The NAIC periodically files amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs pursuant to established guidelines and upon approval of the Executive Committee. An amicus brief may be appropriate if the issues raised in the legal action touch upon the general purposes of the NAIC, such as effective regulation of insurance, constitutionality of insurance regulatory laws, financial stability of the industry, market conduct or consumer protection.
| Name | Case Number | Date | Court | Description |
| 2023 | ||||
| Docket No. 23-258 | 10/18/2023 |
Supreme Court of the United States |
The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of United States of America v. State of Delaware Department of Insurance, 66 F.4th 114 2023 WL 3030247 (3rd Cir. 2023). The NAIC filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Delaware Insurance Commissioner Trinidad Navarro. The case involved the refusal by the Delaware Department of Insurance to provide documents and testimony responsive to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summons regarding the licensure of micro-captive insurance companies formed under Internal Revenue Code § 831(b). Compliance with the summons would have contravened Section 6920 of the Delaware Insurance Code which protects the confidentiality of such materials unless the recipient agrees to keep the information confidential. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Department did not meet the test for “reverse-preemption” under § 1012 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act and that the challenged conduct did not involve the business of insurance. Other courts have interpreted McCarran-Ferguson to require three elements before reverse presumption is appropriate: (1) whether the state law is enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance; (2) whether the federal law does not specifically relate to the business of insurance; and (3) whether the federal law would invalidate, impair, or supersede the state law. However, the Third Circuit instead imposed a threshold question that courts must first assess before analyzing the other reverse-preemption requirements: i.e., whether the challenged conduct broadly constitutes the business of insurance in the first place. The Supreme Court left in place the Third Circuit's holding that the conduct at issue (i.e., the refusal by the Department to produce summoned documents without the IRS first signing a confidentiality agreement) did not constitute the “business of insurance” within the meaning of McCarran-Ferguson because the conduct did not relate to the relationship between insurer and insured, the type of policy issued, or its reliability, interpretation, and enforcement. |
|
| 2022 | ||||
| 7 MAP 2022 8 MAP 2022 58 MAP 2021 59 MAP 2021 |
4/26/2022 |
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
The NAIC submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on April 26, 2022, supporting the Liquidator in seeking a reversal of the appellate court’s order. The NAIC argued that the Liquidator properly exercised discretion found in Pennsylvania’s receivership and guaranty association statutes by equitably distributing the insolvent insurer’s estate assets in a way that best protects policyholders. The NAIC has an interest in ensuring Pennsylvania’s receivership and guaranty association laws are properly interpreted because they are based on the NAIC’s model laws, which have been adopted by other states. |
|
| 2021 | ||||
| 1:18-cv-0334 | 9/16/2021 |
United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois |
At the suggestion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the NAIC submitted an amicus brief on September 16, 2021, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to “educate generalist federal courts about the broader implications of choice-of-law rules as applied to group insurance policies.” Gunn v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 968 F.3d 802, 813 (7th Cir. 2020). The NAIC’s brief supports CNA’s position that the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) properly exercised its authority in approving the rates for the CNA certificate of insurance issued to plaintiff Carlton Gunn. Gunn argues that because the policy was issued to his employer in Washington, D.C., it was the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking’s approved rates that applied to his certificate. Gunn is a resident of Washington state and his certificate was issued to him in Washington. Washington law contains several provisions providing the OIC with authority to approve rates for certificates issued to residents in the state. The NAIC takes the position that the filed-rate doctrine recognizes the authority of the Washington OIC to approve premium rates that are actuarially justified pursuant to legal requirements, making a choice of law analysis inapplicable. |
|
| 20-11179 | 4/07/2021 |
United States Court of Fifth Circuit |
The NAIC submitted an amicus brief to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case on April 7, 2021, supporting the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in seeking a reversal of the district court's order. At issue is whether the health plan sponsored and administered by Data Marketing Partnership (DMP) and offered to its limited partners is an "employee benefit plan" within the meaning of ERISA or whether state insurance laws govern the plan. DMP explains that its business consists of limited partners installing a tracking app on their smart phones so they can sell the data to third-party marketing firms. DMP calls its limited partners "working owners" of the company, arguing that it is providing a single-employer health plan pursuant to ERISA. The DOL issued an advisory opinion stating that, based on the presented facts, DMP was not an employer and the "limited partners" were not employees or "working owners". The NAIC filed a brief agreeing with the DOL that DMP's health plan appears to be a scheme to avoid regulatory oversight of the commercial sale of insurance outside the context of employment-based relationships. The brief explained that ever since ERISA was enacted, there have been a number of such schemes to evade state insurance law, putting consumers at serious risk of losing health coverage to insurer insolvency. | |
| 2019 | ||||
| Maine Community Health Options, Moda Health Plan, Inc., Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States | 18-1023, 18-1028, 18-1038 |
9/6/19 |
Supreme Court of the United States |
On September 6, 2019, the NAIC filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting Petitioners Moda Health Plan, Maine Community Health Options, and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company. The case involves the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor program, under which insurers operating on state health care exchanges were subject to caps on their profits or losses beyond a certain threshold but would be compensated for their losses for the first three years. The NAIC argued the collective $12 billion owed by the Government under the risk corridor program accelerated the financial problems of new insurers that were induced to enter state exchanges by the premium stabilization programs in the ACA. The defunding of the risk corridors program undermined regulators' prospective rate approval process, suppressed competition and eliminated availability of coverage in many counties across the country. The NAIC's brief also asserted that the Government has improperly interfered in insurer insolvencies, risking further harm to insurance consumers. This is the NAIC's fourth amicus brief in the Moda case, having previously filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2017, as well as supporting Moda's request for a rehearing en banc in that same court in 2018. The NAIC supported Moda in its petition for writ in the Supreme Court in March of this year. |
| Amica Life Insurance Company v. Michael P. Wertz | 18-1455 | 4/10/2019 |
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit |
The NAIC and the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Commission ("IIPRC") filed a joint amicus brief with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case on April 10, 2019. This appeal follows an order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado which upheld a life insurance policy's two year suicide exclusion contained in a policy issued pursuant to the Uniform Standards approved by the IIPRC. The appellant continued to argue that Colorado's one year suicide exclusion statute applied and that adoption of the IIPRC's Uniform Standards represented an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an interstate agency. The NAIC and IIPRC again argued that Colorado's adoption of the Compact model law, as well as its adherence to the Uniform Standards, was an appropriate delegation of authority to the IIPRC. |
| Guardian Flight, LLC v. Jon Godfread, et al | 19-1343, 19-1381 | 6/18/2019 | United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | The NAIC submitted an amicus brief to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case on June 18, 2019. The NAIC argued that two North Dakota air ambulance statutes were not preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) as they were intended to regulate the business of insurance and did not relate to airline prices, routes or services. The NAIC also argued that if the Court were to find that the statutes were preempted by the ADA, both statutes are saved by the reverse preemption provision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (MFA) because the purpose of the laws is to protect policyholders. |
| Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States | 18-1028 | 3/8/2019 |
Supreme Court of the United States |
On March 8, 2019, the NAIC filed an amicus brief in support of Moda Health Plan in its petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Moda Health Plan v. United States. The case involves the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor program, under which insurers operating on state exchanges were subject to caps on their profits or losses beyond a certain threshold. The Federal Government has paid 12.6% of what it owes Moda and other insurers for losses under the risk corridor program. This is the NAIC's third amicus brief in the Moda case, having previously filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2017, as well as supporting Moda's request for a rehearing en banc in that same court in 2018. After receiving adverse rulings in those appeals, Moda is now seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court. The NAIC's latest brief asserted that nonpayment of risk corridor amounts on a national scale has impaired state regulators' core functions of determining fair rates, promoting competition and protecting consumers. The NAIC further argued the Federal Government, in refusing to honor its statutory obligation to make full risk corridor payments, has not been a fair partner to Insurance Commissioners and to insurance companies in the administration of the ACA. |
| 2018 | ||||
| Amica Life Insurance Company v. Michael P. Wertz | 1:15-cv-01161-WJM-SKC | 6/29/2018 |
United States District Court for the District of Colorado |
On June 7, 2018, the Court issued an Order for Further Briefing directing the parties, along with the NAIC and the Interstate Insurance Compact as amici, to submit additional briefs addressing whether the Colorado Legislature may delegate the sort of power the Legislature has delegated to the IIPRC. All parties, as well as the NAIC and IIPRC, submitted additional briefs on July 6, 2018. On October 19, 2018, the Court issued its Order granting Amica's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court's Final Judgment was entered on October 22, 2018. In its Order, the Court upheld the policy's two-year suicide exclusion stating that the Colorado Constitution permits delegating this authority to an interstate body just as it permits such delegation to a state agency. Mr. Wertz filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit and all parties have submitted their briefs. In addition, the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association also filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Wertz's position while the NAIC and the Compact filed a joint amicus brief to once again address Wertz's challenge to the Colorado legislature's delegation of authority to the Commission to develop uniform multi-state standards which may modify existing state statutes. |
| Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States | 1:16-cv-00649 | 8/14/2018 |
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
The NAIC submitted a second amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Moda Health Plan v. United States on August 14, 2018. The NAIC filed this brief in support of Moda Health Plan, who had prevailed in its arguments in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims but received an adverse judgment from a 3-judge panel in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The NAIC joined Moda in requesting a review by a full panel in the same appellate court. The case involves the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor program, under which insurers operating on state exchanges were subject to caps on their profits or losses beyond a certain threshold. The Federal Government has paid 12.6% of what it owes Moda and other insurers for losses under the risk corridor program. The NAIC's brief asserted that nonpayment of risk corridor amounts on a national scale has burdened the insurers offering Qualified Health Plans on state exchanges, and consequently regulators have more difficulty determining the fairness of proposed rates. Nonpayment has also suppressed competition, ultimately hurting consumer choice and affordability. |
| 2017 | ||||
| Amica Life Insurance Company v. Michael Wertz | 15-cv-1161-WJM-CBS | 10/27/2017 |
United States District Court for the District of Colorado |
The NAIC submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff Amica Life Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. The underlying declaratory judgment action filed by Amica against a life insurance policy beneficiary centered on the enforceability of a two-year suicide exclusion contained in a policy issued pursuant to the Uniform Standards approved by the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Commission ("IIPRC"). While Amica argued the two-year suicide exclusion should apply, Defendant Wertz argued that Colorado's one year suicide exclusion statute was applicable as adoption of the Uniform Standards represented an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an interstate agency. In light of the perceived conflict between the Uniform Standards and Colorado law, the District Court of Colorado certified a question to the Colorado Supreme Court asking for it to rule on the matter. The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the opportunity to address the question leaving the issue to the federal court for its consideration. The NAIC's brief detailed the development of the Compact while also addressing the constitutional issues considered during its development. The NAIC's brief also argued that Colorado's adoption of the Compact model law, as well as its adherence to the Uniform Standards, was an appropriate delegation of authority to the IIPRC. |
| MODA Health Plan, Inc. v. United States |
17-1994 |
8/28/2017 |
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court |
The NAIC submitted an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Moda Health Plan v. United States on August 28, 2017. The NAIC filed this brief in support of Moda Health Plan, who had prevailed in its arguments in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The case involves the Affordable Care Act's risk corridor program, under which insurers operating on state exchanges were subject to caps on their profits or losses beyond a certain threshold. The Federal Government has paid 12.6% of what it owes Moda and other insurers for losses under the risk corridor program. The NAIC's brief asserted that nonpayment of risk corridor amounts on a national scale has negatively impacted state regulators' ability to oversee rates, licensing, capital adequacy, and liquidation of companies. Nonpayment has also suppressed competition, ultimately hurting consumer choice and affordability. |
| 2016 | ||||
| Metlife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) |
16-5086 |
8/22/2016 |
United States Court of Appeals for The District of Columbia Circuit |
The NAIC submitted an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council on August 22, 2016. The NAIC filed this brief in support of MetLife, who had prevailed in its arguments at the District Court level. The case involves MetLife's challenge to the Financial Stability Oversight Council ("FSOC") in its designation of MetLife as a systemically important financial institution. The brief asserted that FSOC largely ignored or discounted the state-based system that regulates MetLife, and therefore acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in making the designation. |
| 2015 | ||||
| Alfred Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. |
14-181 |
9/03/2015 |
Supreme Court of the United States |
At the request of the Insurance Division of the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation, the NAIC filed an amicus brief on the merits in support of Alfred Gobeille, Chair of the Vermont Green Mountain Care Board, appealing the Second Circuit's opinion in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Second Circuit determined that ERISA preempted a Vermont state statute and regulation requiring certain insurers and other health care payers to submit health care claims data to an All-Payer Claims Database (APCD), as applied to Liberty Mutual's self-insured employee benefit plan. This data is used to analyze health care utilization, cost, quality, and population health, and to support health care reform initiatives. The Second Circuit found that the law had an impermissible "connection with" ERISA's federal reporting requirements. The NAIC, joined by the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, argued that Vermont and the 17 other states with similar APCD laws were exercising their traditional police powers and, furthermore, the state health care claims reporting requirements did not conflict with those imposed by ERISA. |
| Metlife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) |
1:15-cv-00045-RMC |
6/26/2015 |
District Court of District of Columbia |
