In re Insurance Antitrust Litigation

Decision Date10 October 1989
Docket NumberNo. MDL 767.,MDL 767.
CitationIn re Insurance Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.Supp. 464 (N.D. Cal. 1989)
PartiesIn re INSURANCE ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California

Edwin A. Heafey, Jr., Raoul D. Kennedy, Richard de Saint Phalle, Dolores A. Dalton, Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Oakland, Cal., for Administrative Liaison.

John G. Harkins, Jr., Eleanor Morris Illoway, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.

Alan H. Silberman, Stuart Altschuler, Sonnenschein Carlin Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, Ill., for Allstate Ins. Co.

Richard E. Sherwood, John G. Niles, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., for CIGNA Corp.

David W. Slaby, Robert L. Maines, Pettit & Martin, San Jose, Cal., for CNA Re (U.K.) Ltd.

Lewis A. Kaplan, Allan Blumstein, Maria Bainor, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for Constitution Reinsurance Corp.

Martin Frederic Evans, Donald F. Donovan, Colby A. Smith, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York City, for Continental Reinsurance Corp. (U.K.) Ltd. and Unionamerica Ins. Co., Ltd.

Barry L. Bunshoft, Audbin K. Barthold, William J. Casey, Eric J. Sinrod, Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, San Francisco, Cal., for Edwards & Payne (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd. (sued herein as Edwards and Payne Management (U.A.), Ltd.)

Jerome N. Lerch, Martin W. Johnson, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, San Francisco, Cal., for Excess Ins. Co., Ltd. and Excess Ins. Group, Ltd.

Stephen M. Axinn, Shepard Goldfein, Michael L. Weiner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, for General Reinsurance Corp.

Robert B. Green, Irwin, Kerr, Green, McDonald and Dexter, Baltimore, Md., for Thomas A. Greene & Co., Inc.

William A. Montgomery, Thomas P. Luning, William M. Hannay, Marci A. Eisenstein, Kevin D. Evans, John H. Ehrlich, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, Ill., for Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

Bartlett H. McGuire, Michael P. Carroll, Douglas I. Brandon, Washington, D.C., for Insurance Services Office, Inc. Michael L. McCluggage, David L. Schiavone, James T. Nyeste, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, Ill., for Kemper Reinsurance London, Ltd.

David L. Foster, Barbara Hink, Anne Johnson, Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher, New York City, for Mercantile & General Reinsurance Co. of America.

Frederick B. Lacey, Molly S. Boast, Lawrence W. Pollack, Stephen H. Orel, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & Macrae, New York City, for Peter N. Miller; Robin A.G. Jackson; Merrett Underwriting Agency Management Ltd. (sued herein as Merrett Underwriting Agencies Mgt., Ltd.); Three Quays Underwriting Management Ltd. (sued herein as Three Quays Underwriting, Ltd.); Janson Green Management Ltd. (sued herein as Janson, Green, Ltd.); C.J.W. (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd. (sued herein as C.J. Warrilow-Hine & Butcher, Ltd.); Lambert Bros. (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd. (sued herein as J. Brian Hose & Others, Ltd.); Murray Lawrence & Partners (sued herein as Harvey Bowring, Ltd.Murray Lawrence & Partners); D.P. Mann Underwriting Agency Ltd. (sued herein as D.P. Mann & Others (U.A.), Ltd.); Ballantyne, McKean & Sullivan Ltd. (sued herein as Ballantyne, McKean & Sullivan, Ltd.); R.K. Carvill & Co., Ltd.

Eugene F. Bannigan, M. Breeze McMennamin, Mary Corrarino, Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith, New York City, for North American Reinsurance Corp.

Barry Ostrager, Mark Cunha, Mary Kay Vyskocil, David A. Martland, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, for Oxford Syndicate Management Ltd. (sued herein as K.F. Adler & Others, (U.A.) Ltd. & Others, (U.A.) Ltd.)

John S. Kingdon, John DeQ. Briggs, John C. Pierce, James M. Burns, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D.C., for Prudential Reinsurance Co.

Robert M. Mitchell, Jeffery Anne Tatum, Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, San Francisco, Cal., for Reinsurance Ass'n of America.

Paul R. Haerle, James T. Hendrick, Kathleen McKinley, Nina M. Brooks, Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, San Francisco, Cal., for Terra Nova Ins. Co., Ltd.

