HUD Advocates Broad “Disparate Impact” Liability for P&C Insurers

Property & Casualty Insurance   |   October 18, 2016
Download Download   
Share Share Page

HUD Discriminatory Effects RuleIn February 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development adopted a “Discriminatory Effects Rule,” which established liability under the Fair Housing Act for conduct that is otherwise lawful, but which has a disproportionately adverse effect on racial minorities or other protected classes. 24 CFR § 100.500. Insofar as it applied to insurers, the rule was promptly challenged in two lawsuits brought by trade associations, Property Casualty Insurers Assoc. of Am. v. Donovan, No. 1:13-cv-08654 (N.D. Ill.) (the “PCI Suit”), and American Insurance Association v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, No. 13–00966 (D.D.C.) (the “AIA Suit”). In September 2014, the court in the PCI Suit held that the agency had given inadequate consideration to the insurance industry’s arguments, and remanded the rule to HUD. 66 F.Supp.3d 1018.

Now, two years later, HUD has responded with a lengthy and aggressive rejection of all the insurers’ objections. 81 Fed. Reg. 69012. The response concludes that there is no insurance practice—not even the use of “long-recognized” risk factors in pricing—that could not, under some circumstances, form the basis for a valid disparate impact claim. It finds that insurers are exposed to liability under virtually every section of the FHA, including provisions that some courts previously declined to apply. And it endorses application of the disparate impact theory to marketing and claims handling practices; to non-actuarial aspects of underwriting; and to claims that insurers will cause other parties to commit lawful acts with a disparate impact.

As a practical matter, HUD’s response does little more in the short term than preserve the possibility of lawsuits based on practices that could have been protected by reasonable “safe harbor” provisions. But the response comes at a time when consumer advocates and government agencies are increasingly turning to disparate impact theories, under a variety of laws, to assail “price optimization,” credit scoring, and predictive modeling tools that rely on “big data.” Thus, in addition to potentially broadening insurers’ liability under the FHA, HUD’s statement encourages potential litigants to test a broad range of theories under a wide array of civil rights and consumer-protection legislation.

More information about HUD’s response is available on the HUD's website.

©2023 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.