Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia
Fair Housing Laws

Studies

Homeowners Insurance Discrimination & Redlining in the City of Chester

A study conducted by the Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia 2001

Introduction  
Homeowners insurance is insurance coverage that protects homeowners against losses from damage to the physical structure of their homes and in most cases also covers the contents of the home and protects the homeowner from liability for personal injuries that might occur on the property. Homeowners are almost always required to have homeowners insurance coverage in order to qualify for a mortgage or home equity loan.

Discrimination in the homeowners Insurance industry occurs when an insurer unlawfully treats current or prospective homeowners differently because of their race, sex, religion, color, national origin, because they are disabled or because they have children in their family. These differences in treatment may include such things as charging minorities higher rates, offering minorities policies with inferior coverage, not returning calls for information from minority applicants or denying minorities coverage altogether. Homeowners Insurance redlining is a form of this discrimination where an insurance agency or agent treats homeowners differently not necessarily because of their minority status, but because of the minority composition of the neighborhood their home is located in. Discrimination of this nature may take the form of imposing different terms and conditions for coverage of homes in minority neighborhoods, refusing or failing to write policies for applicants in minority neighborhoods, refusing or failing to market its products in minority areas, and discouraging applicants from minority neighborhoods.

The Federal Fair Housing Act protects individuals from these forms of discrimination. Homeowners insurance is a vital part of homeownership, and homeownership takes a vital role in the creation of stable, actively growing communities. This study was undergone to determine whether the residents of the City of Chester have equal access to this vital aspect of homeownership.

Application of the Fair Housing Act to Homeowners Insurance[1]

(A list of reported insurance redlining lawsuits as of 1999 is included as a portion of the Bibliography at the end of this report.)

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, otherwise known as the Fair Housing Act, made it unlawful to discriminate in any aspect relating to the sale, rental or financing of dwellings or in the provision of brokerage services in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Fair Housing Amendments Act was enacted to strengthen the administrative enforcement provision of Title VIII, and added prohibitions against discrimination in housing on the basis of handicap and familial status (the presence of children under the age of 18 in a household). It also provided for the award of monetary damages where discriminatory housing practices were found.

The Fair Housing Amendments Act prohibits discrimination "in any activities relating to the sale or rental of dwellings, in the availability of residential real estate related transactions or in the provisions of services and facilities in connection therewith" because of one of the protected classes. Specifically Section 805 of the Fair Housing Act, as revised, prohibits discrimination related to "residential real estate-related transactions" rather than merely to referring to "financing." In addition the definition of the term residential real estate related transaction specifically indicates that the Fair Housing Act applies to the selling, brokering, and appraising of dwellings and to secondary mortgage market activities with respect to securities affected or supported by dwellings, as well as to making and purchasing of loans and other financial assistance for dwellings.

Although the Fair Housing Act does not specifically mention the insuring of dwellings, courts have agreed that it was drafted to be "as broad as Congress could have made it." The courts have consistently interpreted the act widely to encompass housing–related practices and forms of housing related discrimination not directly mentioned in it. Several courts have addressed the issue, and all but one have reached the conclusion that homeowners insurers are indeed subject to the nondiscrimination prohibitions contained in the Act.[2]

The prohibitory sections of the act contain other, broader language also. For example, under Section 805, it is unlawful to discriminate in any real estate-related transactions that involve "the making or purchasing of loans or providing other financial assistance for … constructing…or repairing…a dwelling….". This language makes clear that Congress intended to prohibit discrimination in financial transactions other than loans. One cannot simply ignore the phrase "other financial assistance." The purpose of homeowners insurance is to provide money to the insured ("financial assistance") for the "repair" or "construction" of a dwelling that has been damaged or totally destroyed by a covered peril. The statutory requirements are arguably met.[3]

Congress intentionally used broad, all-inclusive language throughout the entire Fair Housing Act. It was entirely consistent, therefore, for Congress to do so in the financial services section, and it used language that is broad enough to include homeowners insurance.

