Quackenbush

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Quackenbush

Good Law
87 F.3d 290·96 Daily Journal DAR 7037·1996 WL 330487·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 14717·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4326
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 18, 1996No. 92-15861California3,554 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nelson, J.

Appellants Fireman’s Fund and related insurance companies (“Fireman’s Fund” or “the insurers”) brought this action against Appellee John Garamendi, 1 Insurance Commissioner for the State of California (“the Commissioner”), alleging that regulations promulgated by the Commissioner pursuant to an insurance rate rollback initiative violated the Takings, Commerce, Due Process, Equal Protection and Supremacy Clauses, as well as the First Amendment and the McCarran-Ferguson Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015 . The district court dismissed the claims as unripe, and invoked the Younger, Burford, and Colorado River abstention doctrines as additional bases for postponing resolution of the issues. We affirm the decision of the district court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 8, 1988, California voters passed Proposition 103, which required insurers to reduce premium rates to twenty percent below the rates in effect the previous year and to maintain those rates for one year; after that year, insurers would be permitted to increase their rates only after having received the prior approval of the Commissioner. On November 9, a group of insurers petitioned the California Supreme Court to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.