WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6140

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE USE OF CREDIT HISTORY OR RACE IN UNDERWRITING AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY OR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Anthony Nolan

Connecticut bill bans credit history and race from auto and homeowners insurance underwriting to reduce discriminatory pricing and improve coverage access for marginalized populations.

REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Insurance and Real Estate
#creditratings #homeowners'insurance #motorvehicleinsurance #race
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6140

Legislative bill overview

HB 6140 would prohibit insurance companies in Connecticut from using credit history or race as factors when underwriting automobile liability and homeowners insurance policies. The bill aims to prevent discrimination and reduce barriers to insurance access by eliminating these two specific underwriting criteria from consideration in pricing and coverage decisions.

Why is this important

Insurance affordability and access are critical issues for Connecticut residents, as these are mandatory or heavily relied-upon products. Research suggests that credit-based insurance scoring disproportionately affects lower-income and minority populations, potentially creating disparities in who can obtain or afford coverage, so this legislation could address systemic inequities in the insurance market.

Potential points of contention

  • Actuarial validity concerns: Insurance companies may argue that credit history and other factors are statistically predictive of claims likelihood, and removing them could undermine risk-based pricing models that they contend keep premiums fair for low-risk customers.
  • Rate impacts and market effects: Restricting underwriting variables could increase premiums for some customers or reduce market competition if insurers exit the state, potentially harming the very populations the bill intends to help.
  • Race as an explicit underwriting factor: While race-based underwriting is already prohibited under federal fair lending laws, the explicit mention may clarify intent but could also signal that enforcement of existing protections is insufficient.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.