A Colorado health insurer declines an applicant solely because the applicant is blind, offering no actuarial justification for the decision. Under C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(f), this decision is:

Why D is correct

C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(f) expressly prohibits classifying individuals solely on blindness or physical disability unless the insurer can show actuarial justification. A declination resting solely on blindness with no actuarial support is unfair discrimination; consistent application of an unjustified rule does not cure it, and the Division does not pre-approve declinations.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Physical disability is singled out by the statute; it is not automatically a valid underwriting basis.
• B) Uniform application of a prohibited classification is still prohibited; the statute requires actuarial justification, not consistency.
• C) The Division does not require or approve disability declinations; approval is not the source of the rule.

Memory hook

Blindness alone is never the answer — actuarial justification or nothing.

Why C is correct

C.R.S. § 10-3-1104(1)(f) prohibits classifying an applicant solely on blindness or physical disability unless actuarial justification exists. Denying coverage solely because an applicant is blind, with no actuarial support, is unfair discrimination that the Colorado Division of Insurance can penalize.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) The prohibition applies regardless of whether the policy is individual or group.
• B) A waiver signed by the applicant cannot authorize discrimination the statute forbids.
• D) Group status is irrelevant; the restriction applies to the insurer's underwriting classifications.

Memory hook

Blindness alone is never a rate class.