15 U.S.C. § 1011
Declaration of policy
Congress hereby declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 659
cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case: Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris
Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris (1983)
“33 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq. [5] This Act reflects the *1100 long-held view that the "continued regulation .”
Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Cal. (1981)
“33 , 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq., as this Court acknowledged in State Board of Insurance v.”
Carlton Gunn v. Continental Casualty Company (2020)
“15 U.S.C. § 1011 . In this context, it is “neither prudent nor appropriate for a federal court to impose the filed-rate doctrine on a state which has not adopted it, nor should a court stretch or bend a state doctrine to more comfortably fit the contours of the federal rule.”
United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe (1993)
“33 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq. In order to resolve this case, we must decide whether a state statute establishing the priority of creditors' claims in a proceeding to liquidate an insolvent insurance company is a law enacted "for the purpose of regulating the…”
Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux (1987)
“33 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq. Given the “statutory complexity” of ERISA’s three preemption provisions, Metropolitan Life, supra, at 740, as well as the wide variety of state statutory and decisional law arguably affected by the federal pre-emption provisions, it is…”
Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance (1996)
“33 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq. The fact that a state court rather than an agency was chosen to implement California's scheme provided more reason, not less, for the federal court to stay its hand.”
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts (1985)
“33 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. §1011 et seq., that federal laws should not be construed to supersede state laws “regulating the business of insurance.”
Granholm v. Heald (2005)
“, removed all dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny of state insurance laws; § 1011 provides: "Congress hereby declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the…”
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002)
“We then test the results of the commonsense enquiry by employing the three factors used to point to insurance laws spared from federal preemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq. [4] Although this is not the place to plot the exact perimeter of the…”
FMC Corp. v. Holliday (1990)
“33 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq., Congress provided that the "business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.”
State Ex Rel. Clark v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of West Virginia, Inc. (1998)
“1996), does not exceed state power, and furthermore, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011 et seq., W. Va.Code § 33-24-27 reverse preempts the federal priority statute asserted by the United States.”
TRI-M GROUP, LLC v. Sharp (2011)
“Benjamin, in the context of the McCarron Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1011 et seq., the Supreme Court observed that Congress "intended to declare, and in effect declared, that uniformity of regulation, and of state taxation, are not required in reference to the business of insurance.”
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.