15 U.S.C. § 1013

Suspension until June 30, 1948, of application of certain Federal laws; Sherman Act applicable to agreements to, or acts of, boycott, coercion, or intimidation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Until 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 [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], and the Act of June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Anti-Discrimination Act, shall not apply to the business of insurance or to acts in the conduct thereof.(b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall render the said Sherman Act inapplicable to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation.(c)(1) Nothing contained in this chapter shall modify, impair, or supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to the business of health insurance (including the business of dental insurance and limited-scope dental benefits).(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to making a contract, or engaging in a combination or conspiracy—(A) to collect, compile, or disseminate historical loss data;(B) to determine a loss development factor applicable to historical loss data;(C) to perform actuarial services if such contract, combination, or conspiracy does not involve a restraint of trade; or(D) to develop or disseminate a standard insurance policy form (including a standard addendum to an insurance policy form and standard terminology in an insurance policy form) if such contract, combination, or conspiracy is not to adhere to such standard form or require adherence to such standard form.(3) For purposes of this subsection—(A) the term “antitrust laws” has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of section 12 of this title, except that such term includes section 45 of this title to the extent that such section 45 applies to unfair methods of competition;(B) the term “business of health insurance (including the business of dental insurance and limited-scope dental benefits)” does not include—(i) the business of life insurance (including annuities); or(ii) the business of property or casualty insurance, including but not limited to—(I) any insurance or benefits defined as “excepted benefits” under paragraph (1), subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2), or paragraph (3) of section 9832(c) of title 26 whether offered separately or in combination with insurance or benefits described in paragraph (2)(A) of such section; and(II) any other line of insurance that is classified as property or casualty insurance under State law;(C) the term “historical loss data” means information respecting claims paid, or reserves held for claims reported, by any person engaged in the business of insurance; and(D) the term “loss development factor” means an adjustment to be made to reserves held for losses incurred for claims reported by any person engaged in the business of insurance, for the purpose of bringing such reserves to an ultimate paid basis.(Mar. 9, 1945, ch. 20, § 3, 59 Stat. 34; July 25, 1947, ch. 326, 61 Stat. 448; Pub. L. 116–327, § 2(a), Jan. 13, 2021, 134 Stat. 5097.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (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. (a), 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, referred to in subsec. (a), is generally classified 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.

Act of June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Anti-Discrimination Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is act June 19, 1936, ch. 592, 49 Stat. 1526, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act and also as the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, which enacted sections 13a, 13b, and 21a of this title and amended section 13 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 13 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2021—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 116–327 added subsec. (c).

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

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesRelated Provision

Pub. L. 116–327, § 2(b), Jan. 13, 2021, 134 Stat. 5098, provided that: “For purposes of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section applies to unfair methods of competition, section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act [15 U.S.C. 1013(c)] shall apply with respect to the business of health insurance without regard to whether such business is carried on for profit, notwithstanding the definition of ‘Corporation’ contained in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 44].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 96 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Grp. Life & Health Ins. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205 (1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Grp. Life & Health Ins. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205 (1979). · cites it 4× “§ 1012 (b), and that they do not fall within the "boycott" exception of 15 U. S. C. § 1013 (b). The District Court held for petitioners on both issues.”

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531 (1978). · cites it 4× “[1] The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondents' complaint stated a claim within the "boycott" exception in § 3 (b) of the Act, which provides that the Sherman Act shall remain applicable "to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott,…”

Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (1982). · cites it 2× “" In ruling on petitioners' motion to dismiss, the District Court concluded that respondent had adequately pleaded a boycott beyond the protection of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1013 (b). Respondent points out that on a full factual record the issue was resolved…”

Union Labor Life Ins. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119 (1982). · cites it 2× “" § 3, 15 U. S. C. § 1013 (b). [2] The Committee's advice is also available to patients, governmental agencies, and chiropractors themselves, but insurers are the principal users.”

In Re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300 (3rd Cir. 2010). “Section 3(b) of the Act provides that “[n]othing contained in this chapter shall render the said Sherman Act inapplicable to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation.”

In Re Title Ins. Antitrust Cases, 702 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 3× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1013 . “The purpose of the moratorium was to allow the States three years to take steps to regulate the business of insurance.”

Arroyo-Melecio v. Puerto Rican Am. Ins., 398 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1013 (b). This appeal is largely about the interplay between § 1012(b), the basic McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption from federal antitrust liability, and § 1013(b), the “boycott, coercion, or intimidation” exception to the McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption.”

Sanger Ins. Agency v. HUB Int'l, Limi, 802 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Compare 15 U.S.C § 1013(b) (“Nothing contained in this chapter shall render the said Sherman Act inapplicable to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation”).”

David M. Barry, M.D. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 555 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “The district court concluded that “despite this provision’s broad wording, which on first glance seems to support the plaintiffs’ position, Congress intended this exception to be narrowly applied and that it does not, in fact, cover the situation presented in this case.” It held…”

Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Kan. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 1012 (b), 7 and regardless of state regúla *1402 tion, the Sherman Act applies “to any agreement to boycott, coerce or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion or intimidation,” 15 U.S.C. § 1013 (b). 8 This statutory scheme erects three requirements which must be met to obtain…”

Phillip M. Proctor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “Finally, very narrowly construing the “boycott” exception in the McCarran Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1013 (b), 10 the court held that appellants had produced inadequate evidentiary support for their allegations of “boycott, coercion and intimidation” by appellees, particularly “since…”

Phillip M. Proctor, D/B/A Proctor Auto Serv. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 561 F.2d 262 (D.C. Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “Section 3(b) of the McCarran Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1013 (b), states in full: (b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall render the said Sherman Act inapplicable to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation.”

Show all 96 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 1013(b) — 3 cases

Sanger Ins. Agency v. HUB Int'l, Limi, 802 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 2015). “Compare 15 U.S.C § 1013(b) (“Nothing contained in this chapter shall render the said Sherman Act inapplicable to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation”).”

California League of Indep. Ins. Producers v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 179 F. Supp. 65 (N.D. Cal. 1959).

Sanger Ins. Agency v. HUB Int'l, Limi (5th Cir. 2015).

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.