But at a standing-room only session during the National Association of Insurance Commissioners fall meeting last week, the working group announced that it would focus, instead, on unifying states' research and consistently applying credit scoring statutes.

Although consumer and industry representatives had diverged radically on the notion of the NAIC undertaking the study, both sides seemed to support the latest direction of the Working Group.

Rick Nelson, a spokesperson for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies said "this is a win for consumers." He added later that there are credit scoring laws in 35-40 states that are good for consumers.

"I would agree," said Birny Birnbaum, a consumer representative, whose reasons included a back-handed jab at insurers for opposing an NAIC study.

Mr. Birnbaum, with the Center for Economic Justice in Austin, Texas, said the Working Group decision would mean that the panel would move "onto concrete activity, to implementing laws that should help consumers."

By putting the proposal for an NAIC study in the background, he said the Working Group is eliminating an issue that insurers have used as a "platform for distortions."

Joseph Annotti, a spokesperson for the National Association of Independent Insurers said the decision by the group to look at a compendium of state laws "could be step in right direction." But having the states do a study could have the same legal obstacles that insurers perceive in having NAIC do the job. "I don't know that they addressed that issue," he said.

His comments seemed to follow a prediction by Oregon Insurance Administrator Joel S. Ario, who told reporters when the session closed that he expected the "industry will continue to resist on legal and practical grounds."

The legal position for the trade groups was made at the session by former Illinois Insurance Director Nat Shapo who spoke for the Alliance of American Insurers, American Insurance Association NAII and NAMIC.

Mr. Shapo presented the Working Group with a nine-page study that concluded that regulators should consider whether a disparate impact study would represent "a fundamental shift away from the classic understanding of ?unfair discrimination'" as embodied in state laws across the country and as interpreted repeatedly by the courts (and the NAIC)--and, if so, what the rationale is for such a remarkable posture.

"Furthermore, any such decision should be preceded by an evaluation of whether such a study will be feasible under the Fair Credit Reporting Act." He said his remarks applied to individual state studies as well.

Among the states, Texas' regulators are already under instruction from their legislature to complete a credit record disparate impact study by January of 2005.

The Working Group's decision to postpone an up-or-down vote on a study was made in an announcement by Washington Commissioner Mike Kreidler who co-chairs the group with Mr. Ario.

He said there would also be a continuing review by the Working Group of the legalities involved in a study as well as the practical impact. "We're not saying it [an NAIC study] shouldn't happen. We're saying it shouldn't happen right now," declared Mr. Ario.

Mr. Kreidler said at one point during the discussion that the use of credit background to score the insurable risk of a customer was counterintuitive and that "hundreds of thousands" of consumers had contacted his agency asking questions along the lines of "what does this have to do with how I drive my car."

He said the issue was not a political one, as the industry has charged, but rather a question of determining impact on consumers. Mr. Kreidler instructed Working Group staff to e-mail inquiries to all states to work out the details of a collaborative study.