WHEN IS DEREGULATION IRRESPONSIBLE AND WHEN IS IT IN VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW?

Every high school student who had taken the Business Law course knows the essentials for a legal insurance contract. One of the essentials of a valid insurance contract is that the party securing the insurance policy must have an "insurable interest" in the property to be insured. This is a most necessary essential as it determines whether or not the contract is within the perimeters of established law.

A person who purchases a home with a mortgage can secure a mortgage insurance policy to protect against financial loss of the property if the mortgage cannot be paid. A disconnected third party could not legally secure mortgage insurance on that property because this disconnected party does not have an insureable interest in the property. If the requirement for an insurable interest in property were to be "deregulated," this would allow a disconnected party to take out an insurance policy on the property which would be a "gamble," and in violation of established law. Consequently, this deregulation would be in violation of established law and therefore illegal.

If, on the other hand, there was a requirement that the insurance company had to keep a specified amount of money on hand to pay probable claims, and this requirement was "deregulated" to stimulate the economy, this deregulation could be called irresponsible.

Was the deregulation that caused the current credit crisis irresponsible, or like the Patriot Act, was it in violation of established law. This would be up to the Attorney General's Office to decide.

Public officials, like Corporate CEO's, have "limited personal liability" and cannot be prosecuted for poor judgment. However, this limited personal liabiltiy, does not include violation of established law. This too would be the responsibility of the Attorney General's Office to pursue and render justice.