McCray v. Fidelity National Title Insurance
682 F.3d 229
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Appellants allege that Delaware title insurers fixed prices in violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.
- The District Court dismissed the Sherman Act claims as barred by the filed rate doctrine and McCarran-Ferguson Act.
- Delaware requires title insurers to file rates with the DOI and, via DTIRB, to file through a licensed rating bureau.
- DOI review of rate filings is mandatory and may extend up to 90 days; filings are deemed compliant unless disapproved within 30 days.
- DTIRB’s initial filings exempted from certain loss-cost data requirements, but the DOI required an approved statistical plan to monitor rate adequacy.
- Appellants’ amended complaint again faced dismissal; they sought injunctive relief but the district court found the claims barred and denied standing for injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the filed rate doctrine bar the damages claims? | McCray argues rates filed with the DOI are unlawful, | Appellees contend rates were properly filed and protected by the doctrine | Yes, damages claims barred by filed rate doctrine |
| Is injunctive relief barred or limited by McCarran-Ferguson? | Appellants seek injunctive relief against future rates | Defendant argues McCarran-Ferguson exempted such conduct | Not reached due to lack of standing for injunctive relief |
| Do Appellants have standing to seek injunctive relief under Article III? | Appellants allege future injury from continued rate practices | No imminent injury shown; no standing | Appellants lack standing to seek injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 260 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1922) (origin of filed rate doctrine; rates filed with agency are controlling)
- Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1986) (filed rates doctrine applies to rates filed with agencies; injunctive relief limitations)
- Burlington Northern, Inc. v. United States, 459 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1982) (limits on injunctive relief in rate-setting contexts)
- Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1981) (origin and scope of filed rate doctrine in utilities)
- Wegoland, Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1994) (extension of filed rate doctrine to state-regulated rates)
- Town of Norwood v. New Eng. Power Co., 202 F.3d 408 (1st Cir. 2000) (filing of tariffs triggers filed rate doctrine; not require agency approval)
- Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corp., 511 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1994) (illustrates when rates may be void for lack of proper filing data)
- Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc. (repeated), 476 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1986) (central authority on tariffs and rate filing)