Enacts the "New York slavery era business and state procurement disclosure act"; requires insurers to report insurance policies issued to slaveholders during the slavery era that provided coverage for damage to or death to such slaveholders' slaves; requires contractors seeking to enter into or renew procurement contracts with state agencies to report slavery era financing, investments and profits of slavery.
This bill creates the “New York slavery era business and state procurement disclosure act.” It adds a new Insurance Law article requiring insurers doing business in New York with at least $1 million in annual revenue to report to the Superintendent of Financial Services whether they, or members of their holding company system, may have issued insurance policies during the slavery era that covered damage to or death of enslaved people. The bill also requires reports on the ownership, beneficiaries, face value, processing time, and any denial or inability to produce information, and authorizes the superintendent to compel compliance and bar insurers that knowingly or recklessly file false certifications from selling insurance in New York for up to ten years.
The bill also amends the State Finance Law to create a slavery-era financing disclosure regime for state procurement. The commissioner must develop and maintain a public list of persons determined to have engaged in slavery-era financing, defined as investments or profits from slavery or slaveholder insurance policies. State agencies would then require bidders, contractors, and entities renewing or assuming state contracts to certify that they have searched relevant records and are not on the list, and to avoid using subcontractors on the list. Agencies may impose sanctions, seek compliance, recover damages, or declare a contractor in default for violations.
In practical terms, the bill would add new disclosure and certification obligations for insurers and for private entities seeking state contracts, while giving the Superintendent of Financial Services and the Office of General Services new oversight and enforcement responsibilities. It would not directly create a damages remedy for descendants, but it is designed to surface historical records and identify entities connected to slavery-era insurance and financing, with public posting of the financing list and annual reporting to the governor and legislature.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is remedial and accountability-focused, with the measure framed as a transparency and historical reckoning initiative. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests an intent to pressure insurers and contractors to disclose historical ties rather than to impose direct financial liability for slavery-era conduct.
Potential points of contention include the breadth and feasibility of the reporting requirements, the difficulty of identifying reliable records from the slavery era, and the risk of erroneous inclusion on the state procurement list. Insurers may object to the burden of compiling historical information and the penalties for noncompliance, while contractors and procurement stakeholders may be concerned about certification obligations, subcontractor restrictions, and the possibility of sanctions based on a publicly maintained list. The bill also leaves significant discretion to the superintendent and commissioner, which could raise implementation and due process concerns.
The bill would amend the Insurance Law by adding article 27-A and the State Finance Law by adding section 165-b. It would impose new annual reporting duties on qualifying insurers, authorize regulatory enforcement by the Superintendent of Financial Services, and create a state-maintained list of persons determined to have engaged in slavery-era financing that would affect eligibility and certification in state procurement. It would also require state agencies to incorporate these disclosures into procurement records and enforce compliance through contract remedies and sanctions.
The bill is framed in a strongly affirmative, corrective tone aimed at historical accountability, transparency, and public disclosure regarding slavery-era insurance and financing. No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence of formal support or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to advance a policy goal of exposing historical ties to slavery rather than to create a neutral administrative change.
Likely areas of contention are the scope and administrability of the disclosure mandates, the reliability of historical records, and the consequences of being placed on the procurement list. Insurers may dispute the burden of researching slavery-era policies and the threat of losing the ability to sell insurance for false filings, while contractors may object to certification requirements, subcontractor prohibitions, and the possibility of sanctions or default findings. The bill also gives broad discretion to the superintendent and commissioner, which could be criticized as creating uncertainty and potential due process concerns for affected entities.