Opinion ID: 215429
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The filed rate doctrine also precluded Plaintiffs' damages claims asserted against the Insurer Defendants based upon allegations of conspiracy and bribery to set excessive rates for title insurance

Text: Plaintiffs further alleged that the Insurer Defendants conspired with and bribed Superintendent of Insurance Eric Serna to set excessive rates for title insurance. More specifically, Plaintiffs alleged in one of their complaints: 72. Defendant insurance companies and defendant Serna have conspired to evade or violate NMSA 1978, § 1-19-34.2 [prohibiting a public officer or employee who works for a regulatory office to solicit funds from an entity regulated by that agency] by using Con Alma Health Foundation, Inc., a purported private foundation. Until he was recently forced by the [PRC] to resign from Con Alma, defendant Serna effectively directed and controlled Con Alma. Defendant Serna or his agents solicited contributions for Con Alma from entities or persons regulated by the Insurance Department, including the defendant insurance companies. 73. In 2003, unidentified persons or entities affiliated with the defendant insurance companies contributed at least $21,750 to Con Alma. The exact identity of these contributors is not currently known to plaintiffs, because Con Alma's contribution report identifies them only as Title Insurance Industry in NM, 2155 Louisiana Blvd., # 4000, Albuquerque NM 87110. The current occupant of those premises is LandAmerica Albuquerque Title Company, which is a division or subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. The defendants Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, and Transnation Title Insurance Company are subsidiaries of LandAmerica Financial Group. 74. In 2004, unidentified persons or entities affiliated with the defendant insurance companies contributed at least $26,200 to Con Alma. The exact identity of these contributors is not currently known to plaintiffs, because Con Alma's contributions report identifies them only as Title Insurance Industry of NM. 75. A primary purpose of these contributions was to influence defendant Serna, in his capacity as Superintendent of Insurance, to set unreasonably high rates for title insurance, and to restrain competition as to the price and terms of title insurance in New Mexico. 76. Using improper means and methods, defendant title insurance companies have conspired among themselves and with defendant Serna to violate the laws of New Mexico as set forth herein. (Aplt.App. at 529-30, ¶¶ 72-76.) Because this matter comes to us on the district court's ruling on Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints, we must accept these allegations as true. See Bixler, 596 F.3d at 756. Even so, the filed rate doctrine still barred Plaintiffs' claims against the Insurer Defendants for damages. Although New Mexico courts have not yet addressed the question, courts in numerous other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion in similar or at least analogous situations. See H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 954 F.2d 485, 486, 488-92 (8th Cir.1992) (holding the filed rate doctrine barred claims brought by purchasers of telephone services alleging Northwestern Bell had bribed the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in order to influence the telephone rates the PUC set in Minnesota). [10] Under this authority, the underlying conduct does not control whether the filed rate doctrine applies. Rather, the focus for determining whether the filed rate doctrine applies is the impact the court's decision will have on agency procedures and rate determinations. Id. at 489. The dispositive question, then, is whether, if plaintiffs succeed on their damages claims, the court's determination will impact the agency's rate determinations. If so, the filed rate doctrine will bar the claim. See Crumley, 556 F.3d at 882. That is clearly the case here. Although the New Mexico Supreme Court has not expressly addressed the question, we predict the Court would adopt this line of reasoning, see Wade, 483 F.3d at 665-66, which is consistent with the purposes of the filed rate doctrine, to prevent price discrimination and to preserve the role of agencies in approving rates. See Valdez, 54 P.3d at 75. And, although the New Mexico Supreme Court has not expressly addressed whether or not there is a fraud exception to the filed rate doctrine, the Court applied the filed rate doctrine in Valdez under circumstances that are similar to those alleged here. In Valdez, the plaintiffs alleged that telephone service providers had entered into illegal agreements with government correctional facilities, whereby the telephone service providers were granted exclusive rights to provide collect telephone service at a higher rate than rates provided to the public, in return for paying the corrections facilities a commission ... calculated on the amount billed to the service provider from collect calls placed by inmates in their facilities. Id. at 74. Under those circumstances, notwithstanding the allegation that these agreements were illegal, the New Mexico Supreme Court applied the filed rate doctrine to preclude the plaintiffs' claims seeking damages for the excessive telephone rate that they had to pay. See id. at 75-76.