Low

Primeguard Insurance v. Low

Good Law
113 F. App'x 750
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 22, 2004No. 03-17196California317 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellate jurisdiction exists because appellants’ notice of appeal was timely filed. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(2); Radio TV. Espanola S.A. v. New World Entm’t, Ltd., 183 F.3d 922 , 932 & n. 12 (9th Cir.1999).

We affirm the district court’s ruling that the federal Liability Risk Retention Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 3901 et seq.) does not preclude California from issuing a cease and desist order instructing appellant ISourceAutoWarranty.com, a member of a risk retention group, to stop marketing vehicle service agreements to consumers in California. The Risk Retention Act does not exempt from regulation members of risk retention groups; rather, it exempts risk retention groups themselves.

The exemptions contemplated by the Risk Retention Act were premised on “the limited field of customers that [risk retention] groups could serve.” Home Warranty Corp. v. Caldwell, 777 F.2d 1455, 1468 (11th Cir.1985). Since risk retention groups are “member servicing organizations only,” the interest of non-domieiliary states to regulate “insurers dealing with the public was to remain untouched by [the Risk Retention Act].” Id. Taken as a whole, 15 U.S.C. § 3902 precludes non-domiciliary state…

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.