440 U.S. 205 (1979), 77-952, Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., Inc.

Docket Nº:No. 77-952
Citation:440 U.S. 205, 99 S.Ct. 1067, 59 L.Ed.2d 261
Party Name:Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., Inc.
Case Date:February 27, 1979
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 205

440 U.S. 205 (1979)

99 S.Ct. 1067, 59 L.Ed.2d 261

Group Life & Health Insurance Co.

v.

Royal Drug Co., Inc.

No. 77-952

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 27, 1979

Argued October 11, 1978

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner Blue Shield, a Texas insurance company, offers policies that entitle the insured to obtain prescription drugs. The insured may obtain the drugs from a pharmacy participating in a "Pharmacy Agreement" with Blue Shield (in which case the insured must pay only $2 for every prescription drug, with the remainder of the cost being paid directly by Blue Shield to the participating pharmacy) or from a nonparticipating pharmacy (in which case the insured pays the full price and may be reimbursed by Blue Shield for 75% of the difference between that price and $2.) Blue Shield offered to enter into a Pharmacy Agreement with each licensed pharmacy in Texas, the participating pharmacy to agree to furnish Blue Shield policyholders prescription drugs at $2 each, with Blue Shield to agree to reimburse the pharmacy for its cost in acquiring the drug. Respondents, nonparticipating pharmacies, brought this antitrust action alleging that Blue Shield and three participating pharmacies, also petitioners, had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by entering into agreements fixing the retail prices of drugs and that petitioners' activities had caused Blue Shield policyholders to boycott certain respondents. The trial court granted petitioners summary judgment on the ground that the agreements are exempt from the antitrust laws under § 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (Act), because the agreements are the "business of insurance," are regulated by Texas, and are not boycotts within the meaning of the Act. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Held: The Pharmacy Agreements are not the "business of insurance" within the meaning of § 2(b). Pp. 211-233.

(a) Section 2(b) exempts the "business of insurance," not the "business of insurers." Pp. 210-211.

(b) A primary element of an insurance contract is the underwriting or spreading of risk, SEC v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 65, but that element is not involved in the Pharmacy Agreements, which are merely arrangements for the purchase of goods and services by Blue Shield, enabling it to effect cost savings. Pp. 211-215.

Page 206

(e) The Pharmacy Agreements involve contractual arrangements between Blue Shield and the pharmacies, not its policyholders. Pp. 215-217.

(d) The legislative history of the Act confirms the conclusion that the "business of insurance" was understood by Congress to involve the underwriting of risk and the relationship and transactions between insurance companies and their policyholders, and no legislative intention is disclosed to exempt agreements or transactions between insurance companies and entities outside the insurance industry. Moreover, at the time of the Act's enactment, health care plans such as those of Blue Shield were not considered to constitute insurance at all, and it is difficult to assume that Congress, contrary to that contemporary view, could have considered such plans to be the "business of insurance" within the meaning of the Act. Even if Congress did consider certain aspects of such plans to be the "business of insurance," however, it still does not follow that the Pharmacy Agreements in this case are within the meaning of that phrase. Pp. 217-230.

(e) This result is consistent with the principle that exemptions from the antitrust laws are to be construed narrowly. Pp. 231-233.

556 F.2d 1375, affirmed.

STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and MARSHALL and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 233.

Page 207

STEWART, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

The respondents, 18 owners of independent pharmacies in San Antonio, Tex., brought an antitrust action in a Federal District Court against the petitioners, Group Life and Health Insurance Co., known as Blue Shield of Texas (Blue Shield), and three pharmacies also doing business in San Antonio. The complaint alleged that the petitioners had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by entering agreements to fix the retail prices of drugs and pharmaceuticals, and that the activities of the petitioners had caused Blue Shield's policyholders not to deal with certain of the respondents, thereby constituting an unlawful group boycott. The trial court granted summary judgment to the petitioners on the ground that the challenged agreements are exempt from the antitrust laws under § 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 34, as amended, 61 Stat. 448, 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b), because the agreements are the "business of insurance," are "regulated by [Texas] law," and are not "boycott" within the meaning of § 3(b) of the Act, 59 Stat. 34, 15 U.S.C.

