Opinion ID: 655302
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Common Sense Understanding of Regulates Insurance

Text: 28 Our first task is to determine whether a common-sense understanding of the phrase 'regulates insurance' ... support[s] the argument that the [New Jersey statutes] ... fall[ ] under the saving clause. Pilot, 481 U.S. at 50, 107 S.Ct. at 1554. To make this determination we must consider the language of the state statutes. 29 The New Jersey statute primarily relied upon by plaintiff provides: 30 No person shall make or permit any unfair discrimination between individuals of the same class and of essentially the same hazard in the amount of premium, policy fees, or rates charged for any policy or contract of health insurance or in the benefits payable thereunder, or any of the terms or conditions of such policy or contract, or in any other manner whatever. N.J.Stat.Ann. § 17B:30-12(d) (West 1985). 5 31 In Pilot, the Supreme Court suggested that, under a common sense approach, a law regulates insurance if it ha[s] an impact on the insurance industry [and is] specifically directed toward that industry. 481 U.S. at 50. By its very terms, Section 17B:30-12(d) is specifically aimed at the insurance industry. In addition, it necessarily has an impact on that industry. Thus, a common sense interpretation of the phrase regulates insurance tends to support the conclusion that Section 17B:30-12(d) falls under the saving clause. We turn to the second part of the framework, an analysis of federal caselaw applying the McCarran-Ferguson Act.