The NAIC submitted an amicus brief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council on June 26, 2015. The NAIC filed this brief at the request of the California Department of Insurance and in support of MetLife's motion for summary judgment. The case involves MetLife's challenge to the Financial Stability Oversight Council ("FSOC") in its designation of MetLife as a systemically important financial institution. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, FSOC was required to consider the degree to which MetLife is already regulated by one or more primary financial regulatory agencies before making a designation. The brief asserted that FSOC largely ignored or discounted the state-based system that regulates MetLife, and therefore acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in making the designation. Specifically, the brief described the full range of regulatory tools available to state regulators at the individual entity and group level and the failure of FSOC to assess the risk of asset liquidation against those tools, which include early warning through risk-based capital requirements and stays on surrender activity. The brief also described the deliberate, incremental process that applies to troubled companies regulated by state insurance commissioners and recounted FSOC's failure to assess the risk of a hypothetical MetLife liquidation against this process. |
| 2014 | ||||
| New York Life Insurance v. Ortiz et al | C.A. NO. S 14-074/S | 12/22/2014 | District Court of Rhode Island | The NAIC filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff New York Life Insurance Company at the request of the Rhode Island Division of Insurance. At issue was the application of the interest on death benefit proceeds provision of the uniform standards adopted by the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Commission (IIPRC), as opposed to Rhode Island's statutory interest rate, to the proceeds of an individual term life insurance policy approved by the IIPRC for issue in Rhode Island. The issuer of the policy, New York Life Insurance Company, filed an interpleader action in federal district court seeking to apply the rate of interest calculated in accordance with the policy provision. Defendant Ortiz countered with bad faith claims and prayed for the statutory rate of interest. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation declining to apply the interest provision approved by the IIPRC, in contravention of the statutory Compact provision stating that the uniform standards requirements shall be the exclusive provisions applicable to the content of policies filed with the IIPRC. Following the IIPRC's appearance via affidavit supporting the Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation, the NAIC filed as amicus curiae recommending that the district court reject the Report and Recommendation on the interest payable. The NAIC brief discussed the background of the IIPRC and compacts in general and addressed several related deficiencies in the Report and Recommendation. |
|
2:12-cv-05275-SDW-SCM |
12/22/2014 |
District Court of New Jersey |
City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al. On July 23, the NAIC filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief (and the accompanying brief) in support of Commissioner Michael Consedine (PA) in the case City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey addressing whether records and reports from a market conduct examination contractor are subject to discovery in a class action lawsuit in federal court. The case is a putative shareholder class action asserting securities law claims. In 2009, Pennsylvania conducted a market conduct examination of Prudential Financial that was expanded into a multistate exam in 2011. Pennsylvania was one of the lead states. Verus Financial, LLC was a contract examiner and its records were subpoenaed. Verus asserted that state examination laws protected state contractor examination-related information from discovery, which is consistent with provisions in the NAIC Model Law on Examinations. The brief focused upon issues pertaining to the confidentiality of information under the Model Law and state laws based thereon. On December 22, 2014, the NAIC filed a similar brief, with the addition of a section on the McCarran-Ferguson Act, in the same court relating to the appeal of a discovery order in this case from the magistrate judge to the district judge. |
|
|
2:12-cv-05275-SDW-MCA |
7/23/2014 |
District Court of New Jersey |
||
|
1:12-CV-08738 |
10/15/2014 | United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |
Mary C. Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. On October 14, 2014, the NAIC filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff-Appellee Mary Fontaine at the request of the Illinois Department of Insurance in the case Mary C. Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. At issue was Illinois's regulation prohibiting discretionary clauses in insurance policies, which was modeled after the NAIC's Prohibition on the Use of Discretionary Clauses Model Act, MDL-42. MetLife appealed the district court's reversal of MetLife's denial of Fontaine's benefits claim. The district court applied a de novo standard of review after finding that the Illinois regulation applied to the Plan at issue and was not preempted by ERISA. MetLife appealed, arguing that the court should have applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review because Illinois's regulation was not applicable to the Plan at issue and was preempted by ERISA. The NAIC brief discussed the background and importance of the Model Law and state laws based thereon. The brief also addressed the issues of applicability and preemption. |
|
| 2013 | ||||
| Robertson v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Florida | 49-A02-1110-PL-971 | 3/25/2013 | Indiana Supreme Court | The NAIC submitted an amicus brief in support of the Indiana Department of Insurance's opposition to Ticor's petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. Issue brief was that the Court of Appeals correctly applied the standard of review calling for deference to an agency's interpretation and application of the law it is charged with administering. |
| Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. State of Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services | A151470 | 6/10/2013 | Oregon Court of Appeals | Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. State of Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS). The NAIC filed an amicus brief in support of Commissioner Lou Savage and the DCBS's imposition of retaliatory tax on the portion of Stewart Title's premium tax representing agent commissions. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Stewart Title and ruled that the DCBS must collect the retaliatory tax directly from agents or representatives to the extent the underlying premium reflects agent commissions. On appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals, the NAIC asserted in its amicus brief that the Circuit Court's ruling subverted the intent of the retaliatory tax structure, conflicted with NAIC guidance, and was contrary to other state court decisions specifically including agent commissions in premium. The brief also argued the Circuit Court failed to show deference to the DCBS's enforcement of a provision of the Insurance Code that is within the range of its responsibility for effectuating a broadly stated statutory policy. |
| Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company in Rehabilitation | Docket No. 94 MAP 2012 | 8/5/2013 | Supreme Court of Pennsylvania | In Re: Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company in Rehabilitation. This is an amicus brief in support of Commissioner Michael F. Consedine (PA) in his capacity as statutory rehabilitator of the insolvent long-term care insurance companies. The receivership court found the companies to be statutorily insolvent, but denied the request to turn the rehabilitation into a liquidation because the Rehabilitator had not (1) filed a plan of rehabilitation; (2) taken meaningful efforts to rehabilitate the companies by seeking rate increases; or (3) met his burden of proof that continued rehabilitation will substantially increase the risk of loss to policyholders, creditors and the public, or that it is futile. In this brief, the NAIC has taken the position that the receivership court should have given deference to the Rehabilitator's position that the rehabilitation of the insolvent companies should have been terminated and a liquidation order entered because the Rehabilitator had reasonable cause to believe that further attempts to rehabilitate the insolvent companies would be futile. In addition, the authority to raise premium rates is solely within the discretion of individual state insurance commissioners and state regulatory authority, and is not subject to the direction of a receivership court. |
| 2012 | ||||
| Robertson v. Ticor | Case No.: 49-D10-1010-PL-043363 | 03/14/2012 | Indiana Court of Appeals |
The NAIC submitted an amicus brief in the Indiana Court of Appeals in support of the Indiana Department of Insurance. The NAIC argued that the trial court failed to afford proper deference to the Commissioner's interpretation and application of Indiana's unfair trade practices law. The case concerned the trial court's reversal of the Commissioner's order regarding the Department's findings on a targeted market conduct examination of Ticor's business operations and the business practices of its independent insurance agents. The NAIC focused on the Commissioner's authority to interpret and apply the unfair trade practices law and the rating law by means of a market conduct examination and administrative hearing. The NAIC provided background information about the specialized criteria applicable in examining ratemaking practices prescribed by NAIC guidance and the relative consistency of Indiana law and practice with NAIC guidance. |
| 2011 | ||||