Several courts have addressed the application of the Fair Housing Act to homeowners insurance, and have almost uniformly ruled in favor of coverage. In Dunn v. Midwestern (1979) and McDiarmid v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., two separate judges of the United States District Court of the Southern District of Ohio recognized the connection between homeowners insurance and mortgage financing, as well as the necessity of financing as a precondition to adequate housing. "Since insurance is a precondition of adequate housing, a discriminatory denial of insurance would prevent a person economically able to do so from buying a house" (Dunn v. Midwestern). The United States District courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Western District of Missouri have ruled the same way in Strange v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Canady v. Allstate Insurance Co.[4]

In addition, in its regulations interpreting the Fair Housing Act, the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) has clearly stated its position that insurance is one of those "services and facilities" that are prerequisites to obtaining dwellings. In the final rule dated January 23, 1989, HUD declared:

(b) It shall be unlawful, because of race...to engage in any conduct relating to the provision of housing or of services and facilities in connection therewith that otherwise makes unavailable or denies dwellings to persons...

(d) Prohibited activities relating to dwellings under paragraph (b) of this section include, but are not limited to:...

(4) Refusing to provide…property or hazard insurance for dwellings or providing...insurance differently because of race. (24 C.F.R. § 100.70[b][d])

Homeowners Insurance Redlining  
In 1933, the federal government launched the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) to help make homeownership widely available to the American public. This was one of the first government-sponsored programs passed during the depression. The HOLC provided funds for refinancing urban mortgages in danger of default and granted low-interest loans to former owners who had lost their homes through foreclosure to enable them to regain their properties. Unfortunately for blacks, HOLC also initiated and institutionalized the practice of "redlining." This discriminatory practice grew out of a system of ratings HOLC developed to evaluate the risks associated with loans made to specific urban neighborhoods. Four categories of neighborhood quality were established, and the lowest was coded with the color red; it and the next-lowest category virtually never received HOLC loans. The vast majority of mortgages went to the top two categories, the highest of which included areas that were "new, homogeneous, and in demand in good times and bad" (to HOLC this meant areas inhabited by "American business and professional men"); the second category consisted of areas that had reached their peak, but were still desirable and could be expected to remain stable.

The HOLC's rating procedures thus systematically undervalued older central city neighborhoods that were racially or ethnically mixed. Jewish areas, for example, were generally placed in category two if their economic status was high enough, but if they were working class or located near a black settlement they would fall into the third category because they were "within such a low price or rent range as to attract an undesirable element." Black areas were invariably rated as fourth grade and "redlined." The HOLC did not invent these standards of racial worth in real estate—they were already well established by the 1920s—it bureaucratized them and applied them on an exceptional scale. It lent the power, prestige, and support of the federal government to the systematic practice of racial discrimination in housing.[5]

These types of practices are illegal today. Few banks or insurers today have policies that intentionally discriminate against the protected classes. However, some underwriting criteria may in fact accomplish the same result. As former Texas Insurance Commissioner J. Robert Hunter testified in 1994 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs:

Today, we still find insurance companies making underwriting decisions based on all kinds of factors that have nothing to do with a statistically measured or measurable probability of risk. One of these factors, unfortunately, is your location on a city map that probably does not have any red boundary lines drawn on it but might as well because the results are the same.[6]

A specific example was uncovered in a lawsuit in the City of Richmond brought against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company in 1998. Nationwide documents included racial stereotypes that Nationwide applied to entire zip codes in the Richmond Metropolitan area. Such stereotypes included "Difficult Times — Black Urbanite households with many children —... they do watch situation comedies and read T.V. Guide." Another marketing label was "Metro Minority Families…mostly black families with school children…they enjoy listening to news/talk radio, and watching prime time soap operas." In this case, the jury awarded the plaintiffs more than $100 million in both punitive and compensatory damages.[7]

Impact of Homeowners Insurance Discrimination & Redlining  
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) collected data on the cost and type of policies sold in 33 metropolitan areas in 20 states. After statistically ruling out other factors, the NAIC found that only 57.6% of all housing in high-minority, low-income areas were insured at all, compared to 81.5% in white, high-income areas.[8] Access to affordable insurance is vital for virtually any aspect of urban development or any effort to ensure equal opportunity for residents of the nation's metropolitan areas. Access to affordable property insurance is essential for homeownership, business and commercial development, and any urban redevelopment initiatives. If insurance is not available, or is only available on unfavorable terms and conditions, efforts to achieve fair housing, to nurture economic opportunity, or even secure the basic rights of citizenship are undermined.[9]

The President's National Advisory Panel captured the nature of insurance when it stated in 1968:

"Insurance is essential to revitalize our cities. It is a cornerstone of credit. Without insurance, banks and other financial institutions will not — and cannot — make loans. New housing cannot be constructed, and existing housing cannot be repaired. New business cannot expand, or even survive. Without insurance, buildings are left to deteriorate; services, goods and jobs diminish. Efforts to rebuild our nations inner cities cannot move forward. Communities without insurance are communities without hope."[10]

In addition, the general pattern of uneven access to property insurance intensifies segregation of urban housing markets and the concentration of poverty particularly in minority neighborhoods. Where the full range of financial services is unavailable, or is available only on unfavorable terms, fair access to housing is denied and the benefits associated with homeownership (including the capital accumulation that generally results from the largest investment most families make) are scaled back.[11]

According to a study done by U.S. News & World Report, the number of poor and minority homeowners who cannot obtain full-coverage property insurance is nearly 50% greater than that for residents of mostly white, middle-class areas. Poor Americans also pay more than twice, on average, what residents of middle-class neighborhoods pay for property insurance. In high-minority, low-income areas, residents pay an average of $7.21 per $1,000 of homeowners insurance. Residents of low-minority, middle-income neighborhoods, by contrast, pay an average of $3.53 per $1,000.[12]

This being understood, the Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia set out to determine what the current experience of residents of the City of Chester is in regards to equal access to adequate homeowners insurance, and whether these experiences are similar to or different from the mostly white communities surrounding Chester. In addition, the Council wanted to determine if there were any policies or practices of insurance companies that might have the effect of eliminating the residents of the City of Chester from homeowners insurance coverage altogether.

Understanding the Insurance Industry  
Before we can continue with the results of our study, however, it is important to lay a foundation regarding the basic nature of the insurance industry.

Underwriting Guidelines  
Underwriting is the process by which an insurer determines whether it will accept or reject an applicant and, if acceptable, at what price. Underwriting guidelines are the standards on which the insurer makes the underwriting decision. Underwriting guidelines are provided to insurance agents in order to initially decide whether to offer coverage and at what price.

How People Buy Insurance  
Typically, when a potential new homeowner or a current homeowner is interested in acquiring insurance for their property, they will contact an insurance company by telephone and inquire about obtaining a policy. The agent may ask the potential customer a series of questions regarding the location and physical characteristics of the house in order to determine an estimated cost of a policy for the customer. There is rarely any face-to-face contact with the insurance agent until such time as the homeowner determines to actually purchase insurance from a particular agent or company. In some cases, an insurance company may require an inspection of the property before the actual policy is written, however, the agent will usually offer an estimated quote of what the policy will be but may make it contingent on a satisfactory inspection of the property.

Types of Policies  
Homeowners insurance policies are made up of several types of coverage, including coverage on the home, personal possessions, medical liability and loss of use. Most of the coverage amounts are based on some percentage of the dwelling coverage. Although each insurance company will have many different products available to homeowners, there are 3 basic types of coverage for dwellings. These are market value coverage; replacement cost coverage; and guaranteed replacement cost coverage.

A market value policy on a dwelling covers the property for only its market value, up to the limits of the policy. For example, if a home with a market value of $30,000 was to catch fire and the entire property destroyed, under a market value coverage policy the homeowner would receive $30,000. A replacement cost policy, on the other hand, provides for the actual replacement of a property with contemporary equivalents, up to the limits of the policy. In today's building market, it will probably be impossible to replace a home to its original square footage and style with only $30,000. A guaranteed replacement cost policy insures that a property will be replaced even if the cost exceeds the limit on the policy. (Most companies today have a cap of 120% of the limits on the policy for a guaranteed replacement cost policy.)

The coverage in an insurance policy for personal property/contents is similar to that for dwellings. Market value on personal property means that a homeowner will be compensated for lost, damaged or stolen goods at their depreciated value. However, with replacement cost coverage the homeowner will be able to replace the lost, damaged or stolen goods with equivalent goods. A replacement cost policy will still be subject to a maximum total limit listed in the policy for contents.

