Standard Sec. Life Insurance NY v. West, 01-1223
Citation | 267 F.3d 821 |
Decision Date | 07 September 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 01-1223,01-1223 |
Parties | (8th Cir. 2001) STANDARD SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. DEVIN WEST, APPELLEE. Submitted: |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Before Bowman, Loken, and Hansen, Circuit Judges.
Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York (Standard) appeals, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a), the District Court's1 grant of Devin West's motion to dismiss Standard's complaint which sought to invoke the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to compel arbitration of the parties' insurance coverage dispute.2 See Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. West, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (W.D. Mo. 2000). Having conducted a de novo review of the District Court's judgment, see Honn v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, 182 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 1999), we affirm.
In November 1998, University of Missouri football player West purchased an insurance policy from Standard covering permanent total disability in the event he suffered an injury or sickness that prevented him from playing professional football. The policy included a provision stating that if a policy dispute arose, either the insured or Standard could make a written demand for arbitration. West later submitted an insurance claim, but Standard denied it and requested binding arbitration.
After West filed suit against Standard in a Missouri state court claiming breach of an insurance contract and vexatious refusal to pay, Standard filed suit in the District Court seeking an order compelling arbitration of the parties' dispute pursuant to the FAA. See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (1994) ( ). Standard also removed West's state-court suit to the District Court, and the court consolidated it with Standard's FAA suit. Standard moved to stay West's state-law claims pending the results of arbitration or, alternatively, to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the basis that the FAA barred West's coverage claims. West, in turn, moved to dismiss Standard's FAA action, arguing that the Missouri Arbitration Act rendered the insurance policy's arbitration clause unenforceable. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.350 (2000) ( ). West also argued that the FAA did not preempt section 435.350 of the Missouri Revised Statutes because the McCarran-Ferguson Act prevents inadvertent federal preemption of a state statute regulating the insurance industry. See 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b) (1994) ().
In accordance with section 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, inverse-preemption operates to bar application of the FAA if (1) the FAA does not specifically relate to the business of insurance, (2) the FAA would invalidate, impair, or supersede section 435.350, and (3) section 435.350 was enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance. See Murff v. Prof'l Med. Ins. Co., 97 F.3d 289, 291 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1273 (1997). The parties did not dispute in the District Court whether the first two factors were met, and thus the court correctly focused on the third factor: whether section 435.350 was enacted to regulate "the business of insurance."
We hold that section 435.350 does regulate the business of insurance because it applies to the processing of disputed claims. This processing, in turn, has a substantial effect upon the insurer-insured relationship and the policy's interpretation and enforcement, both of which are "core" components of the business of insurance. See United States Dep't of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491, 501 (1993) ( ); see also Express Scripts, Inc. v. Wenzel, 262 F.3d 829, 837 (8th Cir.2001) ( ). We also conclude that the District Court properly applied the three criteria relevant to deciding whether a particular practice at issue--here, section 435.350's prohibition against arbitration clauses in insurance contracts--involves the business of insurance. See Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119, 129 (1982) ( ).
First, as the District Court noted, section 435.350 transfers or spreads the risk by introducing the possibility of jury verdicts into the process for resolving disputed claims. See Fabe, 508 U.S. at 503-04 ( ); Mut. Reinsurance Bureau v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., 969 F.2d 931, 933 (10th Cir.) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milliman, Inc. v. Roof
...F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 1998) ; Davister Corp. v. United Republic Life Ins. Co. , 152 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 1998) ; Standard Security Life Ins. Co. v. West , 267 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2001) ; Mut. Reinsurance Bureau v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. , 969 F.2d 931 (10th Cir. 1992). Had this case i......
-
Pinnoak Resources v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
...L.Ed.2d 210 (1997), and applied to reverse preempt the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2004), in Standard Security Life Ins. Co. of New York v. West, 267 F.3d 821 (8th Cir.2001), the latter case involving a Missouri statute prohibiting arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Deci......
-
Foresight Energy, LLC v. Certain London Mkt. Ins. Cos.
...applied this three-part test to reverse preempt the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2, in Standard Security Life Insurance Co. of New York v. West, 267 F.3d 821, 823 (8th Cir. 2001), a case involving the same statute at issue in this case, § 435.350, Missouri Revised Statutes.Foresight ......
-
Luna Music, LLC v. Exec. Ins. Servs.
...Act. (Dkt. No. 16 at 12 (citing Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Inman, 436 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2006); Std. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. West, 267 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2001); Munich Am. Reinsurance Co. v. Crawford, 141 F.3d 585, 596 (5th Cir. 1998))). However, because the arbitration agreement at issue here i......
-
Arbitration: Interface of Thefederal Arbitration Act Andnebraska State Law
...Group, 268 Neb. 473, 481, 684 N.W.2d 33, 41 (2004). 220.15 U.S.C. §1012(b) (2006). 221.Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. West, 267 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2001).SeeMcKnight v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2004); Mutual Reinsur-ance Bureau v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. C......