
“If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that stacked grain or the standing grain or the field itself is consumed, he who started the fire shall surely make restitution.” (Exod 22:6)
“If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for him, and it dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking, an oath before the Lord shall be made by the two of them that he has not laid hands on his neighbor’s property; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution. But if it is actually stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner. If it is all torn to pieces, let him bring it as evidence; he shall not make restitution for what has been torn to pieces.” (Exod 22:10–13)
Consider the basic principle(s) behind all of these scenarios. One common element is that of restitution. In the insurance industry we call this indemnification. Take that one to your water cooler chats! Surely we would not see it a suitable punishment to put someone to death for having multiple at-fault car accidents or if their car ‘was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it’. Yet, we see that a liable person must indemnify the injured party.2 The liable party must also provide full restitution. This is actually no different today. Sadly, the requirements for liability limits in some states are proved to be insufficient. Every day I deal with claims involving liability limits lower than what is needed to indemnify the injured party/parties. For example, a person caused a multiple rear-end car accident and carried only $5,000 of liability for Property Damages. There can be three or more vehicles damaged (some totaled and some very exotic and expensive!). Insurance companies can only pay up to the limit of liability you carry. So, if they divide up the $5,000 between three parties, then each party may only receive something like $1,600 regardless of their total damages (one of the three parties alone could have suffered over $30,000 of damages if their new car was totaled and they were in a rental for a while). The insurance company only has a duty to pay up to the limit their insured carries. This, however, may not actually indemnify anyone involved or bring restitution to the case if the limit is insufficient. Furthermore, the liable party is still liable and they still owe. In this case, they may be pursued legally. (Yes, you should probably be scrambling for a copy of your insurance coverage at this time or calling your provider to get quotes on increased liability coverage). Now, on to how any of this has to do with Torah…
The Essential Goodness of Torah
During my first year of graduate studies I learned that Torah is characterized by different styles of laws such as apodictic and casuistic. Apodictic usually come in the form of positive or negative imperatives (e.g., “Thou shalt…” or “Thou shalt not…” respectively). Casuistic or Case Law usually comes in the form of a situation or example given which is not exhaustive or limited, but should be reasonably applied to any similar instance. This is why having ‘judges’ was important in ancient Israel; odd situations occurred in which it was necessary for a ruler or judge to interpret Torah and make a determination on an outcome, punishment, or restitution for the liable and injured parties.3 Portions of insurance policies can often read similar to casuistic law. It is not identical, but you will see lists of duties and promises that the insured (you) and the insurer (your company) have. You will also see lists of situations that are covered or excluded. Homeowners policies will even discuss what is covered or excluded pertaining to injuries caused by your dog including certain breeds. Now this is not so far off from having your bad-habited ox gore a visiting neighbor! If you have an excluded breed, just be ready to fork out a lot of shekels to your gored guest.
Some insurance are required by law in many states (e.g., auto liability) because it ensures that you are at least covered to assist the injured or damaged party. In California auto liability insurance is required by law unless you are financially capable of being ‘self-insured’. Either way, you are required to carry insurance for damages for which you are liable (third party coverage), but you can choose to cover yourself by purchasing additional (first party) coverage. Talk about preferring your neighbor!
What struck me as I studied insurance policies over and over again and pondered similarities with [casuistic] content in Torah is the essential goodness that under-girds. Don’t get me wrong—Torah in its entirety is not like an insurance policy—but there are undoubtedly shared types of protective clauses pertaining to liability. Whereas the whole point of an insurance policy is having a company that pays out when the person is liable, Torah requires the liable party to personally reconcile damages. Still, both Torah and insurance policies agree that if a person is at fault, then they are held liable (regardless if an insurance coverage agrees to pay out some or all of the cost of damages on your behalf). The point of insurance is that if you are liable, then your insurance agrees to assist you with such financial exposures up to your limits. However, if your limit(s) are exhausted, then you still owe the residual amount(s). We see underlying principles shared by Torah and the requirement for certain insurance (i.e., auto liability): (1) the values of persons and their property, and (2) the need for restitution or indemnification. Simply put: people and property have value and so it is good and right to take responsibility for liable damages and to indemnify injured parties.
The principle we find shared between liability insurance and Torah is essentially good. The basis of liability insurance is the same basis for many laws we find in Torah which pertain to ‘loving your neighbor’. This principle is others-centered and not self-centered. It is a principle of responsibility, mitigation, and reconciliation. Loving your neighbor is not accomplished by means of conjured fluffy emotions toward others. Loving your neighbor is accomplished by action which prefers or benefits your neighbor. When you take responsibility for your actions and indemnify the damaged party, then you are loving your neighbor. This also takes place outside of anything related to insurance and ‘damages’ can come in many forms, not just physical. Apologizing is often insufficient; indemnification is often required. ‘Righting your wrongs,’ if I may.4 So then, if you are ever involved in a ‘fender bender’ and are determined to be at fault for causing the accident (Heaven forbid!), just know that ‘you’re in good hands’5 by allowing your ‘Torah-observant’ insurance company to assist you in loving your neighbor and doing what’s right.
Endnotes
- Unless otherwise noted, all translations follow the NASB.
- I use ‘injured’ as a reference not only to a person sustaining personal/bodily injuries but also injured in the sense of having personal property damaged or lost. This is the sense that insurance companies often use the term.
- See for example Exod 18:16; Num 35:22–24; Deut 1:16; 1 Kgs 3:16–28.
- Cf. Matt 5:21–26
- No—like I said—I don’t work for Allstate.
Leave a Reply
Your email is safe with us.