Allstate Insurance Co. v. Schmidt
104 Haw. 261, 88 P.3d 196 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute prohibiting an insurer from basing "any standard or rating plan" on a person's length of driving experience applies to both underwriting decisions (the decision to issue a policy) and rate-making decisions (the determination of the premium).
Facts:
- Kaoru N. Reinertson applied for an automobile insurance policy with Allstate Insurance Company.
- At the time of her application, Reinertson had held a driver's license for less than one year.
- Allstate had an underwriting rule that required an insured to hold a driver's license for more than one year to be eligible for a standard policy.
- Citing this rule, Allstate explicitly rejected Reinertson's application for a standard policy based on the length of her driving experience.
- Allstate instead issued a policy to Reinertson through a separate, and presumably more expensive, joint underwriting plan (JUP).
Procedural Posture:
- Kaoru N. Reinertson filed a complaint with the State of Hawaii’s Insurance Division against Allstate.
- The Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner issued a Cease and Desist Order against Allstate and imposed a $3,000 penalty.
- Allstate requested a hearing, and a hearings officer recommended vacating the order, concluding the statute only applied to rate-making.
- The Insurance Commissioner, J.P. Schmidt, (appellee) reversed the hearings officer's recommendation and affirmed the Cease and Desist Order.
- Allstate (appellant) appealed the Commissioner’s final order to the first circuit court (a trial-level court with appellate jurisdiction over agency decisions).
- The circuit court affirmed the Commissioner's order, holding that the statute prohibits discrimination in both underwriting and rate-making.
- Allstate (appellants-appellants) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Hawaii Revised Statutes § 431:10C-207, which prohibits insurers from basing 'any standard or rating plan' on an applicant's length of driving experience, apply to an insurer's underwriting decisions to accept or reject an applicant, in addition to its rate-making decisions?
Opinions:
Majority - Duffy, J.
Yes, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 431:10C-207 applies to underwriting decisions. The statute's plain language prohibits discrimination in 'any standard or rating plan.' Applying the canon of statutory construction that no word should be construed as superfluous, the term 'standard' must be interpreted as meaning something distinct from 'rating plan.' Therefore, 'standard' encompasses an insurer's underwriting standards used to determine eligibility, while 'rating plan' refers to the system for setting premiums. To hold otherwise would render the word 'standard' meaningless and create a loophole allowing insurers to discriminate in underwriting what they are forbidden from doing in rate-making.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of Hawaii's anti-discrimination statute in the context of motor vehicle insurance. By extending the prohibition to underwriting, the court prevents insurers from circumventing the law by simply refusing to issue policies to applicants in protected categories, rather than charging them discriminatory rates. This establishes a precedent that anti-discrimination language in insurance statutes should be interpreted broadly to cover both the issuance and the pricing of policies. The case solidifies the principle that courts should avoid statutory interpretations that render specific words or phrases superfluous.
Unlock the full brief for Allstate Insurance Co. v. Schmidt