Union Labor Life Insurance v. Pireno
1982 U.S. LEXIS 144, 458 U.S. 119, 73 L. Ed. 2d 647 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer's arrangement with a third-party professional association to conduct peer review of claims is not the 'business of insurance' under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and is therefore not exempt from federal antitrust laws.
Facts:
- Union Labor Life Insurance Co. (ULL) sold health insurance policies that covered chiropractic treatments.
- These policies limited coverage to 'reasonable charges' for 'necessary medical care and services.'
- To help determine whether claims were reasonable and necessary, ULL contracted with the New York State Chiropractic Association (NYSCA) to use its Peer Review Committee.
- The Committee, composed of ten practicing chiropractors, would examine a treating chiropractor's services and charges upon an insurer's request and provide a non-binding opinion on their validity.
- A chiropractor, the respondent, had his treatments and charges for ULL policyholders referred to the Committee on multiple occasions.
- The Committee sometimes concluded that the respondent's treatments were unnecessary or his charges were unreasonable.
- The respondent contended that the Committee members practiced 'antiquated' techniques and sought to impose them on more innovative competitors.
Procedural Posture:
- The respondent chiropractor filed a lawsuit against petitioners ULL and NYSCA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the petitioners, concluding the peer review practice was exempt from antitrust scrutiny under the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
- The respondent appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the peer review arrangement did not constitute the 'business of insurance.'
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insurer's use of a professional association's peer review committee to advise on the necessity and reasonableness of charges for policyholder claims constitute the 'business of insurance' exempt from federal antitrust laws under the McCarran-Ferguson Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No, an insurer's use of a professional association's peer review committee to advise on claims is not the 'business of insurance' under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Court applied the three-part test from Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co. and found that the peer review arrangement failed all three criteria. First, the practice does not have the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder's risk; the risk is transferred when the policy is purchased, and the peer review process is merely a cost-containment mechanism that occurs after the risk has already been transferred. Second, the arrangement is not an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; it is a separate arrangement with third parties, and the policyholder is concerned only with whether a claim is paid, not the method the insurer uses to make that decision. Third, the practice is not limited to entities within the insurance industry, as it centrally involves practicing chiropractors, who are outside providers. This involvement creates the potential to restrain competition in a non-insurance market (chiropractic services), which is contrary to the purpose of the antitrust exemption.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the peer review process is part of the 'business of insurance' and should be exempt from antitrust laws. The majority misinterprets Royal Drug by failing to recognize that claims adjustment is the central component of the contractual relationship between an insurer and its policyholder. The 'real product of insurance is the claims proceeds,' and the Peer Review Committee functions as the claims adjustor, making a determination that is of critical importance, not indifference, to the insured. The legislative history of the McCarran-Ferguson Act explicitly shows that Congress intended to protect cooperative 'adjustment' and 'investigation' agreements. By exposing this efficient and necessary claims settlement process to antitrust liability, the Court's decision will curtail a practice that benefits both insurance companies and their policyholders.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the McCarran-Ferguson Act's 'business of insurance' exemption. It solidifies the three-part Royal Drug test as the definitive framework for such inquiries. By categorizing peer review as a cost-containment measure rather than a risk-spreading activity, the Court subjected many insurer-provider arrangements to potential antitrust scrutiny. This ruling has had a lasting impact, requiring insurers to be cautious about collaborations with provider groups that could be challenged as price-fixing or anti-competitive boycotts in healthcare and other provider markets.
