Posts Tagged ‘insurance class action’

The filed rate doctrine is an important concept that comes into play in many consumer class actions, including those against public utilities, telecommunications providers, and insurers, that challenge the amounts charged by a regulated provider for its services.  In its broadest sense, the doctrine holds that a regulated entity cannot be sued for charging allegedly excessive rates if those rates were filed with a federal or state regulator.

Last fall, in MacKay v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 4th 1427 (2010), a panel of the the California Court of Appeal expressly applied the filed rate doctrine to bar a consumer protection claim based on an insurance companies act of charging allegedly excessive insurance premiums.  This past week, on January 12, 2011, the California Supreme Court denied a motion to depublish the decision, confirming its status as citable authority. 

Here is a key excerpt from the original decision, entered on October 6, 2010:

The filed rate doctrine provides that rates duly adopted by a regulatory agency are not subject to collateral attack in court. Numerous state courts have applied the filed rate doctrine to approved insurance rates. (E.g., Anzinger v. Illinois State Medical Inter-Ins. Exchange (1986) 144 Ill.App.3d 719, 721, 723 [98 Ill.Dec. 533, 494 N.E.2d 655]; Commonwealth v. Anthem Ins. Companies, Inc. (Ky.Ct.App. 1999) 8 S.W.3d 48, 51-52; City of New York v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (N.Y.App.Div. 1999) 264 A.D.2d 304 [693 N.Y.S.2d 139, 140].) Indeed, one such case noted that while the filed rate doctrine originated in federal courts, “it `has been held to apply equally to rates filed with state agencies by every court to have considered the question.'” (Commonwealth v. Anthem Ins. Companies, Inc., supra, 8 S.W.3d at p. 52.) We thus must disagree with Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1418 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 61], to the extent that it rejected the application of the filed rate doctrine to California insurance rates. The Fogel court noted that the parties before it had identified no cases in which the filed rate doctrine had been applied in the context of a rate approved by a state regulatory agency.  Thus, the filed rate doctrine supports our conclusion that there is no tort liability for charging a rate that has been approved by the commissioner.
We note, however, the limited nature of our holding. Insurance Code section 1860.1 protects from prosecution under laws outside the Insurance Code only “act[s] done, action[s] taken [and] agreement[s] made pursuant to the authority conferred by” the ratemaking chapter. It does not extend to insurer conduct not taken pursuant to that authority. 
Id. at 1448-49 (internal footnotes omitted).

Read Full Post »

Two colleagues separately sent me a copy of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision yesterday in Greenberger v. GEICO General Insurance Co., slip op., No. 09-1603 (7th Cir., Jan. 10, 2011) (Sykes, J.), so I thought it was worthy of a summary. 

Greenberger involved would-be class action claims against an insurer for the alleged practice of not paying to have vehicles restored to their pre-loss condition, as required under its policies.  The district court had granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment before reaching a decision on class certification.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed.  The panel’s decision ostensibly rests on the holdings of earlier cases and doesn’t pretend to make new law.  However, the number of different issues addressed may make the case a common citation in future class certification response briefs, especially in insurance class actions in Illinois and the Seventh Circuit, but potentially elsewhere as well.  The holdings included:

  • Jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) attaches to a class action complaint even if a class is never certified.  Slip op. at 5-6 (relying on Cunningham Charter Corp. v. Learjet, Inc., 592 F.3d 805, 806 (7th Cir. 2010)).
  • An insured cannot succeed on a breach of contract claim against his insurer for allegedly failing to bring a vehicle to a pre-loss condition if the vehicle is not available to be examined, because the insured cannot prove either a breach of the contract (by showing that the vehicle was not repaired to its pre-loss condition) or damages (by establishing the difference in value between the vehicle as repaired and the vehicle in its pre-loss condition).  Slip op. at 6-11 (relying on Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005)).
  • A plaintiff cannot prevail on a consumer fraud or common law fraud claim if the fraud claim is based on the same predicate facts as a claim for breach of contract.  Slip op. at 11-16 (also relying on Avery).
  • In Illinois, no fiduciary duty exists between insurer and insured as a matter of law, unless the plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence that special circumstances existed such that the insured placed trust or confidence in the insurer.  Slip op. at 16-17 (citing Fichtel v. Bd. of Dirs. of River Shore of Naperville Condo. Ass’n, 907 N.E.2d 903 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009); Martin v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 808 N.E.2d 47 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)).

Read Full Post »