It hardly seems fair, but hey, I guess that’s federalism … at least in a class-action decided by the Eighth Circuit against insurance companies for allegedly charging higher homeowners insurance rates to residents of the “black community” in Kansas City, Missouri, when compared to the same coverage provided to residents of the city’s “white community.”
Judicial View reports how the Court decided that under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the federal Fair Housing Law could not apply to the matter because it would impermissibly interfere with the state statutes and regulations governing insurance. The decision, in fact, explains that if the court adjudged certain rates to be unfairly discriminatory and compensated aggrieved residents in terms of what the rate should have been, it would be usurping the role of the state insurance regulatory agency.
The problem, as this legal blogger sees it, is that although state law does address how rates may and may not be set, it provides no private right of action at all for this type of discrimination – instead those aggrieved must seek relief through the state Director of Insurance who has discretion concerning whether or not to take action.
But how can the Fair Housing Act interfere with state law when it provides relief that state law does not?
For those law geeks interested in reading the decision – and I know you’re out there – the cite is 537 F.3d 961.
Bookmark/share a post