Page 208

§ 1013(b).1 415 F.Supp. 343 (WD Tex.). The Court of Appeals for the [99 S.Ct. 1072] Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment. Holding that the agreements in question are not the "business of insurance" within the meaning of § 2(b), the appellate court did not reach the other questions decided by the trial court. 556 F.2d 1375. We granted certiorari because of inter-circuit conflicts as to the meaning of the phrase "business of insurance" in § 2(b) of the Act.2 435 U.S. 903.

Page 209

I

Blue Shield offers insurance policies which entitle the policyholders to obtain prescription drugs. If the pharmacy selected by the insured has entered into a "Pharmacy Agreement" with Blue Shield, and is therefore a participating pharmacy, the insured is required to pay only $2 for every prescription drug. The remainder of the cost is paid directly by Blue Shield to the participating pharmacy. If, on the other hand, the insured selects a pharmacy which has not entered into a Pharmacy Agreement, and is therefore a nonparticipating pharmacy, he is required to pay the full price charged by the pharmacy. The insured may then obtain reimbursement from Blue Shield for 75% of the difference between that price and $2.

Blue Shield offered to enter into a Pharmacy Agreement with each licensed pharmacy in Texas. Under the Agreement, a participating pharmacy agrees to furnish prescription drugs to Blue Shield's policyholders at $2 for each prescription, and Blue Shield agrees to reimburse the pharmacy for the pharmacy's cost of acquiring the amount of the drug prescribed. Thus, only pharmacies that can afford to distribute prescription drugs for less than this $2 markup can profitably participate in the plan.3

Page 210

The only issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals as correct in concluding that these Pharmacy Agreements are not the "business of insurance" within the meaning of 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. If that conclusion is correct, then the Agreements are not exempt from examination under the antitrust laws.4 Whether the Agreements are illegal under the antitrust laws is an entirely separate question, not now before us.5

II

A

As the Court stated last Term in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531, 541,6 the starting point in a case involving construction of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, like the starting point in any case involving the meaning of a statute, is the language of the statute itself. See also Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 756 (POWELL, J., concurring). It is important, therefore, to observe at the outset that the statutory language in question

Page 211

here does not exempt the business of insurance companies from the scope of the antitrust laws. The exemption is for the "business of insurance," not the "business of insurers":

The statute did not purport to make the States supreme in regulating all the activities of insurance companies; its language refers not to the persons or companies who are subject to state regulation, but to laws "regulating the business of insurance." Insurance companies may do many things which are subject to paramount federal regulation; only when they are engaged in the "business of insurance" does the statute apply.

SEC v. National Securities Inc., 393 U.S. 453, 459-460. (Emphasis in original.) Since the law does not define the "business of insurance," the question for decision is whether the Pharmacy Agreements fall within the ordinary understanding of that phrase, illumined by any light to be found in the structure of the Act and its legislative history. Cf. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 199, and n.19.

B

The primary elements of an insurance contract are the spreading and underwriting of a policyholder's risk.

It is characteristic of insurance that a number of risks are accepted, some of which involve losses, and that such losses are spread over all the risks so as to enable the insurer to accept each risk at a slight fraction of the possible liability upon it.

1 G. Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law § 1:3 (2d ed.1959). See also R. Keeton, Insurance Law § 1.2(a) (1971) ("Insurance is an arrangement for transferring and distributing risk"); 1 G. Richards, The Law of Insurance § 2 (W. Freedman 5th ed.1952).7

Page 212

The significance of underwriting or spreading of risk as an indispensable characteristic of insurance was recognized by this Court in SEC v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 65. That case involved several corporations, representing themselves as "life insurance" companies, that offered variable annuity contracts for sale in interstate commerce. The companies were regulated by the insurance commissioners of several States...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP