Document: 498 U.S. 52 111 S.Ct. 403 112 L.Ed.2d 356 FMC CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.Cynthia Ann HOLLIDAY. No. 89-1048. Argued Oct. 2, 1990. Decided Nov. 27, Syllabus After petitioner Corporation's self-funded health care plan (Plan) paid a portion of respondent's medical expenses resulting from an automobile accident, informed respondent that it would seek reimbursement under the Plan's subrogation provision any recovery she realized in her Pennsylvania negligence action against driver vehicle which was injured. Respondent obtained declaratory judgment Federal District Court § 1720 Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law—which precludes claimant's tort for benefit payments by program, group contract, or other arrangement—prohibits FMC's exercise rights. The Appeals affirmed, holding Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 (ERISA), applies to employee welfare plans such as FMC's, does not preempt 1720. Held: ERISA pre-empts application Plan. Pp.56-65. (a) ERISA's pre-emption clause broadly establishes area exclusive federal concern subject every state law "relate[s] to" covered plan. Although statute's saving returns States power enforce those laws "regulat[e] insurance," deemer provides shall be "deemed insurance company insurer . engaged business insurance" purposes "purporting regulate" companies contracts. Pp. 56-58. (b) Section within meaning provision, since has both "connection with" and "reference See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 85, 96-97, 103 2890, 2899-2900, 77 490. Moreover, although there is no dispute "regulates demonstrates Congress' clear intent exclude reach relieving them regulate insurance." Thus, are exempt regulation insofar "relates them. State directed toward pre-empted because they relate but "saved" do insurance. directly may deemed companies, insurers, laws. On hand, insured indirect apply plans' insurers insurers' This reading consistent with Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. Massachusetts, 471 724, 735, n. 14, 747, 105 2380, 2387 2393, 85 728, respectful presumption Congress intend pre-empt areas traditional regulation, see Jones Rath Packing Co., 430 519, 525, 97 1305, 1309, 51 604, including "business supra, U.S., at 742-744, S.Ct., 2390-2391. Narrower readings clause—which interpret except only regulations pretexts impinging on core concerns preclude deeming business, relating licensing capitalization requirements—are unsupported language fraught administrative difficulties, necessitating definition what constitutes activity, thereby undermining expressed desire avoid endless litigation over validity requiring expend funds litigation. 58-65. 885 F.2d 79 (CA3 1989), vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, post, p. ----. SOUTER, took part consideration decision case. H. Woodruff Turner, Pittsburgh, Pa., petitioner. David L. Shapiro amicus curiae, support petitioner, special leave Court. Charles Rothfeld, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice O'CONNOR 1 case calls upon decide whether 88 Stat. 829, amended, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., precluding exercising rights recovery. 2 * Petitioner, Corporation (FMC), operates Salaried Health Care Plan (Plan), ERISA, 3(1), 1002(1), benefits employees their dependents. self-funded; purchase policy order satisfy its obligations participants. Among provisions member agrees reimburse if recovers claim liability third party. 3 Respondent, Cynthia Holliday, daughter Gerald Holliday. In 1987, seriously injured accident. expenses. Holliday brought behalf his court parties settled claim. While pending, notified Hollidays amounts had replied Plan, asserting Law, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat. (1987), FMC. states "[i]n actions arising out maintenance use motor vehicle, right respect payable section 1719."1 1719 refers "[a]ny contract arrangement."2 4 proceeding diversity, then sought granted motion summary judgment, prohibits Holliday's driver. United Third Circuit affirmed. (1989). held 1720, unless pre-empted, bars enforcing contractual provision. According court, "deemer clause," 514(b)(2)(B), 1144(b)(2)(B), exempts Appeals, citing Northern Group Services, Inc. Auto Owners 833 91-94 (CA6 1987), cert. denied, 486 1017, 108 1754, 100 216 (1988), determined "the [was] meant mainly back-door attempts guise regulation." F.2d, 86. Pointing suggested antisubrogation addressed "a type matter protect preemption provision," id., 90, concluded pre-empted. Circuit's conflicts decisions Courts have construed all regulation. See, e.g., Baxter Lynn, 886 182, 186 (CA8 1989); Reilly Blue Cross Shield Wisconsin,846 416, 425-426 (CA7), 488 856, 109 145, 102 117 (1988). We certiorari resolve this conflict. 493 1068, 110 1109, 107 1017 (1990), now reverse. II 5 determining statute, we look congressional intent. " 'Pre-emption either express implied, "is compelled command explicitly stated implicitly contained structure purpose." ' 95, 2899, 490 (1983) (quoting Fidelity Savings & Loan Assn. De la Cuesta, 458 141, 152-153, 3014, 3022, 73 664 (1982), turn quoting 604 (1977)); also Chevron U.S.A. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 837, 842-843, 104 2778, 2781-2782, 81 694 (1984) ("If clear, end matter; must give effect unambiguously Congress" (footnote omitted)). "begin employed assumption ordinary accurately expresses legislative Park 'N Fly, Dollar 469 189, 194, 658, 661, 83 582 (1985). Three speak expressly question pre-emption: 6 "Except provided subsection [the clause], subchapter III chapter supersede hereafter plan." 514(a), set forth 1144(a) (pre-emption clause). 7 subparagraph (B) nothing relieve person regulates insurance, banking, securities." 514(b)(2)(A), 1144(b)(2)(A) (saving 8 "Neither nor trust established plan, insurer, bank, company, investment banking purporting contracts, banks, companies." 1144(b)(2)(B) (deemer 9 indicated 728 (1985), these "are model drafting." Id., 739, 2389. Their operation nevertheless discernible. conspicuous breadth. It governed ERISA. clause. Under clause, "deemed" 10 made relates connection reference 2899-2900 omitted). based our plain statute. used words 'relate to' 514(a) clause] broad sense." 98, 2900. did mean specifically designed affect plans. That interpretation unnecessary enact 514(b)(4), 1144(b)(4), "generally" applicable criminal State. emphasized dealing matters reporting, disclosure, fiduciary duties, incompatible provision's history House Senate versions bill became limited clauses, specific subjects ERISA.3 These were rejected favor present Act, "indicat[ing] section's pre-emptive scope language." 2901. 11 "reference" statute 1719." (1987). arrangement payment benefits." terms "includ[e], [are] to, hospital corporation professional service corporation." (emphasis added). 12 "connection" past, hesitated risk subjecting administrators conflicting regulations. 95-100, 2898-2902 (state making unlawful discriminate basis pregnancy provide "relate plans); Alessi Raybestos- Manhattan, 451 504, 523-526, 101 1895, 1906-1908, 68 402 (1981) prohibiting reducing amount workers' compensation awards plan). To require providers design programs environment differing complicate administration nationwide plans, producing inefficiencies employers might offset decreased benefits. Fort Halifax Coyne, 482 1, 10, 2211, 2216, 96 where "patchwork scheme introduce considerable program operation," applied ensure will single 11, 2217. 13 being structured manner event requires calculate levels expected conditions differ enacted similar legislation. Application therefore frustrate administrators' continuing obligation uniform nationwide. Accord, Raybestos-Manhattan, supra offsetting worker pension force employer accordance adopt different formulae inside outside State). As 9, "[t]he most efficient way meet [administrative] responsibilities establish scheme, standard procedures guide processing claims disbursement 14 There falls provides, "[e]xcept controls contracts invalidating contain. 740-741, 2389-2390. merely impact industry; aimed it. Pilot Dedeaux, 481 41, 50, 1549, 1554, 95 39 law. Unless excluded virtue therefore, 15 read By forbidding deem "to relieves result, An insures remains after relieved consequently bound plan's insurer. 16 Our supra. involved Massachusetts certain issuing policies minimum mental 734, 2386. pointing never tried pertaining stated, light 'deemer clause,' 'be company' statute] directly, effectively conceding clause." 2387, (citations ofplans, regulated saved. decision, acknowledged, "results distinction between uninsured leaving former open while latter not." 2393. "By so doing, life created aware one chosen alter." Ibid. 17 construction 1309. McCarran-Ferguson 59 33, 1011 therein, several taxation business." 1012(a). identified governing include direct substantive 2390-2392. recognizing self-insured not, observe presumed reserve 18 resists attach narrower significance. "[n]either [or] contracts." Like concerns. National Conference Legislatures al. amici curiae offer alternative view, requirements. 19 views language. Laws purportedly having "appearance of" regulating "intending" Black's Law Dictionary 1236 (6th ed.1990). word indicate solely deceit feared legislatures practice. Indeed, Report, describing omits "purporting," stating, "an considered (and banking) H.R.Conf.Rep. 93-1280, 383 (1974), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1974, pp. 4639, 5162. 20 Nor, plainly "any 1144(b)(2)(B). difficult understand why included business. sure, clauses employ achieve ends—the saving, referring view however, coextensive broader, narrower, than rejection restricted lead clause's engulfing pointed out, 62-63, retains independent protecting purchased 21 intended "establish exclusively concern." 