July 30, 2014

20

New Articles

Advertisement

July 25, 2014

Supreme Court Holds That Insurer Liability for Violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act are Limited by the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act

On August 27, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a ruling in State v. Acordia, Inc., reversing a lower court decision that had held insurance broker Acordia liable for violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The action was brought by the Connecticut AG’s office, which had accused Acordia of entering into agreements with several insurers (Travelers, Hartford, Chubb, Atlantic Mutual and Royal & Sun Alliance) to steer Acordia’s broker clients to these insurers in return for the insurers’ payment of 1% of the premium amount to Acordia.

At trial, the State alleged that Acordia’s failure to inform its insured clients that it was receiving the additional commission from the insurers was a breach of its fiduciary duty, which the State maintained violated “public policy” and thus constituted unlawful conduct under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (the “UPTA”). The State also alleged that Acordia’s conduct violated the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (the “UIPA”), arguing that it constituted “misleading conduct” on the part of the broker, which the UIPA expressly prohibits. The trial court ruled for the State on both claims, and Acordia appealed.

In a ruling to be applauded by insurers everywhere, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, holding that a UTPA claim against an entity subject to the UIPA (generally insurers and brokers) must  be based upon conduct that constitutes a violation of the UIPA. Thus, because the State had failed to establish that Acordia’s breach of fiduciary duty also constituted a violation of the UIPA (as opposed to the UTPA), the State’s UTPA claim failed as a matter of law. (Notably, this ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court differs considerably from the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court in Zhang v. Superior Court,  which took a more expansive view and held that, under California law, an unfair competition law claim  can  be asserted against an insurer independently from, and without regard to, whether such conduct also violates the California insurance law.) Moreover, the Connecticut Supreme Court also held that the State’s trial failed to show that the Acordia employees that had dealt with the broker clients were aware that Acordia had negotiated the additional payment from the insurers and thus there was no basis to conclude that their conduct was influenced by the additional payments.

Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision in all respects, and directed that judgment be entered for Acordia in the case.

© Copyright 2014 Dickinson Wright PLLC

Emerging Legal News Headlines:

Multiple reports have confirmed that the U.S. Department of State’s global database for issuing travel documents recently crashed. While the system has been restored, it is operating at reduced...

Key points:

  • New benefit rate of $4.02 an hour (except for Hawaii)

  • Effective July 22, 2014

  • Updated Wage Determinations 

The U.S. Department of Labor...

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will soon begin a second phase of audits (Phase 2 Audits) of compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA...

Has the time come to license investors?

Regulators are often called upon to draw regulatory lines. In my experience as a former regulator (some would argue I never left, though it’s been almost 16 years), when called upon to...

Commerce Department Action on Solar Trade Case

From time to time the Energy and Environment Update will focus on legislative and regulatory developments facing a particular energy sector. 

For several years,...

Takeaway: In order to discover additional documents regarding privity, the patent owner does not have to prove privity, but does have to show evidence tending to show beyond speculation that there could have been privity between petitioner...

Takeaway: A party’s speculation that materials for which routine discovery is being sought “could” contain inconsistent information is not sufficient under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii).

In its Order,...

Business communications firm Greentarget has just released the results of interviews with 100 news reporters and editors in their 2014 Disrupting the Press Release ...

This past Wednesday, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to revise New Mexico’s State Rural Universal Service Fund...

Takeaway: A petition asserting obviousness grounds of unpatentability must articulate reasons with rational underpinnings to support the obviousness conclusion, including, where appropriate, how the prior art addressed a need or problem in...

Takeaway: A petition filed more than one year after the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement will bar institution of inter partes review, even if that complaint is dismissed, if the dismissal is “with prejudice....

Earlier this month, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) filed a notice of the status of negotiations among the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) participants relating to the ownership restructuring of...

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced a settlement with a partner at an investor relations firm who allegedly traded on inside information obtained through his representation of two companies. 

...

As reported by HealthcareInfoSecurity.com, a former hospital employee is facing criminal charges brought by federal prosecutors in Texas for alleged violations of the privacy and security requirements under the Health...

You know how sometimes you misplace things? Glasses, wallet, keys, cell phone, remote control . . . vials of smallpox.

Not joking. Smallpox. As in “[a] government scientist cleaning out a storage room last week at a lab on the...

Today, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued a ...

The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a 16-count indictment for insider trading, finding the government adequately alleged each element of the offense.  

S...

For those companies that are seeking additional insured status, keep in mind that there have been major changes in how that insurance status is written. The Insurance Services Office, the drafter of many “...

In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a Motion to Submit Supplemental Information. Petitioner sought to submit paragraph 179 from a report of Patent Owner’s expert that...

The Security and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Investment Management and Corporation Finance issued Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20 (IM/CF) on June 30 (SLB 20). SLB 20 provides guidance...

In cases challenging participation of food service workers other than the quintessential roles with which most diners are familiar (e.g., server/waiter, busboy, etc.) in tip sharing/pooling/splitting arrangements...

In a recent split decision, the Federal Circuit ordered the Eastern District of Texas to stay district court litigation pending a covered business method (CBM) review, reversing the district court’s...

As reported in the press, President Obama plans to issue an Executive Order authorizing the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“...

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Member

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...

202-659-6945