Methodology  
Insurance testing is conducted by a tester who inquirers about insurance on a test house. For this study, houses were chosen in the west end of the City of Chester. This neighborhood is known to be mostly African American and it was presented to the Council as a location where residents have a difficult time acquiring homeowners insurance. These houses were matched with houses in primarily white neighborhoods in southern Delaware County closely surrounding the City of Chester. Test houses were matched as to the physical characteristics of the houses. Testers were also matched with houses, e.g.: black testers with houses in Chester and white testers with houses in communities surrounding Chester. The isolated factor, therefore, in the matched paired test was the racial composition of the neighborhood and the race of the tester.

The Council chose 3 national insurance companies to be investigated for this study. However, selected agents were located in southern Delaware County. A total of 20 tests were completed.

For this study, testers were given written descriptions of the house for which they were seeking insurance. To eliminate differences in treatment that might have been attributable to non-racial factors, similar types of houses were chosen in white neighborhoods near the boarders of the City of Chester and houses in the west end of Chester. Test homes were matched on the type of construction as well as the approximate number of stories, age and approximate square footage and whether they had dead bolt locks, smoke detectors or security systems.

Testers were also similarly matched. None of the testers indicated that an existing policy had been canceled or that any claims had been filed in the last five years. All of the testers had good credit, and none had filed for bankruptcy. All the homes were intended for owner occupancy. No testers indicated that they were smokers or retired, and all testers indicated that they were employed. No testers indicated that they had home-based businesses.

Since most initial contacts to secure homeowners insurance occur by telephone, testers were instructed to perform their testing via the telephone. Testers were instructed to phone the assigned agent and request both a written and verbal quote for insurance. Testers then completed a written report about their experience. Results of the matched paired tests were then compared for similarities and differences.

Test Results  
Factor 1: Differences in Treatment  
Differences in treatment were classified into 5 basic categories.[13]

  • Denial: A test was labeled "differences in treatment" when the minority tester was not able to get a quote for property coverage whereas the white tester was.

  • Cost: We compared cost per $1,000 of coverage when quotes were given to both testers. When the cost of the dwelling coverage for the home in Chester was higher than that of the home in the white neighborhood by 5% or more, a test was labeled "differences in treatment."

  • Type of Policy: The type of policy refers to the coverage offered to the testers on both the dwelling and personal property. A test was labeled "differences in treatment" when a minority tester was offered a market-value policy whereas the white tester was offered a replacement-cost policy.

  • Agent Responsiveness: Agent responsiveness relates directly to the level of access to the agent and to policy information during the tests. "Differences in treatment" were noted where it took the black tester substantially longer to receive information about quotes than the white tester, and where the black tester was given only a verbal quote for insurance and was denied a written quote.

  • Differential Application of Company Policies and Standards: Both black testers and white testers were informed of company policies that may have a discriminatory effect on residents in minority neighborhoods. These policies included the asking of different sets of questions suggesting that different underwriting policies were being applied based on the neighborhood of the house, the requirement of a credit check before a quote could be given, a minimum housing value requirement, and a "no flat-roof" policy. These policies will be discussed later in this report. However, a test was labeled as "Differences in Treatment" when these policies were not applied equally to all homeowners.

Following are the results of the analysis of the tests conducted based on these categories.

  • Denial: 10% of the tests resulted in differences in treatment based on an outright denial to give a quote for property coverage. Examples of these denials included:
    • The black tester was told that no quote for insurance could be given without both an internal and an external inspection of the property, but the white tester was able to get a verbal quote without any inspection.
    • The black tester was told that the property in question had a market value to low to qualify for insurance coverage from the company, but the white tester was offered a quote on a property with a market value of only $10,000 higher than the black testers property.

  • Cost: 25% of the tests resulted in differences in treatment based on the cost of the policy. These differences in the costs of the policies ranged from 18% higher in cost to 317% higher for the home in the west end of Chester than for the home in the white neighborhood. Examples of these cost differences included:
    • The black tester was told that a replacement cost policy could only be written on a property with a market value at least 50% of the replacement cost. Since the testers property did not meet this guideline, then only a market value policy could be written. This policy cost $10.75 per $1,000 in coverage offered whereas the white tester was offered replacement cost coverage at a rate of $3.92 per $1,000 in coverage and a guaranteed replacement cost policy at a rate of $4.22 per $1,000 in coverage.
    • Both testers were told that their properties did not meet the company's requirements. However, both testers were offered quotes, but from 2 different insurance companies. The quote offered the black tester cost $5.99 per $1,000 in coverage whereas the quote offered the white tester cost $4.71 per $1,000 in coverage.

  • Type of Policy: 5% of the tests resulted in differences in treatment based on the type of policy being offered the testers. An example of a difference in the type of policy offered to the testers was:
    • The black tester was told that only a market value policy could be written on the property, whereas the white tester was offered a replacement cost policy.

  • Agent Responsiveness: 35% of the tests resulted in differences in treatment based on agent responsiveness. Examples of differences in agent responsiveness included:
    • The black tester left several messages on the voice mail of the agent over a five day period before finally getting a return call, whereas the white tester received a return call on the same day as leaving the initial message.
    • Black testers were repeatedly told in 25% of the tests that only a verbal quote for insurance could be given, whereas the white testers were able to get written quotes for insurance coverage from these same agents.

  • Differential Application of Company Policies and Standards: 40% of the tests resulted in differences in treatment based on a differing application of company policies and standards. Examples of differing application of company policies and standards included:
    • The black tester was told that a social security number was required in order to receive a written quote for insurance, whereas the white tester was given a written quote without a social security number.
    • Although both testers were told that their properties did not qualify for coverage from the company requested, both testers were told different reasons. The black tester was told that the company would not write policies for flat roofs whereas the white tester was told that the market value of the property was too low. In subsequent testing on this same company where the testers gave social security numbers, a quote for homeowners insurance was offered on a property with a flat roof and similar market value.
Overall, based on the above categories, 60% of the tests resulted in differences in treatment. Charts are included at the conclusion of this report that give a graphical description of the overall results as well as showing a breakdown of results based on the individual company. (View Charts)

Factor 2: Discriminatory Effect  
There is a strong consensus among federal courts that the Fair Housing Act prevents not only intentional discriminatory housing practices but also those practices that have a disparate impact or the effect of discriminating on groups protected under the act, even if unintentionally so. To make a prima facie case of liability under a disparate-impact theory, one must show that the practice at issue has a disproportionate impact on members of a protected class. Once this has been shown, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a business necessity sufficiently compelling to justify the challenged practice. Even if such a business necessity is proven, the challenged practice will be found illegal under the Fair Housing Act if a less-restrictive alternative is available to the defendant that achieves the same business purpose.[14]

The results of the Council's testing showed that two of the companies investigated stated policies that have a disparate impact on the residents of Chester. In 55% of the tests policies having a disparate impact were stated. Yet, of these specific tests only 45% actually applied these policies equally to both testers. Therefore, it became obvious that the underwriting guidelines were either being haphazardly applied or were being used to discourage testers with properties in the City of Chester. Specifically, one white tester was told, "there are ways of getting around this policy." The policies specifically stated that have a disparate impact were: not insuring properties with flat roofs, having a minimum market value requirement on the property, and requiring a social security number to run a credit check before a quote could be given.

  • Flat Roofs  
    Testing of Company C showed that 40% of the agents told at least one tester that the company would not write policies for properties with flat roofs. On the other hand, of the tests where the agent stated this policy, 75% stated this policy for the black tester but not for the white tester.

    A policy of not writing homeowners insurance for flat roofs has the effect of discriminating against the residents of Chester. Approximately 65% of the single-family properties in the City of Chester have flat roofs. Therefore, this policy has the effect of discriminating against the residents of Chester.

  • Market Value of Property  
    Testing of Companies B & C showed that 26% of the agents told at least one tester that the market value of their home did not meet their company's minimum value requirements. Testers were told that the minimum market value of the property had to be between $75,000 to as high as $100,000 to meet the company's underwriting standards. On tests of Company B, 20% of the agents stated this policy and would not give quotes for the insurance of properties with a stated market value of $30,000 to $50,000, whereas 80% of the agents did not state this policy and offered quotes for insurance. For Company C, where "there were ways of getting around..." the flat roof policy, it appeared there was also a way of getting around the market value policy based on credit history.

