Coll v. First American Title Insurance
642 F.3d 876
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- New Mexico Title Insurance Act heavily regulates title insurers, with the superintendent setting rates and forms and providing for administrative review.
- The district court dismissed claims against Insurer Defendants on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds and remanded state-defendants to state court.
- Plaintiffs allege the Title Insurance Act violates state law by permitting price fixing and monopolistic practices.
- Plaintiffs claim conspiracies with state officials to set excessive title insurance rates and seek damages, restitution, and fees.
- The NM Insurance Code exempts title insurers from most provisions except as incorporated by the Title Insurance Act.
- On appeal, the court can review only the district court’s dismissal of the Insurer Defendants; standing and certain claims against state actors are remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the filed rate doctrine bar damages claims? | Coll argues damages are allowed; rates approved are unlawful conduct. | Insurer Defendants contend the filed rate doctrine bars damages. | Yes; damages claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine. |
| Do Plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief against Insurer Defendants for constitutional claims? | Plaintiffs seek prospective relief against regulators’ actions under NM Constitution. | Insurers argue lack of redressability and proper enforcement power. | Plaintiffs lack standing; remand for lack of standing ordered. |
| Do NM Antitrust Act claims survive where compliance with Title Insurance Act is alleged? | Antitrust claims based on regulatory compliance should be allowed. | § 57-1-16 precludes such antitrust challenges when regulated actions are authorized. | Yes; claims barred by 57-1-16. |
| Does Noerr-Pennington preclude antitrust claims based on alleged bribery/conspiracy to influence regulators? | Allegations of bribery sustain antitrust claims. | Noerr-Pennington immunity applies to attempts to influence government action. | Yes; Noerr-Pennington precludes these antitrust claims. |
| Are UPA and UIPA claims viable given the Title Insurance Act framework? | Plaintiffs state unlawful practices contrary to NM statutes. | Act expressly permits title-insurance practices per the regulatory regime. | Claims fail; dismissed for lack of compatibility with Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdez v. State, 132 N.M. 667, 54 P.3d 71 (2002) (establishes filed rate doctrine as per se reasonable rate)
- Summit Props., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M., 138 N.M. 208, 118 P.3d 716 (2005) (expands filed rate doctrine rationale in NM)
- City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Adver., Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991) (Noerr-Pennington immunity protects lobbying of government actions)
- Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. E.R.R. Presidents Conference, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (establishes Noerr-Pennington immunity)
- Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) (state-action immunity foundations)
- Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U.S. 409 (1986) (illustrates filed rate doctrine in regulated industries)