But consumer representatives, such as Bernie Birnbaum of the Center of Economic Justice and Connie Chamberlin of Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia Inc., disagreed.

“There are substantial levels of discrimination and redlining in the personal lines insurance marketplace,” Ms. Chamberlin said.

She called on the NAIC to encourage its members to “use proven methodologies to determine the extent of insurance discrimination.”

Mr. Snyder said that evidence of a thriving insurance market in urban areas belies any claim of so-called redlining or discrimination against certain neighborhoods.

“With fewer than 2 percent of auto insurance in residual markets, the largest line of insurance coverage, we call upon the NAIC to reject demands for more controls over risk classification, so that recent progress can continue to be made on serving customers in all areas, including urban markets,” he said.

Don Cleasby, vice president of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI), said the common flaw of consumer group studies is that they do not take into account loss costs.

“After analyzing decades of loss experience, insurance companies have determined that the geographical location of where the vehicle is garaged and where the dwelling is located is one of the most predictive variables in determining insured loss expectancy,” he said.

Mr. Birnbaum urged the panel to evaluate the impact of new risk classifications and recommend solutions to any identified problems in personal lines availability affordability and fairness.

“We also think the regulators should identify potential problems with risk classifications that involve unfair discrimination and insurance availability and affordability issues,” he said.

North Dakota Commissioner and panelist Jim Poolman said the group will evaluate the testimony over the next few weeks to see what actions may be taken in 2007.