In PCIA v. Donovan, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held, among other things, that the application by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of the Disparate Impact Rule to homeowners insurance was arbitrary and capricious. The Court found that HUD failed to provide a reasoned explanation for preferring case-by-case adjudication of whether McCarran-Ferguson preclusion applies over rule-making. The Court remanded the case to HUD for further explanation.
Please join Larry Hamilton as he discusses the implications of PCIA v. Donovan for insurers. During this 30-minute program, he will discuss:
- The challenge facing HUD to provide the “reasoned explanation” required by PCIA v. Donovan;
- The status of the other case challenging HUD’s Disparate Impact Rule (American Ins. Assoc. v. HUD); and,
- Insurance regulatory concerns if the Disparate Impact Rule overcomes the litigation hurdles.