Opinion ID: 770328
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Text: 27 Chabner also claims that United's actions violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides, in relevant part, that [a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their . . . disability are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.  Cal. Civ. Code S 51. The Act also provides that a violation of the ADA is also a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. CodeS 51. The district court held that because United had violated the ADA, it also violated the Unruh Act. In light of our decision in Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000), as discussed above, the district court's decision cannot be upheld on this basis. 28 We may, however, affirm the district court on a ground not selected by the district judge so long as the record fairly supports such an alternative disposition. Fidelity Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank, 792 F.2d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir. 1986). Chabner, and the State of California as amicus curiae, argue that United's actions violated the Unruh Act, regardless of whether they also violated the ADA. We agree that Chabner's allegations support an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim independently of the alleged ADA violation. 29 The Unruh Civil Rights Act works to ensure that all persons receive the full accommodations of any business within the California, regardless of the person's disabilities. Cal. Civ. Code S 51. The insurance business is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Cal. Ins. Code. S 1861.03(a). Unruh prevents more than discrimination in access to a business or its services; it also prevents discrimination in the form of pricing differentials. See Koire v. Metro Car Wash , 707 P.2d 195, 197 (Cal. 1985). However, disparities in treatment and pricing that are reasonable do not violate the Unruh Act. See id. (stating that certain types of discrimination have been denominated `reasonable' and, therefore, not arbitrary). The critical question, therefore, is whether the nonstandard premium United charged Chabner was reasonable. 30 To determine whether the nonstandard premium was reasonable, we are again informed by Insurance Code section 10144. Section 10144 prevents an insurer from charging a different rate for the same coverage solely because of a physical or mental impairment, unless the rate differential is based on sound actuarial principles or is related to actual and reasonably anticipated experience. Cal. Ins. Code S 10144. If Chabner's nonstandard premium was based on sound actuarial principles or actual and reasonably anticipated experience, then it would certainly be reasonable for purposes of the Unruh Act because it would have been specifically allowed by statute. By contrast, if the premium was not based on one of the section 10144 prongs, then there would be no reasonable justification for it, and in that case we may consider the nonstandard premium to be arbitrary and a violation of the Unruh Act. Therefore, we hold that if United violated Insurance Code section 10144, it also violated the Unruh Act, but if section 10144 authorized United's actions, then Chabner's Unruh Act claim necessarily fails as well. 31