The purpose of this subchapter is to regulate trade practices in the business of insurance in accordance with the intent of the United States Congress as expressed in Pub. L. No. 79-15 by defining, or providing for the determination of, all practices in this state which constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices and by prohibiting the trade practices so defined or determined.
However, no provisions of this subchapter are intended to establish or extinguish a private right of action for a violation of any provision of this subchapter.
U.S. Code.
Public Law No. 79-15, referred to in this section, is codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1011 et seq.
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Nathan Price Chaney, The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act: The Arkansas Supreme Court Should Adopt the Specific-Conduct Rule, 67 Ark. L. Rev. 299 (2014).
Case Notes
In General.
Because Ark. Ins. R. 43 was promulgated under authority from the Arkansas Trade Practices Act, which provided no private right of action to an insured for violations of the Act or of regulations promulgated under the Act's authority, insured was not a first-party claimant within the meaning of the rule as there was no claim for which insured could assert a right to any payment or defense from insurer; thus, it was doubtful whether any misstatements in a letter that was sent by insurer regarding tail coverage after the expiration of a claims-made policy amounted to an Ark. Ins. R. 43 violation. Design Professionals Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 454 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2006).
Columbia Mut. Ins. v. Home Mut. Fire Ins., 47 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4דSee Ark. Code Ann. § 23-66-203 (Repl. 1994). The Act, which is designed to protect the public, prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair trade acts or practices.”
RM Dean Farms v. Helena Chem. Co., 847 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (E.D. Ark. 2012). · cites it 2דAs part of the reasoning in Williams , the Court noted that the Arkansas Insurance Code contains its own trade practices act that expressly states that it does not create a private cause of action, see Ark. Code Ann. § 23-66-202 (b) (Repl. 2001).”
Design Professionals Ins. v. Chicago Ins., 454 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2דThe Arkansas insurance commissioner cited the Arkansas Trade Practices Act, which “regulate[s] trade practices in the business of insurance,” Ark.Code Ann. § 23-66-202, as authority for promulgating Rule 43.”
Moffitt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (E.D. Ark. 2019). “Rule 43 is a creature of the Trade Practices Act, which is not “intended to establish or extinguish a private right of action for a violation of any provision of this [Act].”
Design Professionals v. Chicago Ins. Co. (8th Cir. 2006). “Therefore we believe that Rule 43 was intended to implement the Trade Practices Act, and, while the Act gives the state authority to establish rules of conduct and to punish offenders, it provides no private right of action to insureds for violations of the Act or of regulations…”
Moffitt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (E.D. Ark. 2019). “Rule 43 is a creature of the Trade Practices Act, which is not “intended to establish or extinguish a private right of action for a violation of any provision of this [Act].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.