From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Minihane v. Weissman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 4, 1996
226 A.D.2d 152 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

holding "filed rate" doctrine barred claim alleging that insurers submitted false and misleading information to superintendent of insurance, thus fraudulently obtaining the filed rate

Summary of this case from Coll v. First American Title Insurance

Opinion

April 4, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).


Plaintiff brings this action, on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated high risk Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield subscribers, alleging that defendants submitted false and misleading documentation to the Superintendent of Insurance, giving rise to a filed rate which was fraudulently obtained. However, we agree with the ruling of the IAS Court that the filed rate doctrine bars these claims. The filed rate doctrine prevents challenges to rates established by regulatory agencies, here the New York State Insurance Department, except by CPLR article 78 review, in order to ensure that rates charged are stable and non-discriminatory, bearing in mind that the regulatory agencies presumably are most familiar with the workings of the regulated industry and are in the best position, due to experience and investigative capacity, to establish the proper rates. The doctrine prevents the courts from entering into the rate determining process, and we agree that there is no exception from the filed rate doctrine based on allegations of fraud ( see, Wegoland Ltd. v. NYNEX Corp., 27 F.3d 17). We discern no reason to depart from this rule herein.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Minihane v. Weissman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 4, 1996
226 A.D.2d 152 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

holding "filed rate" doctrine barred claim alleging that insurers submitted false and misleading information to superintendent of insurance, thus fraudulently obtaining the filed rate

Summary of this case from Coll v. First American Title Insurance

holding that the doctrine barred plaintiff's claim that health insurers defrauded the DOI into approving higher premiums

Summary of this case from Servedio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

holding that doctrine barred claim that health insurers defrauded DOI into approving higher premium

Summary of this case from Servedio v. State Farm Ins. Co.

dismissing claims for breach of contract and fraud as barred by filed rate doctrine when health insurance company obtained excessive rate increases by filing inaccurate reports

Summary of this case from Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
Case details for

Minihane v. Weissman

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED S. MINIHANE, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 4, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 152 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 102

Citing Cases

W. Park Assocs., Inc. v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co.

The final cause of action, which alleged that the defendants violated General Business Law § 349 by charging…

Porr v. NYNEX Corp.

Central to the Purcell holding was the Court's observation that an administrative agency may set uniform…