U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 20— REGULATION OF INSURANCE

15 U.S.C. § 1012

Regulation by State law; Federal law relating specifically to insurance; applicability of certain Federal laws after June 30, 1948

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) State regulation

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.

(b) Federal regulation

No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance: Provided, That after June 30, 1948, the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, and the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended, known as the Clayton Act, and the Act of September 26, 1914, known as the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State Law.

(Mar. 9, 1945, ch. 20, § 2, 59 Stat. 34; July 25, 1947, ch. 326, 61 Stat. 448.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified to sections 1 to 7 of this title.

Act of October 15, 1914, as amended, known as the Clayton Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is act Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, which is classified generally to sections 12, 13, 14 to 19, 21, and 22 to 27 of this title and to sections 52 and 53 of Title 29, Labor. For further details and complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 12 of this title and Tables.

Act of September 26, 1914, known as the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified generally to subchapter I (§ 41 et seq.) of chapter 2 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1947—Act July 25, 1947, substituted “June 30, 1948” for “January 1, 1948”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 888 cases (74 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe (1993) SCOTUS · cites it 13× “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 business of insurance," within the meaning of §…”
Allen v. Pacheco (2003) Colo. · cites it 10× “The HCAA governs the arbitration provision in this case because the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (b) (1997), exempts sections 13-64-403(3) and (4) of the HCAA from federal preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.”
Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (2016) NY · cites it 7× “We conclude that, because application of the FAA does not “invalidate, impair, or supersede” ( 15 USC § 1012 [b]) section 11658, the McCarranFerguson Act is not implicated, and the FAA applies to the parties’ Payment Agreements.”
Group Life & Health Insurance v. Royal Drug Co. (1979) SCOTUS · cites it 6× “448 , 15 U. S. C. § 1012 (b), because the agreements are the "business of insurance," are "regulated by [Texas] law," and are not "boycotts" within the meaning of § 3 (b) of the Act, 59 Stat.”
Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply (2006) 6th Cir. · cites it 4× “The district court dismissed Moon’s suit for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, because the suit was “reverse-preempted” under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (b). Because Moon failed sufficiently to…”
In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (2010) 3rd Cir. · cites it 3× “But the court nonetheless dismissed both the Sherman Act and RICO claims because it found the complaints lacked the requisite factual specificity.”
Barbara Elizabeth Lawson v. Life of the South Insurance Company (2011) 11th Cir. · cites it 6× “§ 9-9-2 (c)(3), see also McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (b). 5 of the loan, as well as damages under several contract and tort theories, injunctive relief requiring Life of the South “to ensure that in the future insureds .”
Brown v. Cassens Transport Co. (2008) 6th Cir. · cites it 5× “The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of their RICO claims based on the reverse preemption of the RICO claims under the McCarran-Fergu-son Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012 , and for failure to plead certain claims with particularity, for failure to allege a pattern of…”
Riverview Health Institute LLC v. Medical Mutual of Ohio (2010) 6th Cir. · cites it 3× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (a). Moreover, the McCarran-Ferguson Act declares that “[n]o Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance .”
Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. Nelson (1996) SCOTUS · cites it 4× “To answer this question, we must consider both ordinary pre-emption principles, and also a special federal anti-pre-emption rule, which provides that a federal statute will not pre-empt a *28 state statute enacted “for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance” —…”
Fredericksburg Care Co. v. Perez (2015) Tex. · cites it 7× “The MFA trumped preemption under the FAA, the Beneficiaries argued, because Congress created an exemption from preemption for any federal law that could be “construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of…”
Safety National Casualty Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's (2009) 5th Cir. · cites it 12× “15 U.S.C. § 1012 (b). The relevant phrase is "construe[] to invalidate, impair, or supersede.”
Show all 888 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 1012(a) — 1 case
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Harris Trust & Savings Bank (1993) SCOTUS
— 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b) — 6 cases
United States Department of Treasury v. Fabe (1993) SCOTUS “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 business of insurance," within the meaning of §…”
Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.) (2015) Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Safety National Casualty Corp. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's (2008) 5th Cir.
Cushing v. Maryland Cas. Co. (1952) 5th Cir.
Wadsworth v. Whaland (1977) 1st Cir.
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.