    Many major national insurance companies have eliminated the minimum market value standards but some still use it. A minimum market value policy has the effect of discriminating against the residents of Chester. According to the 1990 census, 65.17% of the residents of Chester are Black while only 11.2% are Black for Delaware County and 19.15% are Black in the 8-county[15] region.[16] The average market value of properties in 1999 for the City of Chester was $26,711, for Delaware County was $115,000 and for the 8-county region was $116,900.17 Based on these statistics, it is an obvious conclusion that the majority of Chester, which also has a very high percentage of minorities, is, for all intents and purposes, redlined by a minimum market value policy. For that matter, a minimum market value policy would have the same effect on a considerable proportion of the residents of Yeadon, Darby and the City of Philadelphia, which also have a very high percentage of the regions minority population.

  • Requiring Social Security Numbers  
    Testing of Companies B & C showed that 60% of the agents told at least one tester that a social security number was needed to give a quote for homeowners insurance. On the other hand, in Company B, of the tests where the agent required a social security number, all of the agents stated this policy to the black tester but none stated this for the white tester. For Company C, of the tests where the agent required a social security number several of the agents stated this policy for the black tester but not for the white tester.

    The requirement of giving a social security number before receiving a quote for homeowners insurance has the effect of discriminating against minorities. Utilizing credit scores or credit ratings to determine eligibility for homeowners insurance coverage has a discriminatory effect on minorities. In addition, there is no business necessity for such a requirement. Credit scores and credit ratings are irrelevant to the determination of whether a current or prospective homeowner should qualify for homeowners insurance coverage, because insurance premiums are paid in advance. The failure to pay a premium results simply in a lapse in coverage. Thus, the applicant's ability to pay for insurance is not relevant. Unlike utilizing a person's driving record to determine car insurance rates, there is no data available to suggest that a person's credit history is an indicator in determining if that person will be a reasonable homeowner.

Overall, based on the above categories, in 55% of the tests the agent stated a policy with a discriminatory effect to one or both of the testers. Charts are included at the conclusion of this report that give a graphical description of the overall results as well as showing a breakdown of results based on the individual company. (View Charts)

Conclusion  
Discrimination in the provision of homeowners insurance is a serious problem not easily identified by homeowners. Most information about how insurance companies do business remains outside the public domain. Matched-paired testing such as was used in this study, is a reliable method of determining, for at least part of the insurance process, whether discrimination based on the race or ethnicity of applicants or neighborhoods occurs.

The results of this study show that the residents of the City of Chester have less access to homeowners insurance products, are often treated differently than homeowners in low-minority areas of the County and often must pay more for the insurance coverage they have. This is a barrier to the achievement of Chester Partners' in Homeownership's goal of stabilizing neighborhoods, providing increased homeownership opportunity to individuals and families, and otherwise improving the quality of life for the residents of the City of Chester.


horizontal line
Footnotes  
[1] Relevant Law: The Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601, et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Federal courts that have addressed the applicability of the Fair Housing Act to homeowners insurance discrimination generally apply sections 3604(a) and/or 3604(b) which states that it is unlawful: To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial status.
[2] Stephen M. Dane, “Application of the Federal Fair Housing Act to Homeowners Insurance,” in Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions, ed. Gregory D. Squires (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997), p 27.
[3] Ibid., p. 29.
[4] Dane, p.32.
[5] Douglas S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 51-52.
[6] D.J. Powers, “The Discriminatory Effects of Homeowners Insurance Underwriting Guidelines,” in Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions, ed. Gregory D. Squires (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997), p. 119.
[7] Housing Opportunities Made Equal, et. al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company
[8] Penny Loeb, Warren Cohen & Constance Johnson, “The New Redlining,” in Merchants of Misery, ed. Michael Hudson (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1996), p. 22.
[9] Gregory D. Squires, “Race, Politics, and the Law: Recurring Themes in the Insurance Redlining Debate,” in Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions, ed. Gregory D. Squires (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997), p. 3.
[10] “Meeting the Insurance Crisis of Our Cities,” President's National Advisory Panel on Insurance in Riot-Affected Areas (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968), cited in Gregory D. Squires, “Race, Politics, and the Law: Recurring Themes in the Insurance Redlining Debate,” in Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions, ed. Gregory D. Squires (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997), p 4.
[11] Massey & Denton.
[12] Loeb, Cohen & Johnson, p. 19.
[13] These categories were developed in a similar study performed nationally by the National Fair Housing Alliance between 1992 and 1994.
[14] Dane, p. 37.
[15] Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery & Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania and Burlington, Camden & Gloucester Counties in South Jersey
[16] Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
[17] “Guide to Home Prices,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 30, 2000.