| American Financial Group and Consolidated Subsidiaries v. United States of America | Case No.10-3991 | 3/3/2011 | United States Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit | The NAIC filed an amicus brief on March 3, 2011, in the case of American Financial Group and Consolidated Subsidiaries v. United States of America in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The NAIC filed this brief at the request of the Ohio Department of Insurance in support of Plaintiff American Financial. This case involves tax litigation brought by American Financial against the Internal Revenue Service, and addresses the interpretation of NAIC Actuarial Guideline XXXIII "Determining Minimum CARVM Reserves for Individual Annuity Contracts"(AG 33) for federal income tax purposes. Internal Revenue Code Section 807(d) requires a life insurance company's reserves for annuity contracts to be determined using "the Commissioner's Annuities Reserve Valuation Method prescribed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners which is in effect on the date of the issuance of the contract." |
| Dale Fossen v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana | Case No. 10-36001 | 2/16/2011 | United States Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit | The NAIC filed an amicus brief on February 16, 2011, in the case Dale Fossen, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The NAIC filed this brief at the request of the Montana Insurance Division in support of Plaintiffs. This case involved group health insurance marketed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana through an association, and whether Blue Cross charged Plaintiffs premiums substantially in excess of premiums charged for similarly situated groups in violation of MCA Section 33-22-526(2)(a), which provides that a "group health plan...may not require an individual, as a condition of enrollment or continued enrollment under the group health plan, to pay a premium or contribution that is greater than the premium or contribution for a similarly situated individual enrolled in the group health plan on the basis of any health status-related factor of the individual...." |
| Hilda L. Solis, Secretary, United States Dept. of Labor v. The Home Insurance Company | Case No. 1:10-cv-00572-SM | 3/16/2011 | United States District Court - District of New Hampshire | On February 18, 2011, the NAIC filed an amicus brief at the request of the New Hampshire Department of Insurance in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire in Solis v. The Home Insurance Company. This case concerns a complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), seeking federal jurisdiction for its claims against The Home Insurance Company (The Home). The DOL's claims, which also concern the priority class assigned by Commissioner Sevigny as liquidator for The Home, is currently pending in New Hampshire state court. The NAIC argued that the pending state liquidation proceedings should be the exclusive forum for resolving disputes related to the liquidation of an insolvent insurer, especially for the application of the priority of distribution. The exclusivity of the state court's jurisdiction is a long-standing principle of insurer receivership law that contributes to the efficiency of estate administration and the strength of state-based insurance regulation. The matter remains pending. |
| A.P.I., Inc. Asbestos Settlement, et al. v. Home Insurance Company, et al. | Civil Case No.: 09-cv-00975-JRT-TNL | 07/21/2011 | United States District Court - District of Minnesota | On July 21, 2011, the NAIC submitted an amicus brief in Minnesota Federal Court in the matter of A.P.I., Inc. Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Home Insurance Co. The NAIC argued that a final order of a state insurance commissioner approving the acquisition and control of a domestic insurer by another insurer should not be allowed to be challenged by a policyholder in a later action in another court, and that to allow such a challenge could potentially upset other states' receivership and liquidation schemes for dealing with a troubled insurer. This case relates to an order entered by the New Hampshire Insurance Department in a Form A proceeding in 1995. New Hampshire approved an application by Zurich Insurance Company, an Illinois domestic insurer ("Zurich"), to acquire and control The Home Insurance Company, a New Hampshire domestic insurer ("The Home"). Following Zurich's acquisition, The Home was subject to the direct supervision of the New Hampshire Insurance Department as a run-off entity. By 2003, The Home was in liquidation pursuant to New Hampshire law. In 2009, A.P.I. sued several Zurich affiliates for vicarious liability for A.P.I's policy claims against The Home, as well claims for fraudulent transfer and tortuous inference. In 2010, Zurich moved to dismiss the complaint which was granted as to the fraudulent transfer and tortuous interference claims. In July, 2011, Zurich filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The NAIC filed its amicus in support of Zurich's summary judgment motion. |
| Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance, et al. | Case No. - Law Docket No. BCD-11-439 | 10/24/2011 | Supreme Judicial Court, Maine |
Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance (Law Docket No. BCD-11-439). The NAIC filed an amicus brief in the Maine Supreme Court arguing the Superintendent was within her discretion to approve as adequate an individual health rate filing with a one percent profit and risk for a period of one year. The case concerned, in part, whether Maine's approval of Anthem's individual health filing rate for 2010 which included one percent risk and profit was inadequate pursuant to Maine's rating law for individual health products 24-M.R.S.A. § 2736(2). Maine's statute requires that rates not be "excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory." The NAIC's amicus brief focused on the broad discretion of regulators to consider all relevant factors and to determine reasonable rates. The NAIC brief provided the background of the statutory language prohibiting inadequate rates and NAIC's interest in preserving the discretionary authority of regulators to review rates, protect consumers and ensure health insurance plans remain solvent. |
| 2010 | ||||
| Oil & Gas Insurance Company v. Petrosurance | 09-1816 | 03/08/2010 | Supreme Court of Ohio | On March 8, 2010, the NAIC filed an amicus brief in Mary Jo Hudson, Superintendent of Insurance, State of Ohio, acting in her capacity as Liquidator of the Oil & Gas Insurance Company v. Petrosurance, on appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The issue is this case is whether the Ohio Liquidator should be allowed to provide interest payments for interest that accrued during liquidation to policyholders and claimants before making payments to shareholders. The Appellate Court held that the Ohio Liquidator could not do so absent specific statutory language. The NAIC argued in our amicus brief that payment of interest to policyholders and claimants is consistent with the NAIC Insolvency Laws and that the Liquidator is granted broad discretion under the supervision, rehabilitation and liquidation statutes. |
| Standard Insurance Company v. Monica Lindeen, State Auditor | 09-885 | 4/19/2010 | US Supreme Court | The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Standard Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 584 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2009). The NAIC filed an amicus brief in opposition to the writ of certiorari and in support of Montana Commissioner Monica J. Lindeen. The case concerned the issue of whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") preempted the authority of a state insurance commissioner to disapprove discretionary clauses in group long term disability insurance policies. Provisions in insurance policies purporting to reserve discretion to the insurer to interpret the terms of the contract are not permitted under the NAIC's Prohibition on the Use of Discretionary Clauses Model Act, although they are commonly found in group insurance policies subject to ERISA. The Supreme Court left in place the Ninth Circuit's holding that Montana's decision to disapprove discretionary clauses was not preempted under ERISA, which expressly saves from preemption any state law that "regulates insurance, banking or securities." |
| Anthem Health Plans of Maine Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance | Docket No. BCD-10-255 | 9/8/2010 | State of Maine, Supreme Judicial Court | Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance (Law Docket No. BCD-10-255). The NAIC filed an amicus brief in the Maine Supreme Court arguing the Superintendent was within her discretion to approve as adequate an individual health rate filing with a zero percent profit and risk for a period of one year. The case concerned, in part, whether Maine's approval of Anthem's individual health filing rate for 2009 which included zero percent risk and profit was inadequate pursuant to Maine's rating law for individual health products 24-M.R.S.A. § 2736(2). Maine's statute requires that rates not be "excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory." The NAIC's amicus brief focused on the broad discretion of regulators to consider all relevant factors and to determine reasonable rates. The NAIC brief provided the background of the statutory language prohibiting inadequate rates and NAIC's interest in preserving the discretionary authority of regulators to review rates, protect consumers and ensure health insurance plans remain solvent. |
