Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. USAble Mutual Insurance Co.
533 S.W.3d 572
Ark.2017Background
- Air Evac sued Blue Cross under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), alleging misleading statements and unlawful benefits caps for out-of-network emergency ambulance services.
- Blue Cross moved to dismiss, invoking the ADTPA safe-harbor provision that exempts "actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by" state/federal regulators.
- Federal district court certified questions to the Arkansas Supreme Court about interpreting the safe-harbor provision and whether prior Arkansas decisions conflicted.
- The central statutory choice: apply the majority "specific-conduct" rule (exempt only conduct specifically permitted by regulators) or the minority "general-activity" rule (exempt any conduct regulated by an agency).
- The Arkansas Supreme Court examined statutory text, remedial purpose, precedent, and a 2017 amendment adding the word "specifically," and held Arkansas follows the specific-conduct rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas applies the specific-conduct rule or the general-activity rule to the ADTPA safe-harbor | Air Evac: "permitted" means actually permitted/authorized; ADTPA should not be displaced where conduct is not specifically authorized | Blue Cross: "permitted" includes conduct merely subject to regulation; regulated actors get broad exemption | Court: Adopted the specific-conduct rule — safe harbor applies only where conduct is specifically permitted/authorized by the regulator |
| Whether prior cases (DePriest and Arloe) conflict and how to resolve that conflict | Air Evac: Read prior decisions to support narrow (specific-conduct) reading | Blue Cross: Argued prior decisions permitted a general-activity reading | Court: Reconciled prior cases and resolved ambiguity in favor of the specific-conduct rule, noting legislative amendment adding "specifically" confirms that rule |
Key Cases Cited
- DePriest v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., 351 S.W.3d 168 (Ark. 2009) (addressed ADTPA safe-harbor questions relied upon in parties' arguments)
- Arloe Designs, LLC v. Arkansas Capital Corp., 431 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. 2014) (interpreted in lower courts as favoring a general-activity exemption)
- Skinner v. Steele, 730 S.W.2d 335 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987) (explains purpose of safe-harbor is to avoid conflict between laws and rejects broad regulatory exemption)
- Dickinson v. SunTrust Nat’l Mortg. Inc., 451 S.W.3d 576 (Ark. 2014) (statutory-construction principles cited regarding plain language and legislative intent)