Supreme Court of the United States

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Barry

June 29, 1978438 U.S. 531

Summary

The Court held that the McCarran-Ferguson Act's boycott exception preserves Sherman Act coverage for concerted refusals by insurers to deal with policyholders, not merely boycotts directed at competing insurers or agents. The alleged agreement among the insurers therefore stated an antitrust claim because it used collective refusal to deal to force policyholders to accept restrictive coverage, and the dispute was not moot because recurrence had not been shown to be impossible. Justice Stewart, dissenting, would have construed the exception more narrowly to reach only private enforcement of insurance-industry rules against industry participants.

Holding

  • Mootness. The case was not moot because subsequent events had not made it absolutely clear that the alleged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur. Rhode Island permitted malpractice insurance to be written outside the Joint Underwriting Association, and the insurers acknowledged that the alleged violations could recur.
  • Scope of the boycott exception. The term boycott in the McCarran-Ferguson Act is not limited to concerted activity against insurance companies, agents, or competitors of the boycotting group. It includes a concerted refusal to deal with policyholders when the refusal is used to pressure them in an insurance dispute.
  • Application of the exception to the alleged insurer conduct. The complaint alleged a boycott within the statutory exception because the insurers allegedly agreed that three companies would refuse to deal on any terms with the policyholders of the fourth company in order to force acceptance of restrictive coverage. The alleged conduct occurred outside any regulatory or cooperative arrangement authorized by Rhode Island.

Docket 77-240

Cited authorities

Cited by