| Fuller-Austin Asbestos v. Zurich-American Insurance Company | CGC 04-431719 | 10/26/2010 | Superior Court of California | On October 28, 2010, the NAIC submitted an amicus brief to address the questions of whether a final order of a state insurance commissioner approving the acquisition and control of a domestic insurer by another insurer may be challenged by a policyholder in a later action in another court, and whether allowing such a challenge potentially upsets another state's receivership and liquidation scheme for dealing with troubled insurers. This case relates to an order entered by the New Hampshire Insurance Department in a Form A proceeding in 1995. New Hampshire approved an application by Zurich Insurance Company, an Illinois domestic insurer ("Zurich"), to acquire and control The Home Insurance Company, a New Hampshire domestic insurer ("The Home"). Following Zurich's acquisition, The Home was subject to the direct supervision of the New Hampshire Insurance Department as a run-off entity. By 2003, The Home was in liquidation pursuant to New Hampshire law. In February 2009, several policyholders of The Home filed a third amended complaint in California Superior Court asserting that the Form A proceeding amounted to a fraudulent conveyance. |
| 2009 | ||||
| Andrew Cuomo v. The Clearing House Association | 08-453 | 3/1/2009 | US Supreme Court | The NAIC Executive Committee authorized a financial commitment of up to $15,000 to join the National Governors Association ("NGA") in filing an amicus brief in Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C., before the United States Supreme Court. The final contribution was just under $10,000. The NGA solicited the financial participation of other state government associations for a brief, which was filed March 4, 2009 through the State and Local Legal Center. Cuomo was appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the decision was captioned as Clearing House Ass'n v. Cuomo, 510 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2007). The case concerned whether federal regulators, specifically the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC"), may preempt states from enforcing otherwise valid state laws against national banks and their operating subsidiaries. In reviewing the matter, the Court examined whether the OCC's administrative rulemaking procedures that resulted in the state enforcement preemption are entitled to deference under the standard established by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and whether the OCC's authority is inconsistent with a prior decision affirming that national banks are subject to valid state laws unless such laws interfere, impair or conflict with federal laws. The Court heard oral argument on Tuesday, April 28, 2009. In a judgment rendered on June 29, 2009, the Court held that the OCC reasonably interpreted National Bank Act ("NBA") as precluding New York from exercising "visitorial powers" in its capacity as a supervisor of corporations. Enforcement of state laws, however, was not subsumed within "visitorial powers"; therefore, OCC erred in interpreting the NBA to prevent New York from prosecuting enforcement actions in its courts. |
| Glogower v. Miller | 09-17 | 10/14/2009 | US Supreme Court | In the Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 09-174. The Kentucky Department of Insurance opposes a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The NAIC filed an amicus brief on October 12, 2009, joining in Kentucky's assertion that the Ninth Circuit gave proper due deference to a state insolvency court in the subsequent bankruptcy declared by the chief executive officer of a self-funded insurance trust. The NAIC argued that state insolvency proceedings and federal bankruptcy proceedings can function in harmony without the need for one to be displaced by the other. |
| 2008 | ||||
| Glogower v. Miller | 07-16188 | 02/04/08 | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 07-16188. The Kentucky Office of Insurance appeals a District Court ruling that a nonadmitted insurer can discharge liability for unauthorized bonus and loan payments, as well as liability for unpaid claims in bankruptcy. The NAIC filed an amicus brief on Feb. 1, 2008 joining in Kentucky's assertion that insolvency proceedings in Kentucky were not given due deference by the bankruptcy courts. The NAIC also argued that the District Court ruling undermines the NAIC's Nonadmitted Insurance Act and disregards the longstanding principle that insurer insolvency is best regulated by the states. |
| Metlife v. Glenn | 06-923 | 3/31/08 | U.S. Supreme Court | In MetLife v. Glenn, No. 06-923, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the fact that a claim administrator of an ERISA disability plan also funds the plan benefits constitutes a "conflict of interest" and, if so, how that conflict should be taken into account on judicial review of a discretionary benefits determination. The NAIC took the position that in the case of a dual-role administrator the court should recognize that there is an inherent conflict of interest, and that a de novo standard of review should apply despite the existence of any discretionary clause. |
| Ward v. Dixie National Life Ins. Co., et al. | 07-1434 | 06/18/08 | U.S. Supreme Court | Amicus brief not accepted. Amicus brief in support of insurer's petition for writ of certiorari. Issue briefed is need for appropriate deference to DOI interpretation of policy term "actual charges" in supplemental cancer insurance policy. |
| Nevada v. Payroll Solutions | 50678 | 08/18/08 | Nevada Supreme Court | The NAIC filed an amicus brief in the Nevada Supreme Court in the case of Payroll Solutions v. Nevada , Case No. 50678 (Aug. 18, 2008) at the request of the Nevada Department of Insurance (DOI) in its appeal from a Nevada District Court decision. The NAIC joined the DOI in requesting the Supreme Court review whether the District Court erred in setting aside an order of the Commissioner finding Payroll Solutions to be a Multiple Employer Welfare Association (MEWA). The NAIC argued that ERISA clearly subjects MEWAs to state regulation and that its definition of MEWA is determinative. The NAIC also asserted that the state legislature's attempt to carve out exceptions to ERISA's MEWA definition should not be given effect. The Nevada statute at issue is preempted by ERISA's terms. |
| Standard Insurance Company v. John Morrison | 08-35246 | 08/29/08 | U.S. Court of Appeals - Ninth District |
The Court of Appeals upheld the authority of the Montana commissioner to disapprove discretionary clauses in group disability insurance policies, and found that this practice was not preempted by ERISA. Earlier this year, in American Council of Life Insurers v. Ross 558 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2009), a similar matter with similar facts, held that rules prohibiting the use of discretionary clauses were also saved from preemption under ERISA. Discretionary clauses are provisions that grant ERISA claim administrators the discretionary authority to interpret policy terms and to determine eligibility for benefits. Their use is prohibited under the NAIC Prohibition on the Use of Discretionary Clauses Model Act (Model #42). |
| Ario v. Reliance Insurance Company | Docket No. 3 MAP 2008 | 9/29/2008 | Supreme Court of Pennsylvania | The NAIC filed an amicus brief in support of the Commissioner as Liquidator of Reliance Insurance Company. Issue briefed is the priority of distribution of the claims of a subrogated insurer. The amicus brief discusses the history of the NAIC Model Laws on insolvency and argues that the claims of subrogated insurers should not be in the same priority class as claims of policyholders and third-party claimants. |
| 2007 | ||||
| Christ v. Beneficial Corp. et al | 06-14829; 07-10246 | 03/21/07 | United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Amicus brief denied. Amicus in support of Commissioner McCarty and Beneficial Corporation's appeal from the District Court of Alabama's ruling. Issues briefed are: (1) Whether the District Court erred in holding that federal common law defines "Insurance" and "Non-Filing Insurance" under the Truth in Lending Act; and (2) Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempts the application of federal common law to Beneficial's NFI policies. |
| Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Manna | 013849 | 07/11/07 | Supreme Court of Illinois | Sun Life challenged the Illinois retaliatory tax law, claiming that it violates the Foreign Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it applies to "alien" insurers not organized under the laws of the United States Sun Life has appealed an appellate court ruling affirming a circuit court's finding that the Illinois statute is not unconstitutional. The NAIC filed an amicus brief on July 11, 2007 joining in Director McRaith's position that the McCarran-Ferguson Act removed all commerce clause limitations on the authority of the states to tax insurers. |
