(Dennis Wall)
The federal court was confronted with a novel question of State Insurance Law in the case of Dane v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., 401 F. Supp. 3d 231 (D. Conn. 2019). The federal judge confessed in that case, like many federal judges have done in similar cases, that the Federal Court could not find a single State Court decision applying the filed rate doctrine "to bar a plaintiff's claim[.]"
The federal court in Dane further shared a similar approach to the issue of whether there is a Filed Insurance Rate in the State in which they hold court, in that federal judges are not fazed by the discovery or, in another sense perhaps, not fazed by this non-discovery, that there are no State Court decisions applying a Filed Insurance Rate Doctrine. Insurance is regulated by the States.
The federal judge applied the federal filed rate doctrine citing only federal cases. See Dane, 401 F. Supp. 3d at 236-39. The federal judge then dismissed the plaintiff's insurance claims accordingly: "Because he is seeking relief for an injury allegedly caused by the payment of a rate on file with a regulatory commission, Dane's claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine." Dane, 401 F. Supp. 3d at 239.
The Filed Rate Doctrine is discussed particularly in the context of Insurance and Bad Faith Cases including the Dane v. United Healthcare Insurance Co. case, in 2 Dennis J. Wall, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH § 11:26 (3d Edition Thomson Reuters and 2020 Supplements).
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments