Quote from story: “Travelers’ refusal to write property and casualty insurance for landlords with tenants participating in the Housing Choice Voucher program is the equivalent of, and has the same effect as, a refusal to write insurance for landlords because they rent to a higher proportion of households that are African-American/Black or female-headed households,” NFHA said in the lawsuit.”
Now, imagine that anyone made a comment that most of the people receiving welfare payments in the form of these housing vouchers are black…imagine the faux outrage and lectures we’d get that white people are on welfare too. Yet, when it serves a purpose, we’re treated to this comment and no one questions how racist it is to make such an allegation.
I guess underwriters are to ignore the “connect the dots” conclusions they see in the data.
this isn’t news. I have always known that section 8 winds up surplus lines. It’s a poor risk. Why is Travelers the only scapegoat? they must have pissed off some bureaucrat.
I wouldn’t care if Travelers admitted publicly that they don’t want to insure subsidized housing. Carriers are not charities, they are for-profit businesses (mostly). How can you force a for-profit company to enter into a business deal they believe to be unprofitable? It’s like the government forcing you to loan money to your friend just because he/she is a minority, when you know you most likely wont get paid back. It’s nonsense. Let the NFHA guarantee or back-stop Travelers losses and then I’m sure they’ll be happy to offer the insurance because they care about profits (hence “for-profit”) not the race or gender of the tenants. Otherwise, they are forcing corporations to subsidize public assistance programs at the expense of their shareholders, other customers and employees. I don’t want my insurance rates to go up to cover claims at these buildings.
Conversely, if the article failed to mention that the NFHA can prove the business is profitable and Travelers wont do it anyway because of race or gender issues, then go get ’em, but I rather doubt it.
Is writing non owner occupied homes on a dwelling form (more restrictive coverage) and for higher rates discriminatory? Ubet. That’s the name of the game. They can’t file a rate for it that supports the risk that would be approved so they decline and get prosecuted for running a for profit game.
What is this country coming to? Let them buy it from whoever will offer the coverage for crying out loud.
Why is it discrimination and not just a bad underwriting risk?
Again, government getting into business without understanding its totality.
Quote from story: “Travelers’ refusal to write property and casualty insurance for landlords with tenants participating in the Housing Choice Voucher program is the equivalent of, and has the same effect as, a refusal to write insurance for landlords because they rent to a higher proportion of households that are African-American/Black or female-headed households,” NFHA said in the lawsuit.”
Now, imagine that anyone made a comment that most of the people receiving welfare payments in the form of these housing vouchers are black…imagine the faux outrage and lectures we’d get that white people are on welfare too. Yet, when it serves a purpose, we’re treated to this comment and no one questions how racist it is to make such an allegation.
I guess underwriters are to ignore the “connect the dots” conclusions they see in the data.
To see how good these risks are, go visit select sections of Detroit.
this isn’t news. I have always known that section 8 winds up surplus lines. It’s a poor risk. Why is Travelers the only scapegoat? they must have pissed off some bureaucrat.
2, Someone please find me a standard market willing to write HUD housing. It is always surplus lines.
I wouldn’t care if Travelers admitted publicly that they don’t want to insure subsidized housing. Carriers are not charities, they are for-profit businesses (mostly). How can you force a for-profit company to enter into a business deal they believe to be unprofitable? It’s like the government forcing you to loan money to your friend just because he/she is a minority, when you know you most likely wont get paid back. It’s nonsense. Let the NFHA guarantee or back-stop Travelers losses and then I’m sure they’ll be happy to offer the insurance because they care about profits (hence “for-profit”) not the race or gender of the tenants. Otherwise, they are forcing corporations to subsidize public assistance programs at the expense of their shareholders, other customers and employees. I don’t want my insurance rates to go up to cover claims at these buildings.
Conversely, if the article failed to mention that the NFHA can prove the business is profitable and Travelers wont do it anyway because of race or gender issues, then go get ’em, but I rather doubt it.
Is writing non owner occupied homes on a dwelling form (more restrictive coverage) and for higher rates discriminatory? Ubet. That’s the name of the game. They can’t file a rate for it that supports the risk that would be approved so they decline and get prosecuted for running a for profit game.
What is this country coming to? Let them buy it from whoever will offer the coverage for crying out loud.