| Edstrom Industries v. Companion Life | 07-2165 | 08/16/07 | United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit | Edstrom Industries appealed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin finding that a stop loss insurance policy issued by Companion Life was a policy of reinsurance, and not an insurance policy subject to regulation under Wis. Stat. Sections 631.01(2) and 631.11(1)(b). The NAIC filed an amicus brief on August 16, 2007, supporting the amicus brief filed by Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance Sean Dilweg in support of Edstrom Industries. Joining Wisconsin the NAIC took the position that a stop loss insurance policy providing coverage for a self-funded employer health plan is insurance, and not reinsurance.. The NAIC's amicus brief addressed issues of national uniformity in the regulation of stop loss insurance in the areas of: model acts; unlicensed health insurance plans; priority of policyholders in liquidations and guaranty fund coverage; state high risk health pools; and reinsurance. |
| James Donelon v. Louisiana Division of Adminsitrative Law | 07-30482 | 09/12/07 | United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | Louisiana Commissioner James Donelon appeals from a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissing his petition for declaratory action regarding the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1033. Commissioner Donelon filed the petition after an administrative law judge overruled his denial of a "§1033 waiver." The District Court applied an 11th Amendment Sovereign Immunity analysis and dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Commissioner Donelon appeals asking that the case be remanded to the District Court with direction to address the Commissioner's request for interpretation of §1033 based on federal jurisdiction over the statute. The NAIC filed an amicus brief on September 12, 2007 presenting the Antifraud Task Force Guidelines for State Insurance Regulators to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: 18 U.S.C. 1033. |
| Hill, et al. v. State Farm Mutual | B194463 | 10/23/07 | California Court of Appeal, 2d District | Amicus brief in support of State Farm. Class action plaintiffs appealed summary judgment ruling based on the Illinois business judgment rule. Issued briefed is that extraterritorial application of an individual state's laws in the area of adequacy of surplus jeopardizes the established framework of interstate reliance on the domiciliary regulator. Adequacy of surplus is particularly crucial to mutual insurers. |
| 2006 | ||||
| In the Matter of the Liquidation of The Home Insurance Company | 2005-0740 | 02/10/06 | New Hampshire Supreme Court | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner Sevigny as liquidator after ruling on remand from July 2004 amicus filing. Issue briefed is the scope of the liquidator's authority to agree to pay necessary administrative expenses to incentivize the filing of claims facilitating the collection of assets of the estate. |
| Life Partners, Inc. v. Clinton Miller, et al | 06-1370 | 07/12/06 | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner Gross and Virginia State Corporation Commission on Life Partner's appeal from District Court grant of summary judgment. Issue briefed is authority of state regulators to regulate viatical settlements and the consitutionality of the Virginia Viatical Settlements Act. |
| National Viaticals Inc. v. Oxendine | 06-12951 | 08/25/06 | United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner Oxendine on National Viatical's Appeal from District Court grant of Motion to Dismiss. Issue briefed is the authority of state insurance regulators to regulate viatical settlements and the constitutionality of the Georgia Life Settlements Act. |
| 2005 | ||||
| John A. Greene v. United States | 05--5032 | 06/13/05 | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | Amicus brief in support of AZ's Commissioner in their role of Receiver for Great Global Assurance. Issue briefed is that under McCarran-Ferguson Act and United States Dep't of Treasury v. Fabe and its progeny, the Arizona distribution statute governed over the Federal priority statute. As part of the regulation of the business of insurance, the Arizona statute could give priority to claims of the state guarantee association over the claims of the Federal government. |
| True v. USAA | 04-L-79 | 07/14/05 | 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois | Amicus brief in support of USAA's motion to dismiss. Issue briefed is that extraterritorial application of an individual state's laws in the area of financial regulation and adequacy of surplus jeopardizes the established framework of interstate reliance on the domiciliary regulator. |
| Premera v. Mike Kreidler | 32377-0-II | 08/05/05 | Court of Appeals for Division II State of Washington | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner Kreidler's denial of Premera's application to convert to for-profit status ssues briefed is the scope of discretion under the Model Holding Company Act. |
| John Garamendi v. Gerling Global Reinsurance Corporation of America | 05-272 | 09/29/05 | U.S. Supreme Court | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner Garamendi's opposition to motion for attorneys' fees. Issue briefed was adverse effect on regulatory practices due to increased potential liability for attorneys' fees. |
| Life Partners, Inc. v. Clinton Miller, et al | 06-1370 | 12/13/05 | United States District Court- Eastern District of Virginia | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner Gross on motion for summary judgment. Issue briefed is authority of state regulators to regulate viatical settlements. Brief not accepted by Court |
| Joan Ferrell, et al, v. Allstate Insurance Company (New Mexico) | 26,058 Sandoval County D-1329-CV-02-885 | 12/19/05 | Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico | Amicus brief in support of Allstate on appeal from class certification. Issue briefed is comity concerns related to class certification in case alleging breach of contract due to failure to disclose installment fees on face of policy. |
| 2004 | ||||
| Mass. Bankers Ass'n v. Bowler | No. 03-CV-11522-RWZ | 03/11/04 | U.S. District Court, D. Mass. | Amicus brief in support of the Massachusetts Division of Insurance. The Mass. Bankers Ass'n and 9 federal- and state-chartered banks opposed the division's enforcement of the same consumer protection laws that were at issue in the earlier case (Bowler v. Hawke). The NAIC argued that the district court should affirm the "prevent of significantly interfere" standard set forth by Congress in GLBA with respect to the preemption of certain state laws. |
| In the Matter of the Liquidation of The Home Insurance Company | No. 2004-0319 | 07/07/04 | New Hampshire Supreme Court | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner. Issue briefed is the scope of the liquidator's authority to enter agreements to preserve and collect assets of the estate, and to pay necessary administrative expenses, specifically the liquidator's ability to collect on the obligations of reinsurers under their agreements with the insolvent insurer. |
| Koken v. Reliance Insurance Co. | 60 MAP 2004 | 08/18/04 | Supreme Court of PA | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner. Issue briefed is that direct access to reinsurance by two insureds who were not named in the contracts of reinsurance was prohibited by statute and constituted a violation of the exclusivity of the receivership code and the priority of distribution. |
| 2003 | ||||
| Ann H. Womer Benjamin v. MetroHealth System | No. 03-0123 | 01/21/03 | Supreme Court of Ohio | Amicus brief in support of commissioner. Issues briefed are that estoppel could not be applied because of the separate roles of the regulator and the receiver, the confidentiality of examination workpapers could not be implicitly waived, and that confidentiality of work papers is important to effective regulation of insurers. |
| Bowler (MA) v. United States and John Ashcroft | No. 02-1124 | 03/03/03 | U.S. Supreme Court | Amicus brief in support of commissioner's petition for writ of certiorari. This is the latest in a series of cases where the Department of Justice (DOJ) has asserted either or both (1) that federal claims should be paid before the claims of guaranty funds (prior to United States Dept. of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993) the DOJ asserted this regarding all non-federal claims including administrative and policyholder related claims), and (2) that federal claims are not subject to claim bar dates established by a state statutory receiver and court in accordance with state statutes governing insurer receiverships. |
| American Insurance Association, American Re-Insurance Co., et al. v. John Garamendi | No. 02-722 | 03/24/03 | U.S. Supreme Court | Amicus brief in support of Commissioner. The issue briefed is that California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act constitutes the business of insurance because it directly relates to the regulators ability to oversee insurance companies that have foreign or alien affiliates. |
| IIAA and NAPIA v. Hawke | No. 02-1620 | 06/09/03 | U.S. Supreme Court | Amicus brief in support of petition for writ of certiorari. The principal issue briefed concerned the "prevent or significantly interfere" threshold codified by GLBA as the preemption standard respecting such laws. Same case as Cline v. Hawke. |
| Linda Gilchrist v. State Farm Mutual | No. 03-10799-HH | 07/16/03 | U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit | Amicus brief in support of State Farm arguing that state insurance laws affirmatively regulate anti-trust conspiracies as distinct prohibited activities and that state insurance laws also prohibit each specific wrongful act the plaintiffs allege the defendant insurance companies committed as part of the conspiracy, such that the McCarran-Ferguson Act bars the Sherman Act allegations. Furthermore the brief argued that numerous state non-OEM laws give the proposed class members completely different rights, choices and disclosures in regard to the use of non-OEM parts, which was not considered at all by the U.S. District Court, resulting in substantial weakness in the class certification process. |
