Consolidated Farmers Mut. Ins. v. Anchor Sav. Ass'n
Decision Date | 07 November 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-4094.,78-4094. |
Citation | 480 F. Supp. 640 |
Parties | CONSOLIDATED FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANCHOR SAVINGS ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
L. M. Cornish, Jr., Glenn, Cornish, Leuenberger, Chartered, Topeka, Kan., Sheridan Morgan, Donald H. Loudon, Morris, Larson, King, Stamper & Bold, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs Consolidated Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. and Kansas Mutual Insurance Co.
James R. Loftis, III, James W. Olson, Bergson, Borkland, Margolis & Adler, Washington, D. C., Leonard O. Thomas, Weeks, Thomas, Lysaught, Bingham & Mustain, Kansas City, Kan., Robert L. Hamann, Prairie Village, Kan., for defendant Anchor Savings Association.
James D. Waugh, Cosgrove, Webb & Oman, Topeka, Kan., John P. Arness, Jack McKay, David B. Waller, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D. C., for defendant Federal National Mortgage Association.
Herbert H. Hopper, Wichita, Kan., for defendant Fidelity Investment Co.
This is an antitrust action brought pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and under unspecified sections of the Kansas antitrust laws contained in K.S.A. 50-101 et seq.
Plaintiffs Consolidated Farmers Mutual Insurance Company and Kansas Mutual Insurance Company are two Kansas insurance companies which as part of their businesses sell real property hazard insurance.
Defendant Anchor Savings Association is a Kansas savings and loan association. Defendant Fidelity Investment Company is a Kansas mortgage banker. Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) is a federally chartered, privately owned1 corporation which was created "to provide supplementary assistance to the secondary market for home mortgages by providing a degree of liquidity for mortgage investments." 12 U.S.C. § 1716(a). When the case began, a fourth defendant was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), a quasi-public corporation authorized by Congress in 12 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. to aid the secondary market. By order of September 8, 1978, this Court dismissed FHLMC from the action on grounds of statutory immunity.2
A brief background is necessary to an understanding of the nature of the action. When a home is purchased the prospective homeowner frequently obtains a mortgage loan from a savings and loan institution or a bank. This is the "primary" mortgage market. Defendants Fidelity and Anchor are in the business of originating mortgages in the primary market. In order to gain funds to make additional loans, Fidelity and Anchor sell these mortgages to institutional investors and entities such as FHLMC and FNMA. When the originator of a mortgage attempts to transfer it, the "secondary" mortgage market is involved. In the secondary market, FNMA and FHLMC facilitate the transfer of mortgages from originators to institutional investors, in part by establishing some uniformity in the mortgage transaction so that the institutional investor will have a better idea of what it is purchasing. Congress intended that the federally sponsored secondary mortgage market should provide standardized mortgage instruments. J. Murray and H. Judy, Uniform Multifamily Mortgage Instruments, 33 Bus.Law. 2303, 2359 (1978).
Congress mandated that FHLMC and FNMA should follow certain guidelines to guarantee the quality of the mortgages handled. In 12 U.S.C. § 1719(a), FNMA is instructed:
(1) To carry out the purposes set forth in paragraph (a) of section 1716 of this title, the operations of the corporation under this section shall be confined, so far as practicable, to mortgages which are deemed by the corporation to be of such quality, type, and class as to meet, generally, the purchase standards imposed by private institutional mortgage investors. . . .
See also 12 U.S.C. § 1454(a)(1).
In order to meet the Congressional mandate, FNMA and FHLMC have established several standards relating to various aspects of the mortgages they purchase. One of these standards regards the hazard insurance covering the property which secures the mortgages purchased. Both FNMA and FHLMC require that such hazard insurance be provided by a company with at least a Class VI rating in Best's Insurance Reports.3 FNMA adopted this requirement in July, 1974.4 In 1975, FNMA determined to accept mortgages covered by hazard insurance provided by companies which did not meet the appropriate standard but provided reinsurance certificates by companies which did.
Anchor, which for many years has had a similar requirement regarding the insurance policies for mortgages it created, changed its standard in 1978 from the higher Best's X rating to a Best's VI rating. Fidelity changed its standards in 1974 to the Class VI rating in light of the fact that the majority of its home loan production was originated for sale to either FNMA or GNMA.
A Class VI rating means that an insurance company has net resources of $1,500,000 to $2,500,000. Neither plaintiff is large enough to obtain a Best's Class VI rating. For that reason, unless they make suitable arrangements for reinsurance the plaintiffs are unable to provide hazard insurance coverage for property securing mortgages which defendants Anchor and Fidelity originate with the intent of selling to FNMA, GNMA, or FHLMC.
