The Supreme Court today granted the Ninth Circuit’s request in Coleman v. United Services Automobile Association to answer questions about insurance rate making in California.
The questions are:
(1) Does section 1861.16(b) of the California Insurance Code prohibit insurers that provide insurance under Code section 11628(f)(1) from offering lower rates to servicemembers of higher rank, but higher rates to those of lower rank? If not, does section 11628(f)(1) nevertheless constitute an invalid legislative amendment under Amwest Surety Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 11 Cal. 4th 1243 (1995), or other California law? (2) Do sections 1860.1 and 1860.2 of the California Insurance Code establish a filed-rate doctrine that impliedly limits the ability of plaintiffs to recover under the business laws identified by section 1861.03? If so, is the standard distinct from the one articulated for public utilities regulation in Waters v. Pacific Telephone Co., 523 P.2d 1161, 1162 (Cal. 1974), and does it preclude liability even where a challenge does not center on the appropriateness of the rates themselves?” (Links added.)
More about the case here.
The Supreme Court is typically hospitable to the Ninth Circuit when the federal court asks for help deciding California legal issues. Although the Supreme Court did go through a short picky stage a few years back — denying two of three requests over an eight-month stretch — it has in the long run been extremely accommodating, having now granted 25 of the last 28 requests, dating back to July 2018. Before the most recent two rejections (in August 2023 and April 2024), the lone denial in the past eight years had been in October 2019.
Related:
Asked and answered: California Supreme Court responses to Ninth Circuit questions
The constitutionality of the Supreme Court answering the Ninth Circuit’s legal questions
Ninth Circuit dissenter wanted to send insurance law question to the Supreme Court
Ask not what the Supreme Court can do for the Ninth Circuit
Justice Kruger and Judge Owens talk about the Supreme Court answering Ninth Circuit questions
The shadow docket . . . of California’s Supreme Court, part 2
