Rothstein v. Balboa Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that claims are barred, pursuant to the filed-rate doctrine, by both nonjusticiability and nondiscrimination principles
• holding “a claim challenging a 11 claims since calculating damages “require[d] the District Court to determine the reasonable rate absent the alleged conspiracy—‘a function that . . . regulatory agencies are more competent to perform’” (omission in original
• rejecting, pursuant to the nonjusticiability principle, claims against a hazard insurance company that “rest[ed] on the premise that the rates approved by regulators were too high”
• \The [filed-rate] doctrine reaches both federal and state causes of action and protects rates approved by federal or state regulators.\
• “The [filed-rate] doctrine reaches both federal and state causes of action and protects rates approved by federal or state regulators.”
• “Plaintiffs’ claims invite judicial meddling in issues of insurance policy. Because that is forbidden under the principle of nonjusticiability, the claims are barred.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).