15 U.S.C. § 3905

Clarification concerning permissible State authority

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

(a) No exemption from State motor vehicle no-fault and motor vehicle financial responsibility laws

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to exempt a risk retention group or purchasing group authorized under this chapter from the policy form or coverage requirements of any State motor vehicle no-fault or motor vehicle financial responsibility insurance law.

(b) Applicability of exemptions

The exemptions provided under this chapter shall apply only to the provision of liability insurance by a risk retention group or the purchase of liability insurance by a purchasing group, and nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit the provision or purchase of any other line of insurance by any such group.

The terms of any insurance policy provided by a risk retention group or purchased by a purchasing group shall not provide or be construed to provide insurance policy coverage prohibited generally by State statute or declared unlawful by the highest court of the State whose law applies to such policy.

(d) State authority to specify acceptable means of demonstrating financial responsibility

Subject to the provisions of section 3902(a)(4) of this title relating to discrimination, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preempt the authority of a State to specify acceptable means of demonstrating financial responsibility where the State has required a demonstration of financial responsibility as a condition for obtaining a license or permit to undertake specified activities. Such means may include or exclude insurance coverage obtained from an admitted insurance company, an excess lines company, a risk retention group, or any other source regardless of whether coverage is obtained directly from an insurance company or through a broker, agent, purchasing group, or any other person.

(Pub. L. 97–45, § 6, as added Pub. L. 99–563, § 8(c), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3175.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: Restoration Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Gutierrez, 880 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Restoration Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Gutierrez, 880 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “See 15 U.S.C. § 3905 . Relevant to Restoration Risk’s claims, the LRRA saves from preemption nonchartering state laws that require risk retention groups “to .”

All. of Nonprofits for Ins v. Brett Barratt, 712 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 3905 (d). Arguably, the Commissioner’s Order does not fit within this exception, because it bars ANI from writing a certain type of insurance policy altogether.”

Nat'l Warranty Ins. v. Greenfield, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (D. Or. 1998). · cites it 9× “15 U.S.C. § 3905 (d). C. Oregon Law Governing RRGs In 1987, as part of its Insurance Code, Oregon enacted the Alternative Insurance Liability Risk Retention Law, ORS 735.”

Reis v. OOIDA Risk Retention Grp., Inc., 814 S.E.2d 338 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “" Plaintiffs urge that the direct action statutes 7 do not regulate the operation of risk retention groups but rather are "financial responsibility laws," as set forth in 15 USC § 3905 , 8 and therefore, are not *342 preempted by the LRRA.”

Am. Millennium Ins. v. First Keystone Risk Retention Grp., Inc., 332 F. App'x 787 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 3905 (d). AMI argues that this exception applies to capitalization requirements contained in Title 17, Subtitle 3, Part 1, Chapter 17 of the New Jersey Statutes, which govern the formation of insurance companies in the state.”

Reis v. Ooida Risk Retentiongroup, Inc., 303 Ga. 659 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “in 15 USC § 3905 ,8 and therefore, are not preempted by the LRRA.”

Vargas v. Enter. Leasing Co., 993 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “§ 2048 (title of statute); 15 U.S.C. § 3905 (d) (recognizing state authority "to specify acceptable means of demonstrating financial responsibility"); 16 U.”

Attorneys Liab. Prot. Soc'y, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C., 838 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2016). “15 U.S.C. § 3905 (c). In our view, § 3905(c) allows non-chartering states to restrict the types of insurance coverage, such as for punitive damages or intentional conduct, that may be provided in the state.”

Garage Servs. & Equip. Dealers Liab. Ass'n of Am. v. Homes, 867 F. Supp. 1301 (E.D. Ky. 1994). · cites it 6× “The defendants, on the other hand, maintain that Kentucky may establish requirements as to financial responsibility for purchasing groups, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 3905 (d). Additionally, the defendants contend they have not discriminated against Garage Services.”

Nat'l Home Ins. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 838 F. Supp. 1104 (E.D. Va. 1993). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 3905 (d) (1992); see Charter Risk Retention Group Ins.”

Wadsworth v. Allied Professionals Ins., 748 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2014). “15 U.S.C. § 3905 (d). Additionally, any state may, after an investigation of the group’s financial condition, commence a delinquency proceeding.”

Allied Professionals Ins. v. Michael Anglesey, 952 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2020). “§§ 3902 (a)(1)(A)–(I); 15 U.S.C. § 3905 . These regulatory divisions allow for “the efficient operation of risk retention ALLIED PROFESSIONALS INS.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

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.