The plaintiffs claim that the Class VI requirement is "arbitrary and without foundation", and that its promulgation by FNMA and FHLMC and the other defendants' acts of honoring that requirement constitute a "combination and boycott" in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.
This action now comes before the Court upon the motions for summary judgment filed by remaining defendants FNMA, Anchor, and Fidelity.
The major issue presented by the pending summary judgment motions is whether plaintiffs have a viable claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Boiled down to basics, defendants' briefs argue that plaintiffs' § 1 cause of action is defective in three particulars: (1) plaintiffs cannot show concerted action; (2) plaintiffs cannot show an unreasonable restraint of trade; and (3) plaintiffs cannot show an impact upon interstate commerce.
Before discussing the legal issues presented by plaintiffs' antitrust claims, we take cognizance of the applicable procedural standards. It is familiar law that no summary judgment motion is lightly granted. Summary judgment is to be denied unless the moving party demonstrates entitlement to it beyond a reasonable doubt. Madison v. Deseret Livestock Co., 574 F.2d 1027, 1037 (10th Cir. 1978); Mustang Fuel Corp. v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 516 F.2d 33, 36 (10th Cir. 1975). The court must examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Mogle v. Sevier County School Dist., 540 F.2d 478, 482 (10th Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1121, 97 S.Ct. 1157, 51 L.Ed.2d 572 (1977); Frey v. Frankel, 361 F.2d 437, 442 (10th Cir. 1966). Affidavits are not a substitute for trial. Madison v. Deseret Livestock Co., supra, 574 F.2d at 1036; Eagle v. Louisiana Southern Life Ins. Co., 464 F.2d 607, 608 (10th Cir. 1972). Where different inferences can be drawn from conflicting affidavits and depositions, summary judgment should be denied. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
...Home Institute, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 513 F.2d 102, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1975); Consolidated Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Anchor Savings Ass'n, 480 F.Supp. 640 (D.Kan.1979), aff'd, 1980 Trade Cases ¶ 63,530 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. den., ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 863, 66 L.E......
-
Southern Pac. Com. Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
...show that the approach chosen was the "least restrictive alternative" in a rule of reason case); Consolidated Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. Anchor Savings Ass'n, 480 F.Supp. 640, 653 (D.Kan.1979) ("so long as the defendants' actions are reasonable, they need not constitute the `least restricti......
-
Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.
...will not support an inference of conspiracy. Theatre Enterprises, 346 U.S. at 541, 74 S.Ct. at 259; Consolidated Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anchor Savings, 480 F.Supp. 640, 649 (D.Kan.1979), aff'd 1980-2 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 63,530 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 1080, 101 S.Ct. 863, 66......
-
Levitch v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
...910, 911-12 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 906, 86 S.Ct. 241, 15 L.Ed.2d 158 (1965); Consolidated Farmers Mutual Insurance v. Anchor Savings Association, 480 F.Supp. 640, 649-50 (D.Kan.1979); United States v. General Motors Corp., 1974-2 Trade Cas. ¶ 75,253 (E.D. Mich.1974). And, while ......
-
DISAPPROVAL OF QUICK-LOOK APPROVAL: ANTITRUST AFTER NCAA v. ALSTON.
...rule of reason analysis as "often unnecessary, cumbersome and complicated"); Consol. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anchor Sav. Ass'n, 480 F. Supp. 640,651 (D. Kan. 1979), aff'd, No. 79-2260, 1980 WL 4691 (10th Cir. July 24, 1980) (noting that "application of the 'rule of reason' test can be an a......
-
Restraints of Trade
...the transportation services; no violation found under Sherman Act § 1); Consolidated Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anchor Sav. Ass’n, 480 F. Supp. 640, 654-55 (D. Kan. 1979) (dictum), aff’d , 1980 WL 4691(10th Cir. 1980). 1103. See, e.g., Schaben v. Samuel Moore & Co., 606 F.2d 831, 833-34 (8th ......
-
Table of Cases
...1950), 1238, 1350– 1351 Consolidated Edison Co., 1999 WL 34330 (F.E.R.C.), 1539 Consolidated Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anchor Sav. Ass’n, 480 F. Supp. 640 (D. Kan. 1979), aff ’ d, 1980 WL 4691 (10th Cir. 1980), 171 Consolidated Foods Corp.; FTC v., 380 U.S. 592 (1965), 219, 412, 712, 714 Con......