horizontal line
Bibliography  
Dane, Stephen M. “Application of the Federal Fair Housing Act to Homeowners Insurance,” Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions. Edited by Gregory D. Squires. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997.

Loeb, Penny, Warren Cohen, and Constance Johnson. “The New Redlining,” Merchants of Misery. Edited by Michael Hudson. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1996.

Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993.

“Meeting the Insurance Crisis of Our Cities,” President's National Advisory Panel on Insurance in Riot-Affected Areas, (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968), in Gregory D. Squires, “Race, Politics, and the Law: Recurring Themes in the Insurance Redlining Debate,” Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions. Edited by Gregory D. Squires. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997.

Nader, Ralph and Wesley J. Smith. Winning the Insurance Game. NYC: Knightsbridge Publishing Company, 1990.

Powers, D.J. “The Discriminatory Effects of Homeowners Insurance Underwriting Guidelines,” Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions. Edited by Gregory D. Squires. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997.

Smith, Shanna L. and Cathy Cloud. “Documenting Discrimination by Homeowners Insurance Companies Through Testing,” Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions. Edited by Gregory D. Squires. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997.

Squires, Gregory D. “Race, Politics, and the Law: Recurring Themes in the Insurance Redlining Debate,” Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions. Edited by Gregory D. Squires. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1997.

Bibliography of Reported Insurance Redlining Lawsuits  
(Updated 3/1/99 by the National Fair Housing Alliance)

  1. Dunn v. Midwestern Indemnity Co., 472 F. Supp. 1106 (S.D. Ohio 1979)
  2. McDiarmid v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 88 F.R.D. 191 (S.D. Ohio 1980) (discovery order)
  3. Mackey v. Nationwide Insurance Companies, 724 F.2d 419 (4th Cir. 1984)
  4. McDiarmid v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 604 F. Supp. 105 (S.D. Ohio 1984)
  5. NAACP v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2335 (1993)
  6. Toledo Fair Housing Center v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Fair Housing-Fair Lending (P-H), ¶18,143 (Lucas County, Ohio, C.P. 1993)
  7. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. v. Metropolitan Human Relations Commission, 24 F. 3d 1008 (7th Cir. 1994)
  8. Strange v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 867 F. Supp. 1209 (E.D. Penn. 1994)
  9. Duane v. GEICO, 37 F.3rd 136 (4th Cir. 1994)
  10. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Cisneros, 52 F.3d 1351 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 973 (1996)
  11. Toledo Fair Housing Center v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Fair Housing-Fair Lending Rep., ¶18,185 (Lucas County, Ohio, C.P. 1996) (class certification and discovery order)
  12. Riley v. Transamerica Insurance Group, 923 F. Supp. 882 (E.D. La. 1996), aff'd, 117 F.3d 1416 (5th Cir. 1997) (table)
  13. Canady v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. Case No. 96-0174-CV-W-2, Fair Housing-Fair Lending Rep. ¶16,120 (W.D. Mo., 10/2/96)
  14. Canady v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. Case No. 96-0174-CV-W-2 (W.D. Mo., 6/19/97), aff'd, 1998 WL 403200 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 871 (1999)
  15. Toledo Fair Housing Center v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 94 Ohio Misc. 14 (1993), 17 (1996), 127 (1996), 145 (1996), 151 (1997), 185 (1997), 186 (1998), Lucas County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas

Who we are   |   Laws   |   Programs   |   Publications   |   News   |   Links   |   Home

Who We Are Fair Housing Laws Programs Publications News Links Home