Lewis v. M&T Bank
21-933-cv
| 2d Cir. | Mar 15, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Robert R. Lewis (pro se) sued M&T Bank and Assurant (and Assurant subsidiaries) alleging he was overcharged for lender-placed flood insurance (LPI) purchased in 2017.
- Lewis alleged a “kickback/rebate” scheme: M&T purchased insurance exclusively from Assurant in exchange for free/discounted services and payments, yet sought full reimbursement from Lewis.
- Causes of action asserted included fraud, breach of contract and the covenant of good faith, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, RICO, and CUTPA.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Lewis’s claims were barred by the filed rate doctrine and that he failed to state claims.
- The district court took judicial notice of Connecticut Insurance Department (CID) filings showing Assurant had filed Flood Program rates when the LPI was purchased, dismissed the complaint, and Lewis appealed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: judicial notice of the CID filings was proper (for the fact of filing, not the truth of their contents) and the filed rate doctrine barred Lewis’s claims because they would undermine regulator-approved rates and create impermissible rebates.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of CID filings | Assurant had withdrawn RMSP rates and therefore had no filed rates when LPI bought; district court improperly relied on CID filings | CID Flood Program filings were public, authentic, and showed rates were on file; court may take judicial notice | Court properly took judicial notice of CID filings to establish the fact of filings (not truth) and did not abuse its discretion |
| Applicability of filed rate doctrine to LPI claims | Claims challenge conduct (kickbacks/payments), not the filed rates; doctrine should not bar tort/RICO claims | Filed rate doctrine bars challenges that would undermine or alter regulator-approved rates or operate as rebates | Filed rate doctrine applies; claims barred because success would effectively contest or rebate filed LPI rates |
| Distinguish Rothstein precedent | Argues Rothstein is inapposite because plaintiffs there didn’t dispute the existence of filed rates; alleged misconduct here differs (illegitimate payments) | Facts and legal theory parallel Rothstein (overbilling via undisclosed rebates/kickbacks); extra payments do not change analysis | Rothstein controls; similar theory and result — doctrine precludes inquiry into whether insurer-provided services/payments should have been reflected in filed rates |
| State-law adoption of filed rate doctrine | Asserts Connecticut law hasn’t adopted the filed rate doctrine, so state claims should proceed | Filed rate doctrine precludes both federal and state claims where rates are regulator-approved | Second Circuit holds the doctrine bars both federal and state claims; Connecticut law argument does not avoid the doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Wegoland, Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1994) (filed-rate doctrine: regulator-approved rates are per se reasonable and unassailable)
- Rothstein v. Balboa Ins. Co., 794 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2015) (applied filed-rate doctrine to LPI/RICO claims; nonjusticiability and nondiscrimination rationales)
- Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991) (judicial notice of public regulatory filings is appropriate on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499 (2d Cir. 2007) (documents may be judicially noticed to show what they contain, not for the truth of their assertions)
- Simon v. KeySpan Corp., 694 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2012) (filed-rate doctrine bars both state and federal claims)
- Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirmative defenses apparent on the face of the complaint and judicially noticeable materials can support dismissal)