In National Fair Housing Alliance v. Travelers Indem. Co., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, Case No. 16–928 (JDB), 2017 WL 3608232 (D.D.C. August 21, 2017), the court held that a disparate impact claim under the Housing Rights Act against an insurance carrier withstands recent U.S. Supreme Court contractions and limitations. It is wise to let the District Court speak for itself in this case.
"This case raises an oft-litigated Fair Housing Act claim: whether an insurer’s facially-neutral policy has a disparate impact on the availability of housing for members of a protected class. The twist, however, is that it follows shortly after the Supreme Court’s" Inclusive Communities decision constricting the pleading of disparate impact claims. See National Fair Housing Alliance v. Travelers Indem. Co., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, Case No. 16–928 (JDB), 2017 WL 3608232, at *1 (D.D.C. August 21, 2017).
In a nutshell, the District Judge held that the complaint met the newly minted pleadings standards of the High Court:
The Court determines that plaintiff National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) has standing, and that under Inclusive Communities' more stringent pleading standard for disparate-impact claims, NFHA has stated a claim under the FHA [Fair Housing Act].
National Fair Housing Alliance v. Travelers Indem. Co., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, Case No. 16–928 (JDB), 2017 WL 3608232, at *1 (D.D.C. August 21, 2017).
Moreover, the plaintiff's allegation of causation on the face of its complaint was legally sufficient to plead all of its claims:
The Court concludes that NFHA has standing to bring these claims, and that NFHA has sufficiently pleaded a causal connection between Travelers’ policy and a disparate impact based on race and sex to make out a prima facie claim under the FHA. The Court also concludes that the DCHRA [D.C. Human Rights Act] does apply to habitational insurance and that NFHA has stated a claim under that act as well. The Court will therefore deny Travelers’ motion to dismiss.
National Fair Housing Alliance v. Travelers Indem. Co., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, Case No. 16–928 (JDB), 2017 WL 3608232, at *3 (D.D.C. August 21, 2017) (emphasis added).
Insurance companies' exposure to the extracontractual risk of disparate impact discrimination claims. Another risk of exposure to pay extracontractual damages.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments