In a federal case decided in Washington State, a federal judge apparently applied the State Filed Insurance Rate Doctrine to grant motions to dismiss filed by a lender (Bank of America) and a force-placed insurance carrier (QBE). Hong v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C20-1667RSM, 2021 WL 3207684, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 29, 2021) (describing Washington's Filed Rate Doctrine as recognizing "principle of nonjusticiability" barring courts from deciding reasonableness of rates that were both filed and approved by the relevant Washington State authority, here, the Washington Insurance Commissioner), aff'd with opinion, No. 21-35742, 2022 WL 2235469 (9th Cir. June 22, 2022) (stated in a footnote "not for publication and is not precedent" with exception if a particular Ninth Circuit Local Rule applies; not addressing "principle of nonjusticiability" or any other principle that some say underlie Filed Rate Doctrine).
However, the federal judge apparently felt constrained to nod in the direction of the competing Federal Filed Rate Doctrine. The federal court pointed out that "f]ederal courts recognize a further principle underlying the doctrine," namely, what the federal courts call the "principle of nondiscrimination"). Hong, 2021 WL 3207684, at *3. This was dicta in the context of this court's ultimate holding, which was pretty clearly reached under Washington State law and not federal law.
Still, federal judges are fond of their Federal Filed Rate Doctrine and reluctant to give it up completely, it would appear, even when a State Filed Insurance Rate Doctrine is available to decide the case.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2023 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments