Jose C. Dehoyos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellants and their supporting amici have implicitly adopted the position that the Humana Court’s use of the phrase ‘or interfere with a State’s administrative regime’ means that if the state has a mechanism in place for performing an insurance-related function and the federal law enters that regulatory arena, then the federal law is ‘interfering’ with the state’s administrative regime.... “Interference,” then, is not synonymous with “a presence in the regulatory field.” For example, in Humana , the Court found that although states have administrative regimes and mechanisms in place to regulate insurance fraud, the question is not whether the state administrative regime has “occupied that field.” Instead, the question is whether the regulatory goals are in harmony. RICO, the Court found, supplemented the state’s mechanisms for eliminating insurance fraud, and consequently the purpose and goals of both RICO and the state insurance law were in alignment rather than conflict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 515 F. Supp. 2d 1009 - Saunders v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

2. “any post hoc declaration that credit scoring is impermissible will require a federal court to determine, in order to assess damages, what a fair and “non-discriminatory” rate for the plaintiffs’ policies would have been. A more complete overlap with the state insurance commissions’ pricing decisions is impossible to conceive. Because of the sensitivity and complexity of the question of unfair policy price discrimination, both Texas and Florida have chosen not to permit plaintiffs to file individual lawsuits in state courts to challenge such decisions.... Instead, both states have enacted administrative corrective regimes. The plaintiffs’ disparate impact suit will thus interfere with the initial rate-making as well as the corrective procedures utilized by the states.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 515 F. Supp. 2d 1009 - Saunders v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

3. “The majority, in my view, fails to recognize that a disparate impact claim goes to the heart of the risk adjustment that underlies the insurance business. The Seventh Circuit cogently observed: “Risk discrimination is not race discrimination.” NAACP v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 287, 290 (7th Cir.1992). Every insurer sets its prices according to the risk embodied in covering particular categories of customers.... The relevant inquiries are whether the price differential reasonably conforms to the risk differential and whether, in a regulated rate system, the insurer has received an appropriate return.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 515 F. Supp. 2d 1009 - Saunders v. Farmers Insurance Exchange