National Fair Housing Alliance v. Travelers Indemnity Company
261 F. Supp. 3d 20
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- NFHA (a fair-housing nonprofit) alleges Travelers maintains a policy refusing habitational insurance to landlords who rent to Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) tenants based on testing of five insurance brokers in Anacostia, D.C.
- Voucher recipients in D.C. are disproportionately African‑American and female‑headed households and are concentrated east of the Anacostia River, giving the policy a disparate impact on protected classes.
- NFHA spent staff time and funds on outreach, education, and preparing for increased intake in response to Travelers’ alleged policy and sued under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA).
- Travelers moved to dismiss, arguing NFHA lacks standing (injuries are self‑inflicted or moot because Travelers discontinued the policy), that NFHA fails to plead causation under the heightened Inclusive Communities standard for disparate‑impact claims, that DCHRA does not cover insurance, and that McCarran‑Ferguson preempts the FHA claim.
- The court found NFHA has organizational standing (diverted resources to counteract alleged discrimination), that NFHA adequately pleaded a disparate‑impact FHA claim under Inclusive Communities, and that the DCHRA covers habitational insurance and NFHA stated a claim under it; Travelers’ McCarran‑Ferguson argument was deemed waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (organizational) | NFHA diverted staff/time and funds to counteract Travelers’ policy, creating a concrete injury. | Travelers: expenditures voluntary/self‑inflicted; policy stopped so injuries not traceable. | NFHA has standing — diversion of resources to counteract alleged discrimination is a concrete injury; Travelers’ affidavit raises a factual dispute but not at pleading stage. |
| FHA disparate‑impact pleading (causation) | Travelers’ refusal to insure landlords who accept vouchers causes landlords to avoid voucher tenants, disproportionately harming protected classes in D.C. | Travelers: Inclusive Communities requires robust causation; insurer→tenant link is too attenuated; NFHA relies on bare statistics. | NFHA plausibly pleaded causation: insurance denial has obvious effect on housing availability; statistical and geographic allegations sufficiently tie the policy to disparate impact under Inclusive Communities. |
| DCHRA coverage and claim | DCHRA §2‑1402.21 prohibits discrimination in insurance related to real property; same pleading standard applies. | Travelers: DCHRA does not reach insurance (cites NOW) and FHA pleading limits apply to DCHRA. | DCHRA covers habitational insurance; assuming FHA standards apply, NFHA nonetheless pleaded a sufficient claim under DCHRA. |
| McCarran‑Ferguson preemption | (Not substantially developed by NFHA) | Travelers: McCarran‑Ferguson bars applying FHA to insurance business. | Court treated Travelers’ McCarran‑Ferguson argument as waived for lack of developed showing and did not resolve it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (standing pleading standards)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational standing via diversion of resources)
- Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (FHA disparate‑impact recognized; robust causation requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- NAACP v. Am. Family Mutual Insurance Co., 978 F.2d 287 (insurance practices can create housing unavailability)
- Mhany Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (post‑Inclusive Communities disparate‑impact analysis)
- Rhode Island Comm’n for Human Rights v. Graul, 120 F. Supp. 3d 110 (statistical comparison to show disparate impact)