5 | Case Studies: Challenges for insurers Is there indirect discrimination? What is the requirement? The first step is to determine the relevant requirement. A customer is not required to buy insurance from CIPL. For example, they could refuse the prices offered and apply to another insurer.72 However, the requirement might be described as: a customer who purchases insurance from CIPL must drive a cheap car to be provided with the lower premium for their insurance policy. Indirect discrimination under the RDA requires that a person of a particular race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, or immigrant status does not or cannot comply with the requirement. If a person with protected attributes under the RDA does not drive a cheaper car, then they do not comply with the requirement. A successful claim under the DDA must show that because of their disability, a person does not, would not, is not able to, or would not be able to comply with this requirement. This may be satisfied in this situation if a person was not capable of driving cheaper cars because of their disability, which meant they could only drive expensive cars. For example, if a person with a disability required a special or modifiable vehicle. Does the requirement disadvantage people with a protected attribute? The next step is to consider whether the requirement disadvantages people with the protected attribute. 28 If people with certain disabilities can only drive expensive cars, then it could be argued that they are disadvantaged by this requirement, given they would not be able to access a policy at the lower premium. Any disadvantage suffered would be a matter for evidence and dependent on the particular circumstances. In a more realistic situation with a greater range of available vehicles, there would need to be careful consideration of a customer’s ability to comply and any disadvantage arising from this requirement. However, for claims under the ADA, RDA, and SDA, there is no indication that people with protected attributes cannot drive cheaper cars or that they require expensive cars for any reason related to that protected attribute. Arguably, they are not disadvantaged by CIPL’s requirement because they are able to drive a cheaper car and obtain the lower premium. Yet being able to technically comply with a requirement may not always be sufficient to establish that no disadvantage has been suffered. In some situations, it may be necessary to also consider whether a person is less likely to be able to comply with a requirement because of a protected attribute. Such questions would be a matter of evidence. In this case study, Group A are unlikely to be disadvantaged by this requirement as under the ADA or SDA. For similar reasons, this is unlikely to amount to impairing a person’s human rights under the RDA.