Democrats Who Sued Mall for Demanding Insurance Discover They Already Had It

An embarrassed official of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley said Friday that he was unaware that the party already had liability insurance when it sued Northridge Fashion Center over a requirement that the Democrats obtain a $1-million policy before being allowed to solicit mall shoppers for signatures.

“This was completely a surprise to me,” said Sol Garber, a spokesman for the Valley party, which earlier brought suit over what it called the “burdensome” mall rules. “This is very embarrassing to me.”

The Democrats first objected to the shopping center’s regulations in July, when they sued the mall, alleging that the restrictions limited their freedom of speech and their ability to sign up new voters.

Party officials not only objected to the center’s requirement that organized groups have $1 million in liability insurance, but also to regulations on the time and location of soliciting efforts.

Eventually, a temporary agreement was reached allowing voter registration under relaxed rules until the Oct. 4 cutoff date for the November election. The most significant rule change was a waiver of the $1-million insurance requirement.

That was unnecessary because the Democrats had that much liability insurance all along, a discovery made when party officials read their policy as they prepared for the lawsuit, Garber said.

The volunteer executive committee of the 12 Democratic clubs in the Valley had bought a policy for $500 to insure a new office computer, he said, and it turned out that the insurance included a liability provision.

“Until I read the policy, I never knew it was available,” Garber said.

But having the insurance has not ended the civil suit against the Northridge mall, Garber said.

The Democrats still object to regulations imposed by several malls that restrict the time and place of soliciting voters.

“We thought we couldn’t afford the insurance, but that wasn’t the only issue,” he said. “We are going to press on with the civil case because we want a judge’s opinion about what are reasonable rights for registration.”

A decision in the suit is not expected until after the fall election, Garber said.