United States: Insurance Filed Rate Defense Wins Over The Second Circuit

In a noteworthy embrace of the filed rate doctrine, the Second Circuit recently ruled, in the context of a challenge to so-called lender-placed or "force placed" insurance, that a regulator-approved rate is subject to the filed rate doctrine and is unassailable, even when that rate is passed through an intermediary and even when there is no direct challenge to the rate itself. Rothstein v. Balboa Ins. Co., No. 14-2250-CV, 2015 WL 4460713 (2d Cir. July 22, 2015). Addressing conflicting district court law—and specifically reversing a ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York—the Second Circuit's ruling is unequivocal and gives a strong boost to a doctrine that has come under scrutiny in the trial courts for some time.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs stated, "We hold that a claim challenging a regulator-approved rate is subject to the filed rate doctrine whether or not the rate is passed through an intermediary," and is therefore "barred if it would undermine the regulator's rate-setting authority or operate to give the suing ratepayer a preferential rate."  Plainly, the panel said, the plaintiffs' claims in the case before it invite "judicial meddling" into issues of insurance policy and would undermine the rate-making authority of the state insurance regulators who approved the rates at issue.  Regulators have the final say as to what should or shouldn't be included in a rate, and thus the Court reasoned that "whether insurer-provided services should have been reflected in the calculation of [lender-placed insurance] is not for us to say."  The Court further ruled that allowing the claims to proceed "would result in Plaintiffs paying preferential rates for [lender-placed insurance]," which itself was an independently sufficient basis to apply the filed rate doctrine and dismiss the action.

In the case before the Court, defendants Balboa Insurance Company, MeritPlan Insurance Company (together, "Balboa"), and Newport Management Corporation (Newport) had been sued by plaintiff mortgagors of residential properties in various states who claimed that they were overcharged by their loan servicer for lender-placed insurance (LPI) issued by the defendants.  As background, in a typical mortgage loan arrangement, if the mortgagor fails to maintain adequate hazard insurance, the lender can purchase insurance on the mortgagor's behalf and then seek reimbursement from the mortgagor.  The plaintiffs here failed to maintain hazard insurance on their properties as required by the terms of their loan agreements.  Consequently, their loan servicer, GMAC Mortgage LLC (GMAC), bought the LPI from Balboa at rates that were approved by state insurance regulators, and then sought reimbursement from the plaintiffs at those same rates.

The plaintiffs challenged these arrangements under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), claiming that GMAC fraudulently overbilled them for the LPI because the insurance rates they were ultimately charged did not reflect an alleged discount that GMAC received from Balboa through Balboa's affiliate, Newport—an arrangement that the plaintiffs called a "kickback scheme."  According to the plaintiffs, because GMAC still billed the plaintiffs at the filed rates, it unlawfully retained for itself the entire benefit of that discount.  The plaintiffs originally sued GMAC and various affiliates, along with Balboa and Newport, although the claims against all defendants except Balboa and Newport had been settled by the time of appeal.

Defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, raising, among other things, the filed rate doctrine.  Defendants argued that the plaintiffs could not bring a lawsuit that, while framed as RICO and RESPA allegations, amounted to a challenge to LPI rates that had expressly been submitted to and approved by insurance regulators in the relevant states.  The district court denied the motion in relevant part, reasoning that although Balboa received regulatory approval for the rates it charged to GMAC, that approval did not necessarily extend to the mortgagors' reimbursement to GMAC.  That court concluded that the filed rate doctrine did not apply because it passed through an intermediary—the plaintiffs were not direct customers of the rate filer. 

