# National Organization for Women v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · September 18, 1987 · 531 A.2d 274

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9708029

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, Et Al., Appellants, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE CO., INC., Appellee. American Council of Life Insurance and the Health Insurance Association of America, Amici Curiae
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 18, 1987
- **Citations:** 531 A.2d 274; 1987 D.C. App. LEXIS 438
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Terry
- **Judges:** Belson and Terry, Associate Judges, and Nebeker
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9708029

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying the principle to statutory construction, noting that a “statute should be construed so that general language does not apply to matters covered by more specific language”

## Opinion text

TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, but solely on the *280 ground that “the Council’s solicitation of and reliance upon the Corporation Counsel’s opinion ... shows that it declined to enact the proposed bills despite its having been informed that the Act did not cover gender-based insurance rates.” Ante at 279. I also agree with part V of Judge Belson’s opinion. However, I specifically do not agree with the view that “the better interpretation of the Human Rights Act is that it does not encompass actuarial rating practices_” Ante at 276. As the majority recognizes in the very next sentence, there is “some persuasion” in appellants’ argument to the contrary; indeed, I find it quite persuasive. Were it not for what I regard as clear evidence of legislative intent, I would probably vote to reverse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9708029. Public record. Not legal advice.