Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By John Ashcroft Institute for Constitutional Studies

Missouri Supreme Court halts plan to require retired St Louis poliice officers to pay increased health insurance premiums. St. Louis Police Officers' Association, et al., Appellants, v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, et al., Respondents.
Case Number: SC88954 Handdown Date: 06/30/2008 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Julian L. Bush
Prior to 2006, retired police officers who served in the City of St. Louis Police Department received health coverage without having to pay an insurance premium. In 2006, the Board altered the health insurance plan for retired officers. The new health insurance plan included a basic plan available without payment of a premium and a buy-up plan, which has a $251 monthly premium. The basic plan differed from the former plan by raising annual deductibles from $500 to $2,250, increasing co-payments for office and hospital visits, increasing the coinsurance maximum, and decreasing the coinsurance coverage percentage. The buy-up plan offers retirees the same more extensive coverage as provided to active police officers. The difference between the buy-up plan and the plan for active officers is that active police officers do not pay premiums. The Association filed a petition seeking to enjoin the Board from implementing the new health insurance plan. The Association alleged that the new insurance plan was inconsistent with section 84.160.8(3), RSMo Supp. 2006, which provides that the Board "shall provide" health insurance to police retirees. The Association also alleged that implementation of the Board's new free insurance plan would unreasonably, arbitrarily, and capriciously deprive police retirees of a vested property right without due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution and their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The circuit court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the Association. At trial, there was expert testimony indicating that the insurance provided to retirees without the payment of a premium offered less coverage at a higher cost than any other group health insurance plan with which the experts were familiar. Following a bench trial, the court entered a judgment denying the Association's request for a permanent injunction. This Court concludes that the new policy does not meet the requirements of section 84.160.8(3). Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded so that the trial court may grant the requested relief.

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on July 03, 2008 (boomark / email).