National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) v. HUD challenges the application of HUD’s disparate impact rule under the Fair Housing Act to the business of homeowner’s insurance. The insurance industry asserts that HUD’s rule is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities, 576 UA 519 (2015). Amici counters that insurance underwriting and ratemaking are not solely the result of objective, scientific risk-grouping and risk-rating practices. Rather this process weighs many factors that have nothing to do with risk and can cause unjustified disparities by race or other protected characteristics. Additionally, the monitoring related to and compliance with the HUD rule does not force insurers to engage in discrimination prohibited by the Constitution or Inclusive Communities. Finally, the HUD Rule does not induce greater consideration of race and other protected characteristics than the FHA, as interpreted in Inclusive Communities, already did.
See all resources related to: Equity & Racial Justice, Homeownership & Foreclosure