| Koken v. Legion and Intervenors |
No. 204/212 MAP 2003 No. 205/211 MAP 2003 |
10/15/03 | Supreme Court of PA | Amicus brief in support of Pennsylvania Commissioner's conduct of the liquidations of Legion and Villanova. Specifically, the brief addressed the inappropriate interference with the commissioner's duties by the lower court in its orders related to reinsurance "cut-throughs." The brief also addressed the issue that court approval of receivership expenses is not required under the Pennsylvania statute. |
| Scott Wilbanks et al. v. Gloria Work et al. | No. A101100 | 11/19/03 | California Ct. of Appeals, 1st Dist. | Amicus brief filed to provide information about the functions and activities of the NAIC in relation to viatical settlements, focusing on the model act and regulation. Defendant/Appellee Wolk invoked California's Anti-SLAPP statute in a defamation action and requested an amicus brief in support of the contention that viatical settlements are an "issue of public interest," a "public issue," or a matter of "public concern" within the meaning of the statute. The NAIC took no position on the merits of the underlying cause or the appeal. |
| Hill, et al. v. State Farm Mutual | B168662 | 07/24/03 | California Court of Appeals | Amicus brief filed in support of State Farm appeal. The issue briefed is the primary role of the domicile state in the regulation of the financial and solvency aspects and corporate affairs of their domestic insurers. |
| 2002 | ||||
| Covington v. Lucia, et al. | 02APE01-51 | 02/21/02 | Ct of App., 10th Appellate District, State of Ohio | Amicus brief filed in support of the receiver's position that in pursuing claim against a former officer of a failed insurer, receiver should not be bound by arbitration provision in employment contract between the insurer and the former officer. |
| South Carolina DOI v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. | 01-ALJ-09-0585-CC | 03/05/02 | So. Carolina Administrative Law Judge Div | Amicus brief in favor of SC DOI assessing fine against insurance company. The issue briefed is the application of federal civil rights laws to the insurance business. |
| Berry v. Federal Kemper Life Assur. Co. | D-0101-CV-2000-2602 | 04/01/02 | 1st Judicial Dist of Santa Fe NM | Amicus brief filed in opposition to motion for class certification. Issue briefed is the nationwide class action certification would be inappropriate because state laws governing disclosure of model premium rates as well as policyholder right to remedies differ from state to state; certification would defeat regulators' ability to regulate according to respective state laws. Motion for leave to file brief denied. |
| IIAA & NAPIA v. Hawke | 1: 01CV02356 EGS | 04/03/02 | U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C. | Amicus brief filed in support of the position of the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance and Commissioner of Banks. Respondent is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Comptroller had issued an opinion letter taking the position that several provisions of West Virginia law, as applied to certain national bank insurance activities, were preempted. The principal issue briefed concerned the "prevent or significantly interfere" threshold codified by GLBA as the preemption standard respecting such laws. |
| Association of Banks in Insurance, et al. v. Harold T. Duryee and Independent Ins. Agents of Ohio, Inc. et al | C2-98-1120 | 04/15/02 | U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Southern Dist. Of Ohio, Eastern Division | Amicus brief filed in support of the Ohio Department of Insurance and taking a position against preemption of Ohio corporate licensing requirements by provisions of GLBA. The principal issue briefed concerned the "prevent or significantly interfere" threshold codified by GLBA as the preemption threshold. |
| Florida Department of Insurance v. Chase Bank of Texas National Association | 01-1472 | 05/08/02 | U.S Supreme Court | Amicus brief filed in support of Florida Department of Insurance Petition for Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Florida DOI sought review of a Fifth Circuit ruling that receiver did not have standing to represent the policyholders (and other claimants) in the estate of an insolvent insurer. The Receiver's underlying case seeks to recover the $5.4 million certified by the Trustee of an NAIC Trust as the market value of the assets held for the benefit of U.S. policyholders of the insolvent insurer. The NAIC joined the Amicus Brief of the California Department of Insurance. |
| Covington v. Ohio General Insurance Co. | 01-1874 | 04/10/02 | Ohio Supreme Ct | Amicus brief in support of Ohio Superintendent of Insurance acting as receiver for . Brief takes the position that it is not appropriate to grant policy holder priority status to reinsurance claims. |
| Hill, et al. v. State Farm Mutual | BC 194 491 | 05/24/02 | California Superior Court | Amicus brief in support of State Farm's Motion to Dismiss. The issue briefed is the primary role of the domicile state in the regulation of the financial and solvency aspects and corporate affairs of their domestic insurers. |
| Bowler (MA) v. Hawke (OCC) | No. 02-1738 | 07/02/02 | U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit | Amicus brief filed in support of the Massachusetts Division of Insurance. As in amicus briefs filed in Independent Insurance Agents of America v. Hawke and Association of Banks in Insurance, Inc. v. Duryee, the NAIC argued that the First Circuit should affirm the "prevent or significantly interfere" standard set forth by Congress in GLBA with respect to the preemption of certain state laws. |
| Cline v. Hawke | No. 2-2100 | 10/18/02 | U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit | Amicus brief in support of the West Virginia Insurance Commission. As in amicus briefs filed in Independent Insurance Agents of America v. Hawke, Association of Banks in Insurance, Inc. v. Duryee, and Cline v Hawke, the NAIC argued that the Fourth Circuit should affirm the "prevent of significantly interfere" standard set forth by Congress in GLBA with respect to the preemption of certain state laws. |
| BCBS of Kansas, Inc. v. Kathleen Sebelius and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. v. Kathleen Sebelius | No. 02-89075-AS | 11/25/02 | Kansas Sup. Ct | Amicus Brief filed in support of Kansas Department of Insurance concerning scope of commissioner's discretion under the Holding Company Act. The issue briefed is the authority of the commissioner to exercise discretion and consider post-acquisition conduct. |
| Avery, et al v. State Farm Mutual | No. 91494 | 11/06/02 | Sup. Court Illinois | Amicus brief in support of State Farm's appeal of a $1B jury verdict in favor of a nationwide class. This class action case concerned the use of aftermarket automobile parts in vehicle repairs. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and statutory fraud under Illinois law. The issue briefed concerned the extraterritorial application of Illinois law to insurance transactions occurring in other states, potentially overriding those states' policy judgments in contravention of statutory law and judicial precedent. |
| American Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Clark | No. SC84610 | 10/25/02 | Sup. Ct. Missouri | Amicus brief filed in support of American Family's motion for review of the trial court's certification of a nationwide plaintiff class challenging the use of aftermarket automotive parts in vehicle repairs. The issue briefed concerned the extraterritorial application of Missouri law to insurance transactions occurring in other states, potentially overriding those states' policy judgments in contravention of statutory law and judicial precedent. |
| Koken v. Legion Insurance Company Koken v. Villanova Insurance Company | No. 183 MD 2002 No. 182 MD 2002 | 12/9/2002 10/24/02 | Commonwealth Court of PA Commonwealth Court of PA | Two amicus briefs filed in support of the Pennsylvania Commissioner's Emergency Amended Petition for Liquidation of Legion Insurance Company and Villanova Insurance Company. The initial brief focused on the interstate reliance on liquidation orders for insolvent insurers and the importance of prompt entry of liquidation orders to avoid interruptions in the payment of claims. The second brief focused on concerns regarding the manner in which the receivership was being managed by the court. Specifically, the brief addressed the fact that continuing the estate in rehabilitation has led to the opening of several ancillary estates, adding to the cost and complexity of the proceedings; that the court requiring the receiver to commute with the primary reinsurer will be costly to the estate; that the continued rehabiliation is increasing claimants' costs; and that adequate groounds for immediate liquidation exist. |
| Linda Gilchrist v. State Farm Mutual | No. 02-90047-E | 12/26/02 | U.S Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit | Amicus brief in support of State Farm Petition for Leave to Appeal arguing that state insurance laws affirmatively regulate anti-trust conspiracies as distinct prohibited activities and that state insurance laws also prohibit each specific wrongful act the plaintiffs allege the defendant insurance companies committed as part of the conspiracy, such that the McCarran-Ferguson Act bars the Sherman Act allegations. Furthermore the brief argued that numerous state non-OEM laws give the proposed class members completely different rights, choices and disclosures in regard to the use of non-OEM parts, which was not considered at all by the U.S. District Court, resulting in substantial weakness in the class certification process. |
