Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
Page Number: 6

2  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. VULLO 

Opinion of the Court 

allegations” and “reasonable inference[s]” therefrom.  Ash-
croft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678–679 (2009).  Unless stated 
otherwise, the allegations aver as follows:

The  New  York  Department  of  Financial  Services  (DFS) 
oversees insurance companies and financial services insti-
tutions doing business in the State.  See N. Y. Fin. Servs. 
Law Ann. §201(a) (West 2012).  DFS can initiate investiga-
tions and civil enforcement actions against regulated enti-
ties,  and  can  refer  potential  criminal  violations  to  the 
State’s  attorney  general  for  prosecution.    §§301(b),  (c)(4).
The  DFS-regulated  entities  in  this  case  are  insurers  that
had business relationships with the NRA.

Since  2000,  the  NRA  has  offered  a  variety  of  insurance
programs as a benefit to its members.  The NRA contracted 
with affiliates of Lockton Companies, LLC (Lockton), to ad-
minister the various policies of these affinity insurance pro-
grams, which Chubb Limited (Chubb) and Lloyd’s of Lon-
don (Lloyd’s) would then underwrite.  In return, the NRA 
received a percentage of its members’ premium payments.
One of the NRA’s affinity products, Carry Guard, covered
personal-injury  and  criminal-defense  costs  related  to  li-
censed  firearm  use,  and  “insured  New  York  residents  for 
intentional, reckless, and criminally negligent acts with a 
firearm  that  injured  or  killed  another  person.”  49  F.  4th 
700, 707 (CA2 2022).

In  September  2017,  a  gun-control  advocacy  group  con-
tacted the New York County District Attorney’s office to tip
them off to “compliance infirmities in Carry Guard.”  App. 
to Pet. for Cert. 206, Second Amended Complaint ¶34.  That 
office  then  passed  on  the  allegations  to  DFS.    The  next 
month,  then-Superintendent  of  DFS  Vullo  began  investi-
gating Carry Guard, focusing on Chubb and Lockton.  The 
investigation  revealed  at  least  two  kinds  of  violations  of
New York law: that Carry Guard insured intentional crim-
inal acts, and the NRA promoted Carry Guard without an