523, 1706 makes insured, indirectly through insurer's contracts; uninsured, face 'conflicting inconsistent local plans.' 99, 2901 remarks Sen. Williams). A encroach activity. undermine "endless action," 120 Cong.Rec. 29942 (1974) (remarks Javits), instead expenditure 22 hold vacate remand further proceedings opinion. 23 ordered. 24 SOUTER 25 dissenting. 26 Court's draws illogical funded (self-insured plans) (insured plans). Had could simply "all been need "saving clause" today reads reinjecting into same exempted 27 From standpoint beneficiaries plans—who primary entire statutory program—there apparent reason treating differently Why should not? notion disparate treatment similarly situated somehow supported interest uniformity singularly unpersuasive. If irrational surely straightforward English. At least expect reasons drawing apparently discernible literature discussing 28 anomalous result avoided correct basic endorsed unnecessarily plan" 514(a). I acknowledge some prior opinions. dictated holding, am persuaded cut nearly swath field expansive create. 30 host general rules tort, procedural well persons entities. example, garnishment Mackey Lanier Collection Agency Service, 825, 2182, 836 indicates throughout pre-emption, primarily concerned about possible overlap introduced Act,"1 more fiduciary, disclosure acting plans."2 compromise produced discussed history, final version perhaps best explained editorial amalgam two bills rather major expansion coverage. 31 When ambiguity pre-empting law, strong invalidation well-settled, generally rules. my played important role leads me conclusion purport central purposes. think foreclose plans—most certainly, enforcement preserving 32 Even broadly, proper carefully drafted text caution finding Before identifying key text, useful comment surrounding enactment 33 number grew dramatically 1960's early 1970's.3 were, be, remained unresolved when enacted. was, recognized 1967 comply regulatory requirements codes stifle growth: 34 "Application make pointless cases feasible. operated detailed typical operations mind. presumably necessary form captive prescribed capital surplus, capable obtaining certificate authority department 'doing business,' premium rates approval department, issue approved pay commissions taxes required deposit reserves investments permitted filing examination department. reintroduce dispense with. Thus can seen real laws, permitted." Goetz, Regulation Uninsured Welfare Plans Insurance Laws, Wis.L.Rev. 319, 320-321 original). 35 Congress, first consider applicability until satisfied Missouri subjected itself code. Monsanto Cause 259774 (St. Louis Cty.Cir.Ct., Jan. 4, 1973), rev'd, 517 S.W.2d 129 (Mo.1974). true case, problem—indeed, contains explanation whatsoever enacting clause—the reveals typically state-regulated 36 "deemed," "insurance company," "purporting."4 purpose entity 37 code purports, many words, governs certification Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 40, 400 (Purdon 1971), stock financial 386 1971 Supp.1990-1991), rates, 532.9 1971) (authorizing Commissioner premiums charged companies), must, may, include, 510 Supp.1990-1991) (life policies), 753 (health accident policies). prevents companies. But fact deciding purports contracts" entities defined companies" 38 Such aspects terms. petitioner's bearing like persons, Law. accepts answer including, depends clause.5 prepared accept critical importance category described broader "which necessarily purported company" activity who Rather, aim another altogether, contrast, reinjects "purport contracts—laws thus allows allowed 40 fits fall only. addition affects indemnity agreements Yet assuredly "purporting" clause—"insurance companies," back conclude 41 respectfully dissent. entitled "[s]ubrogation" provides: "In benefits, available 1711 (relating benefits), 1712 availability benefits) 1715 adequate limits) lieu thereof coordination benefits)." 1719, "[c]oordination benefits," reads: "(a) General rule.—Except compensation, issued pursuant primary. Any 1712(1) (2) contain therein excess duplication valid collectible party 1711, compensation. "(b) Definition.—As term 'program, arrangement' includes, Pa.C.S. Ch. 61 corporations) 63 services corporations)." reported Committee Labor Public political subdivisions Act." S. 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 609(a) (1973). House, superseded plans." H.R. 114 Education slightly modified form. (1973), reprinted Legislative History (Committee Print compiled Subcommittee Welfare) 93, (1976) (Leg.Hist.). (1973); Leg.Hist. 51. Comment, Noninsured Benefit Plans, 62 Geo.L.J. 339, 340 (Emphasis 1144(b)(2)(A),

Category: 9