| 2001 | ||||
| Hill, et al. v. State Farm Mutual | B-133262 | 03/15/01 | Calif. Ct. App. | Filed letter in lieu of an amicus brief asking the court to hear the appeal. Plaintiffs sought remedy that included distribution of insurer's excess surplus. Issue addressed is the importance of solvency regulation and the role of state insurance regulators in determining the adequacy of surplus. Please see 2002 Hill v. State Farm Mutual case. |
| United States of America, et al. v. Peoples Benefit Life, et al. | 00-6360 (L) | 4/26/01 apx | U.S. Ct. App. 2nd Cir | Amicus brief in support of receivers of First National Insurance Company. Two companies were attempting to intervene in forfeiture actions to pursue separate reinsurance claims against the assets of a failed insurer. NAIC supported the position of the receivers that these claims should be handled in the state receivership proceeding. |
| Avery, et al v. State Farm Mutual | 91494 | 05/15/01 | Illinois Supreme Court | Amicus brief in support of State Farm's motion for leave to file an appeal of a $1B jury verdict in favor of a nationwide class. This class action case concerned the use of aftermarket automobile parts in vehicle repairs. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and statutory fraud under Illinois law. The issue briefed concerned the extraterritorial application of Illinois law to insurance transactions occurring in other states, potentially overriding those states' policy judgments in contravention of statutory law and judicial precedent. The Court denied the NAIC's motion to file this brief. |
| Busani v. USAA | 70816-9 | 5//15/01 | Sup. Ct. of State of Washington | Amicus brief in support of the petitioner United Services Automobile Association seeking discretionary review of class action certification on the question of whether underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage imposed a duty disclose to its insureds that they might have claims for so-called inherent diminished value (IDV). The issue briefed was the extraterritorial application of Washington law to insurance transactions occurring in other states in contravention of established principles of constitutional and regulatory law. |
| Azar (New Mexico), et al. v. Prudential Insurance Company of America | A-0001-CA-2001-22133 | 07/01/01 | Court Appeals, State of New Mexico |
Amicus brief in support of Prudential in case involving insurer's alleged failure to adequately disclose modal premium factor to policyholders. Issue briefed focused on the potential extraterritorial effect of New Mexico state court decision on the regulatory authority and policyholder rights in other states. The amicus brief was filed on April 9, 2001, and was stricken from the record by the Court. |
| State Farm Mutual and Gramm v. Lopez, et al. | 01-0540 | 07/30/01 | Texas Supreme Court | Filed letter in lieu of amicus brief to address the importance of solvency regulation and the role of state insurance regulators in determining the adequacy of an insurers surplus. See Hill v. State Farm above. |
| Rylander, et al. v. Dow Chemical Company | 01-442 | 10/01/01 | U.S. Supreme Ct. | Amicus brief in support of the Texas DOI writ of certiorari. The issue briefed is the appropriateness of assessing premium tax on an allocated basis on policies issued outside the state but covering property located in the state. |
| Covington v. Ohio General Insurance Co. | 01AP-213 | 10/19/01 | Ohio Supreme Ct | Amicus brief in support of receiver's motion for the Supreme Court of Ohio to take jurisdiction over an appeal. The issue to be appealed is that it is not appropriate to grant policy holder priority status to an insurer's claim against a reinsurer in liquidation. Please see Covington v. Ohio General Insurance 2002 case. |
| Allstate Insurance Company v. Byron and Strasen, et al | 92533 | 10/10/01 | Sup. Ct. of Illinois | Amicus brief in support of Allstate Insurance Company. This matter involved a nationwide class action alleging breach of contract under Illinois law. The case principally concerned Allstate's use of computer reviews as part of its Medical Bill Review System (MBRS), which is utilized, in part, to evaluate medical claims submitted under automobile insurance policies. The application of Illinois law to purported MBRS-related claims in other states would replace the policy judgments of other states with that of the trial court in contravention of established principles of constitutional and regulatory law. |
| Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran and State of Illinois | 00-1021 | 11/01/01 | U.S. Supreme Ct | Case involved question of whether provision of Illinois HMO Act is preempted by ERISA in that the state law relates to employee benefit plans and therefore does not constitute regulating the business of insurance per the ERISA savings clause. (Two briefs were prepared: first brief is on writ, second on merits). This one is on Writ. |
| Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran and State of Illinois | 00-1021 | 11/01/01 | U.S. Supreme Ct | Case involved question of whether provision of Illinois HMO Act is preempted by ERISA in that the state law relates to employee benefit plans and therefore does not constitute regulating the business of insurance per the ERISA savings clause. (Two briefs were prepared: first brief is on writ, second on merits). This one is on merits |
| 2000 | ||||
| Avery, et al v. State Farm Mutual | 88853 | 01/31/00 | Illinois Supreme Court | Amicus brief in support of State Farms' motion for direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court from a $1B jury verdict in favor of a nationwide class. This class action case concerned the use of aftermarket automobile parts in vehicle repairs. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and statutory fraud under Illinois law. The issue briefed concerned the extraterritorial application of Illinois law to insurance transactions occurring in other states, potentially overriding those states' policy judgments in contravention of statutory law and judicial precedent. The court denied the NAIC's motion to file this brief. |
| Farrimond v. Fisher | 93564 | 01/28/00 | Oklahoma Supreme Ct. | Amicus brief in support of the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma. This case involved a receivership action in Oklahoma. The brief argued that documentation in receivership estates should not be subject to state's Open Records laws. |
| Avery, et al v. State Farm Mutual | 5-99-0830 | 05/08/00 | Appellate Ct of Ill., 5th Dist | Amicus brief in support of State Farm's appeal of a $1B jury verdict in favor of a nationwide class. This class action case concerned the use of aftermarket automobile parts in vehicle repairs. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and statutory fraud under Illinois law. The issue briefed concerned the extraterritorial application of Illinois law to insurance transactions occurring in other states, potentially overriding those states' policy judgments in contravention of statutory law and judicial precedent. |
| Texas Department of Insurance (Montemayor), et al. v. Corporate Health Insurance, Inc., et al. | 00-665 | 11/01/00 | U.S. Supreme Ct. | Amicus brief in support of the Texas Department of Insurance. Case involved a question of whether sections of the Texas' Patient Protection Act dealing with independent review organizations are preempted by ERISA. The central issue is whether a state law regulating insurance that is saved under the ERISA savings clause is nevertheless preempted if it conflicts with the remedy provision pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a). |
| Neidig (Oregon) v. National Warranty Insurance Company, RRG | 00-686 | 11/30/00 | U.S. Supreme Ct | Amicus brief in support of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Affairs. Same case as Nat'l Warranty v. Greenfield described in 1999 above. Brief filed in support of writ for certiorari. |
| 1999 | ||||
| USA v. Allen W. Stewart | 98-1260, 98-1302, 98-1541, 98-1716, 98-1860 | 2/10/99 | U.S. Ct. App., Third Circuit | Amicus brief in support of federal prosecution of defendant. Brief argued in support of position that McCarran-Ferguson does not preempt federal RICO, mail and wire fraud statutes. |
| National Warranty Insurance Company, RRG v. Greenfield (Oregon) | 98-36054 | 3/25/99 | U.S.Ct. App., 9th Circuit | Amicus brief in support of the Oregon DOI's position that states have a right to prohibit companies that are not protected by a guaranty fund from insuring service contracts. |
| McCarty, et al. v. Brown, et al. | 99-292 | 7/99 apx | U.S. Supreme Ct. | Amicus brief in support of Insurance Commissioner of Indiana. Brief argued that a Louisiana state court should be required to give full faith and credit to the anti-suit injunctive provisions of an Indiana order of liquidation against an Indiana-domiciled insurance company. |
| USA v. Pace | 98-10521 | 07/14/99 | U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. | Amicus brief in support of federal prosecution of defendant. Brief argued in support of position that McCarran-Ferguson does not preempt federal RICO, mail and wire fraud statutes. |