Philip H. Curtis, William H. Voth, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, New York City, for Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co.

Thomas Greene, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff State of Cal.

Guido Saveri, John A. Kithas, Saveri & Saveri, San Francisco, Cal., for private plaintiffs.

Holly Lee Wiseman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for State of Ala.

Richard D. Monkman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Juneau, Alaska, for State of Alaska.

Alison J. Butterfield, Chief Counsel, Antitrust Div., Arizona Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for State of Ariz.

James R. Lewis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Antitrust Unit, Denver, Colo., for State of Colo.

William M. Rubenstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., for State of Conn.

Michael F. Brockmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Chief, Antitrust Div., Baltimore, Md., for State of Md.

George K. Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Antitrust Div., Boston, Mass., for State of Mass.

Robert C. Ward, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for State of Mich.

Lisa Tiegel, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Minn., for State of Minn.

Joe R. Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Mont., for State of Mont.

Laurel A. Price, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N.J., for State of N.J.

George Sampson, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, for State of N.Y.

Marc B. Bandman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for State of Ohio.

Eugene F. Waye, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for State of Pa.

James M. Beaulaurier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, Wash., for State of Wash.

Daniel Huck, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, W.Va., for State of W. Va. Kevin J. O'Connor, Matthew J. Frank, Asst. Attys. Gen., Madison, Wis., for State of Wis.

Jerry S. Cohen, Cohen, Milstein & Hausfeld, Washington, D.C., for Anastasios Markos T/A Mun. Exxon.

Jeremiah F. Hallisey, Hallisey and Johnson, San Francisco, Cal., for Bay Harbor Park Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc.

Nicholas E. Chimicles, Denise Davis Schwartzman, Greenfield & Chimicles, Haverford, Pa., for Big D Building Supply Corp.

Robert A. Skirnick, Mark W. Gaffney, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Foley, New York City, for Environmental Aviation Sciences, Inc.

Arnold Levin, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Carlisle Day Care Center, Inc.

Lawrence Walner, Lawrence Walner & Associates, Inc., Chicago, Ill., for P & J Casting Corp.

David Berger, Harold Berger, H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Howard Langer, Jeffrey Rockman, Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for Henry L. Rosenfeld.

Stanley Nemser, David L. Weisberg, Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, New York City, for Ace Check Cashing, Inc.

Judah I. Labovitz, Cohen, Shapiro, Poliser, Shiekman & Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Discount Plywood Centers, Inc.

Warren Rubin, Gross, Sklar & Metzger, Philadelphia, Pa., for Acme Corrugated Box Co., Inc.

Robert M. Roseman, Mark S. Goldman, Rudolph, Seidner, Goldstein, Rochestie & Salmon, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for Bensalem Township Authority, et al.

J. Daniel Sagarin, Hurwitz & Sagarin, Milford, Conn., for Durawood, Inc.

Charles R. Van De Walle, Martin, Van De Walle, Guarino & Donohue, Great Neck, N.Y., for Keyboard Communications, Inc.

Louis M. Tarasi, Jr., Tarasi & Johnson P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa., for Carmella M. "Boots" Liberto Trading and R.J. Liberto, Inc.

Marvin Miller, Patrick E. Cafferty, Washlow, Chertow & Miller, Chicago, Ill., for Glabman Paramount Furniture Mfg., Co., Inc.

Daniel Berger, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, New York City, for Jerry Grant Chemical Associates, Inc.

Zell Davis, Jr., McGee, Jordan, Shuey, Koons, Schroeder & Morris, P.A., Lake Worth, Fla., for Les-Ray Bobcat, Inc. and Kirlington Park, Inc.

                   REVISED MEMORANDUM OF
                                     DECISION AND ORDER
                  I.  INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 468
                 II.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 468
                III.  THE FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS CHARGED ................................................... 470
                 IV.  THE MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT ......................................................... 471
                  V.  DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 472
                      A. The McCarran-Ferguson Act Defense ................................................. 472
                         (1) The Business of Insurance ..................................................... 473
                         (2) Regulation by the States ...................................................... 474
                         (3) The Exclusion of Boycott, Coercion, and Intimidation .......................... 475
                       B. State Action Immunity, Statutory Interpretation, and Causation ................... 479
                          (1) State Action Immunity ........................................................ 479
                              (a) State Policy ............................................................. 479
                              (b) State Supervision ........................................................ 480
                          (2) Statutory Interpretation ..................................................... 481
                          (3) Causation .................................................................... 482
                       C. Standing ......................................................................... 482
                       D. Global Conspiracy Claim .......................................................... 483
                       E. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Comity ........................................... 484
                          (1) The Factual Background ....................................................... 485
                          (2) Subject Matter Jurisdiction .................................................. 486
                          (3) International Comity ......................................................... 487
                
              (a) Degree of Conflict With Foreign Law or Policy ......................... 487
                              (b) The Nationality or Allegiance of the Parties and the Locations
                                    of Principal Places of Business of Corporations ..................... 489
                              (c) The Extent to Which Enforcement by Either State
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • Legal Principles Defining the Scope of the Federal Antitrust Exemption for Insurance
    • United States
    • Comptroller General of the United States
    • March 4, 2005
    ... ... As the Supreme ... Court later observed, "on the rationalization that ... insurance was not commerce, yet was business affected with a ... vast public interest, the states developed comprehensive ... regulatory and taxing systems. And litigation of their ... validity came to be freed of commerce clause ... objections ... " [ 27 ] ... Meanwhile, ... beginning in the 1850s, states established boards and ... administrative agencies to regulate the insurance business, ... with the scope ... ...
  • Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 29, 1994
    ... ... 27 Cal.App.4th 67, 32 Cal.App.4th 821 ... MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Petitioners, ... The SUPERIOR COURT In and For the City and County of San ... scheme possess[ing] jurisdiction over the challenged practice.' " (In re Insurance Antitrust Litigation (N.D.Cal.1989) 723 F.Supp. 464, 474, revd. on other grounds (9th Cir.1991) 938 F.2d ... ...
  • Animal Science Products v. China Nat. Metals
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 30, 2008
    ... ... 859 ... B. The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act ... 859 ... 1. Legislative History ... 880 ... B. Future Litigation ... 881 ... IX. Conclusion ... that forced certain other primary insurers to change the terms of their standard domestic insurance policies. After the actions were consolidated for litigation, the District Court for the Northern ... ...
  • Hartford Fire Insurance Co v. California Merrett Underwriting Agency Management Limited v. California
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1993
    ... ... After the actions were consolidated for litigation, the District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting the District Court's conclusion that the fendants were entitled to antitrust immunity under § 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempts from federal regulation "the business of insurance," except "to the extent that ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
21 books & journal articles
  • Overview of Exemptions and Defenses
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Insurance Antitrust Handbook. Third Edition
    • December 5, 2017
    ...F.2d 233, 236 (2d Cir. 1975); Ohio AFL-CIO v. Ins. Rating Bd . , 451 F.2d 1178, 1181-84 (6th Cir. 1971); In re Ins. Antitrust Litig . , 723 F. Supp. 464, 474 (N.D. Cal. 1989), rev’d on other grounds , 938 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1991), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. Ha......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Mergers and Acquisitions: Understanding the Antitrust Issues, 2d Edition
    • January 1, 2004
    ...Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 22,779 (Aug. 6, 1990), 407 Institut Merieux, S.A., 113 F.T.C. 742 (1990), 397 In re Insurance Antitrust Litigation, 723 F. Supp. 464 (N.D. Cal. 1989), rev’d , 938 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1991), aff’d in relevant part and rev’d in part sub nom ., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Califo......
  • Application of Merger Laws to Multinational Transactions
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Mergers and Acquisitions. Understanding the Antitrust Issues. Fourth Edition
    • December 6, 2015
    ...for pollution risks in the United States. See Hartford Fire , 509 U.S. at 776-77, 796. 63 . See In re Insurance Antitrust Litig., 723 F. Supp. 464, 468, 470-72, 484 (N.D. Cal. 1989), rev’d , 938 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1991), aff’d in relevant part & rev’d in part sub nom. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook. Second Edition
    • January 1, 2008
    ...McDermott & Co., 698 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir. 1983)........................................................ 217 In re Ins. Antitrust Litig., 723 F. Supp. 464 (N.D. Cal. 1989), rev’d , 938 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................. 75 In re Ins. Antitrust Litig., 9......
  • Get Started for Free