Insurance Antitrust Legal News - September 2013 • Volume 2, Number 5

more+
less-

In This Issue:

- CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HOLDS INSURERS ARE SUBJECT TO UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS IN ZHANG CASE:

On August 1, the California Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated decision in Zhang v. Superior Court, holding that the California Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code §790 et seq.) does not necessarily preempt an action against an insurer under the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 – the “UCL”). The decision greatly expands an insurer’s potential exposure in California to private actions arising from conduct that, for over twenty five years, had been considered to be subject solely to the California insurance law (which does not provide for a private right of action)...

- BLUES GET BIG EARLY VICTORY IN ANTITRUST MDL PROCEEDING:

Round one of the In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2406), a multi-district antitrust action brought against 38 Blue Cross & Blue Shield entities and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association that is currently pending in Birmingham, Alabama, before District Judge David Proctor, has gone to the Blues, courtesy of a ruling from another District Court Judge more than 800 miles from Birmingham. Specifically, on August 22, Judge Frederico Moreno, District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, held that a series of settlement agreements between the Blues and over 600,000 doctors that resolved a prior litigation over which Judge Moreno had presided (In re Managed Care Litigation), barred the doctors from asserting their antitrust claims in the new MDL proceeding...

- IN RE INSURANCE BROKERAGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION FINALLY CONCLUDES:

After almost nine years of litigation, on August 1, New Jersey District Court Judge Claire Cecchi finally brought to a close one of the highest profile antitrust cases of the new millennium – In re Insurance Brokerage Litigation - with her approval of the final settlement in the action...

- CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT INSURER LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT ARE LIMITED BY THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR INSURANCE PRACTICES ACT:

On August 27, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a ruling in State v. Acordia, Inc., reversing a lower court decision that had held insurance broker Acordia liable for violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The action was brought by the Connecticut AG’s office, which had accused Acordia of entering into agreements with several insurers (Travelers, Hartford, Chubb, Atlantic Mutual and Royal & Sun Alliance) to steer Acordia’s broker clients to these insurers in return for the insurers’ payment of 1% of the premium amount to Acordia...

Please see full newsletter below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Antitrust Litigation, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Insurers, Liability, Unfair Competition, Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices

Published In: Antitrust & Trade Regulation Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, General Business Updates, Insurance Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dickinson Wright | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »