(Dennis Wall)
This was the case in Arizona in 2019. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona held that the filed rate doctrine could not apply in that case under Arizona State Law. The reason?
Even if Arizona recognized the filed rate doctrine in any other circumstances, that case involved the plaintiffs' claims over the defendants' alleged bribes and the Arizona State Commission had disclaimed regulation of bribes even if they were included in rate filings.
That was the end of the filed rate doctrine defense in that case.
Castillo v. Johnson, No. CV-17-04688-PHX-DLR, 2019 WL 6827472, at *1-*2 (D. Ariz. December 13, 2019). Parenthetically, the federal judge certified this case as a class action in a later order which was appealed and is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The order rejecting the filed rate doctrine in this case was apparently not appealed.
It is also written, by a Higher Court if you will, that "Those who have ears to hear, let them hear."
The dilemmas over Filed Insurance Rates in particular, and concerning the Filed Rate Doctrine generally, are discussed in a pair of articles published in LexisNexis New Appleman's Current Critical Issues in Insurance Law, copies of which are available on my website. In addition, the Filed Rate Doctrine is discussed in the context of Insurance and Bad Faith Cases including the Castillo v. Johnson 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