July 26, 2014

Georgia Federal Court Seeks Guidance from the Georgia Supreme Court on the Application of the "Filed Rate Doctrine" to Rate Filings Made Pursuant to a "File and Use" Regulatory Scheme

On March 27, in Roberts v. Wells Fargo N.A., District Court Judge Avant Edenfield (Southern District of Georgia) certified a question of first impression for decision by the Georgia Supreme Court. The issue concerns the application of the “Filed Rate Doctrine” to insurance rates filed with the Georgia Insurance Commissioner pursuant to the state’s “file and use” rate filing system. Courts in other states have split on the issue of whether the Filed Rate Doctrine applies to rates filed under a “file and use” system, with significant implications for any antitrust claims against insurers that challenge the rates charged to insureds. 

The Filed Rate Doctrine issue in Roberts arises in the context of a plaintiff’s class action challenge to a mortgage company’s “force placing” flood insurance on the plaintiff’s behalf when the plaintiff’s own coverage lapsed. The plaintiff contends that the flood insurer chosen by the mortgage company charged rates that were well above “market” rates, and sought damages under a variety of legal theories. 

In assessing plaintiff’s claims, Judge Edenfield noted that all of them were potentially covered by the Filed Rate Doctrine, which generally bars the assertion of any claim that would require the court to second guess the reasonableness of a rate that has been approved by the State. However, as Judge Edenfield observed, the “Georgia courts have never said that when an insurance rate is filed with the Commissioner such a filing is . . . entitled to the deference accorded by the filed rate doctrine.” In addition, the fact that the Georgia courts have held that the Filed Rate Doctrine applies to rates filed with the Georgia Public Utility Commission was not dispositive, because the Public Utility Commission “not only has the clear grant of authority to set utility rates, but also has full power and authority to make rules and regulations to effectuate . . . all laws conferring powers and duties on the commission.”

Accordingly, after speculating that “perhaps the power to require insurers to file their rates with the Commissioner is sufficiently analogous to the Public Utility Commission’s authority to determine what a reasonable utility rate is,” Judge Edenfield instead decided to certify the issue for the Georgia Supreme Court to decide. The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision will be significant not only for the Roberts case but also to subsequent cases, in Georgia and elsewhere, where a plaintiff brings antitrust claims challenging an insurer’s rates that have been filed in a “file and use” state. Stay tuned.

© Copyright 2014 Dickinson Wright PLLC

About the Author


Jim Burns is Co-Leader of the firm's Antitrust Practice Group.

Mr. Burns has focused his practice on antitrust law for over 25 years. During that time, he has litigated antitrust and related claims in trial and appellate courts all across the country, advised clients on antitrust compliance issues, and represented clients before the DOJ Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission on a wide variety of antitrust matters, including mergers and governmental investigations. While his antitrust practice is broad-based, he has had a particular focus on the representation of...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.