In so holding, however, the district court noted a conflict of authority on this issue.  The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, for example, also addressing allegations of kickbacks relative to force placed insurance, noted that "recently, some courts have begun to view cases such as the one before the Court, not so much as a challenge to the legal rates charged, but rather as a challenge to the manner in which the defendants select the insurers, the manipulation of the force-place insurance policy process, and the impermissible kickbacks included in the premiums."  Simpkins v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, No. 12 Civ. 0768, 2013 WL 4510166, at *14 (S.D.Ill. Aug. 26, 2013).  The Simpkins court concluded that payments made to the lender "pursuant to ... side agreements are not subject to the regulatory scheme in the same way that insurance rates are," and that, as a result, the plaintiffs were not "barred under the filed rate doctrine from challenging conduct which [was] not otherwise addressed by a governing regulatory agency."  Id.  The Southern District of Georgia, on the other hand, recently found "dubious" the distinction between challenges to "the method of choosing an insurer" versus challenges to the filed rates themselves, particularly because calculating damages in cases like the one before it would require the Court to impermissibly make "a judicial determination of the reasonableness of the rate."  Roberts v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12 Civ. 200, 2013 WL 1233268, at *13 (S.D.Ga. Mar. 27, 2013). 

In light of this conflicting authority, the district court in Balboa certified its decision denying the Balboa defendants' motion to dismiss for immediate interlocutory appeal.

On appeal, the Second Circuit criticized the district court for its simplistic determination that the filed rate doctrine addresses only a simple A–to–B transaction, in which insurer A charged an approved rate to B, and not the A–to–B–to–C transaction at issue here, in which the insurer billed the lender and the lender in turn billed the borrower.  In no uncertain terms, the Second Circuit held that the doctrine operates notwithstanding an intermediary that passes along the rate.

The Court's reasoning turned upon its view of the core principles supporting the filed rate doctrine: The principle of nonjusticiability—i.e., that courts should not undermine agency rate-making authority by upsetting approved rates—and the principle of nondiscrimination—i.e., that litigation should not become a means for certain ratepayers to obtain preferential rates.  These doctrines, the Court held, are of equal force in an A–to–B–to–C transaction.  Furthermore, where the rate-regulated product necessarily passes through intermediaries before the rate is paid by the ultimate consumer, as it does in many industries (such as the energy industry as well as the LPI industry), it would make little sense for the filed rate doctrine to apply as between the rate filer and the intermediaries, but not apply when it comes to the ultimate ratepayers.  Indeed, the distinction between an A–to–B transaction and an A–to–B–to–C transaction is "especially immaterial" in the LPI context because the lender in that context acts in the borrower's place to force place a transaction that the borrower should have entered in the first instance.

The Second Circuit then analyzed the Balboa plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the nonjusticiability and nondiscrimination principles, and found that both principles barred the claims. 

Because the nonjusticiability principle precludes any judicial action that undermines agency rate-making authority, a claim may be barred even if it can be characterized as challenging something other than the rate itself.  The Court parsed the theory behind the claims here, finding that they amounted to claims that the plaintiffs were overbilled when they were charged the approved LPI rates, instead of lower rates net of the value of loan tracking services provided to GMAC by Newport.  The Court found no merit in the plaintiffs' assertion that they were attacking the "fraudulent scheme" and not the rates themselves.  The plaintiffs' theory rested on the premise that the rates approved by regulators were too high, and can succeed only if the arrangement with Newport should have been treated as part and parcel of the LPI transaction and reflected in reduced LPI rates.  But the question of what should or should not be included in a filed rate is reserved exclusively to the regulators.

Likewise, the nondiscrimination principle precludes individual ratepayers from undermining uniform rate application—which the court found is not cured simply because the plaintiffs brought their claims on behalf of a putative class.  Any claim that gives certain ratepayers a preference is barred.  Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims could not move forward because any remedy would result in the plaintiffs paying preferential rates for LPI.

The Second Circuit's decision underscores the applicability of the filed rate doctrine irrespective of the chain through which the rates are passed.  It further removes from the courts' domain challenges which facially attack allegedly fraudulent schemes involving insurance charges, focusing courts on the effect such challenges, if successful, would have on the authority of the rate-makers and on rates themselves.  This decision will reach both the insurance and energy industries, where rates are commonly passed through intermediaries, and should refocus judicial inquiry where challenges are made to the charge of rates to ultimate ratepayers. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
30 Jan 2019, Other, Chicago, United States

Please join us on January 30, 2019, for the Fifth Annual Courageous Counsel Leadership Institute. This year's theme is "Risk and reward: Creating a culture that promotes innovation, change and growth.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions