Opinion ID: 6968400
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The McCarran-Ferguson Act’s Effect on Principles of Preemption.

Text: Insurance is one of those areas which Congress has for the most part steered clear of and traditionally left to be controlled by the states. This intent of Congress was made explicit with the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Enacted in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act states: Congress hereby declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States. 15 U.S.C. § 1011. The Act’s next section reinforces this policy statement, while making it clear that any preemption of state insurance regulation has to be unambiguously explicit: (a) State regulation. The business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation, of such business. (b) Federal regulation. No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance____ 15 U.S.C. § 1012. In accordance with the policy directives Congress elucidated in the McCar-ran-Ferguson Act, if there is a doubt regarding whether Congress intended to preempt a particular state insurance law, there is a presumption against preemption. As we stated in American Deposit Corp. v. Schacht, 84 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.1996), “state laws enacted for the purposes of regulating the business of insurance do not yield to conflicting federal statutes unless federal statutes specifically provide otherwise.” Id. at 837-38, citing U.S. Dep’t of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491, 507, 113 S.Ct. 2202, 2211, 124 L.Ed.2d 449 (1993). In American Deposit, for instance, we held that, under the MeCar-ran-Ferguson Act, the National Bank Act could not be interpreted to impair or supersede sections of the Illinois insurance code governing certificates of authority. Id. at 837-38.