View this article online: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2022/04/01/660996.htm
A judge in Washington has signed an order formally staying the Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler’s ban on using credit ratings to help set insurance premiums on vehicle, rental and homeowners insurance.
The order consolidated two cases into Judge Indu Thomas’ Thurston Cpunty courtroom and put any new regulations on hold.
The judge had originally issued the stay in early March as the new rules were set to take effect.
In February, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, along with co-petitioners the Professional Insurance Agents of Washington, and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of Washington, filed a petition in Thurston County Superior Court challenging Kreidler’s permanent rule banning the use of credit-based insurance scoring. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies separately filed its own petition, and the court consolidated the cases at the joint request of APCIA, PIA, IIABW and NAMIC.
The trade associations issued the following statement in response:
“Commissioner Mike Kreidler’s rulemaking activity is raising rates for more than a million Washington consumers. We are pleased the court consolidated the legal challenges, transferred the separately filed petitions to a single court, and approved an immediate stay on the permanent rule. The stipulated stay has now been formally signed by the judge, and the effect of the stay is that credit-based insurance scores will continue to be available for use in Washington state through a decision on the merits and any subsequent appeals.”
The statement also calls the rules “onerous and unnecessary” and they ignore risk-based pricing fundamentals.
Kreidler issued the following statement:
“I’m grateful the parties in this case have all agreed that it’s in everyone’s best interest to get a final decision on the rule as fast as possible. This agreed order ensures the decision will be made expeditiously through the Thurston County Superior Court, which is the appropriate venue to consider the important consumer protections in this rule.”
Related: