PIA Washington & Other Groups Take Credit Scoring Conflict to Washington Supreme Court Conflict to Washington Supreme Court

PIA Washington, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of Washington (IIABW) have asked the Washington Supreme Court to stop Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler’s latest attempt to ban credit scoring.

The suit asked the court to force the commissioner to delay the ban scheduled to happen on March 4th. It also wants the court to force Kreidler to hold an administrative hearing on the matter. That hearing would include testimony from the three trade groups.

Kreidler’s ban — similar to the one overturned last year by a Washington Court — will be for three-years until a “permanent” solution can be found.

PIA Western Alliance Executive Vice President Clark Sitzes said the commissioner’s constant push to ban credit scoring— against the advice and expertise of those who know better — is seriously upsetting the balance of a competitive insurance marketplace.

“The PIA believes that risk classification is an important priority in property and casualty insurance,” Sitzes noted. “And we believe a healthy insurance climate means a healthy insurance agency. When companies do well, agencies do well.”

APCIA general counsel, Claire Howard agrees with Sitzes and said the constant push to ban credit scoring combined with the overturned ban Kreidler did last year, has seriously impacted the marketplace.

“Commissioner Kreidler’s rule to prohibit insurers’ use of credit-based insurance scores has caused chaos in the Washington insurance market and raised rates for over one million consumers,” she said and pointed out that the ban is particularly harmful to seniors on fixed incomes.

“Every day the permanent rule is in effect means more lower-risk Washington consumers will face higher insurance costs,” she said.

Clark Sitzes and the PIA Washington agree. Completely. It’s a critical point the commissioner misses. “Risk classification is also important to make sure that consumers are treated fairly—paying a rate that fairly squares up with the risks that are presented,” Sitzes said.

Howard also noted why the group went directly to the Washington Supreme Court rather than work through lower courts.

“When an agency official such as the insurance commissioner accepts a hearing demand, holds a hearing, and issues an order deciding an administrative matter, such an order is subject to judicial review by the superior court,” she said. “But in this instance, the insurance commissioner refused even to accept the hearing demand, let alone make any decision. Consequently, judicial review through the normal channels is not available, and our only recourse was to seek a writ of mandamus.”

Source link: PIA Western Alliance — https://bit.ly/3fN6LD2

Source link: The Center Square — https://bit.ly/3savUOx