## Facts

- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company wrote homeowners (property) insurance and used underwriting criteria that included territorial factors.
- HUD received a complaint alleging Nationwide cancelled homeowners insurance due to race and/or residence; HUD referred the matter to the Dayton Human Relations Council under a cooperative enforcement arrangement.
- HUD interpreted the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit discrimination in housing-related services, including homeowners/hazard insurance, and adopted a regulation treating discriminatory provision or denial of hazard insurance as prohibited conduct.
- Nationwide claimed its underwriting was actuarially based and challenged HUD’s authority to regulate property-insurance underwriting under the FHA.
- Nationwide sued seeking declaratory relief that (1) the FHA does not apply to property insurance, (2) the McCarran-Ferguson Act preempts applying the FHA to the business of insurance, and (3) Dayton and its officials lacked authority under state and local law to proceed on the complaint.
- The district court granted summary judgment for HUD and the Dayton defendants and dismissed Nationwide’s state-law claims; Nationwide appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FHA’s prohibition on discrimination in housing-related “services” covers discriminatory homeowners/property-insurance underwriting and availability.
2. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act bars applying the FHA to property-insurance practices as an impermissible impairment of state insurance regulation.
3. Whether the district court properly dismissed Nationwide’s state-law challenges to the Dayton defendants’ authority to proceed with the local fair-housing process.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court held the FHA applies to discriminatory homeowners/property-insurance practices because insurance is a housing-related service connected to the availability and cost of housing.
- The court held McCarran-Ferguson does not preempt FHA enforcement against discriminatory insurance practices absent a showing that FHA application would invalidate, impair, or supersede state insurance law.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Nationwide’s state-law claims against the Dayton defendants, allowing the local administrative process to continue.

## Legal Principles

- FHA § 3604(b) reaches discrimination in services provided “in connection with” the sale or rental of a dwelling; homeowners/hazard insurance may qualify as such a service when it affects access to housing.
- HUD’s reasonable interpretation of the FHA, including regulations identifying discriminatory provision or denial of hazard insurance as prohibited, is entitled to judicial deference when consistent with statutory text and purpose.
- Under McCarran-Ferguson, generally applicable federal statutes that do not specifically relate to insurance are displaced only if applying them would “invalidate, impair, or supersede” state insurance regulation; adding federal antidiscrimination constraints, without displacing state regulatory rules, is insufficient.
- Federal courts may decline to grant declaratory or injunctive relief interfering with state or local fair-housing enforcement where the local agency is acting within delegated authority and cooperative federal enforcement arrangements.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld HUD’s authority to apply the Fair Housing Act to discriminatory homeowners-insurance practices and rejected McCarran-Ferguson as a bar because FHA enforcement operates alongside, rather than displaces, state insurance regulation; it also left Dayton’s local fair-housing proceedings intact.


Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cisneros, 52 F.3d 1351 (6th Cir. 1995)