Legal Document

357 U.S. 560 78 Supreme Court Reporter 1260 2 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1540 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY. Petitioner, versus The AMERICAN HOSPITAL AND LIFE INSURANCE Nos. 435, 436. Argued April 9, 10, 1958. Decided June 30, [Syllabus from intentionally omitted] Mr. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John Federal KF105 F3 Langs, Detroit, Mich., respondent National Casualty co. Judge D. Wheeler, American Hospital and Life insurance company [Amicus Curiae pages 560-561 omitted.] PER CURIAM. 1 Courts of Appeals the Fifth Sixth Circuits have set aside cease-and-desist orders Trade Commission prohibiting companies carrying on certain advertising practices found by to be false, misleading, deceptive, in violation Act, 15 Code KF62 § 45, Annotated KF65 U5 45.1 These seek proscribe activities within boundaries that their own statutes unfair deceptive as well do not. courts below concluded view existence these statutes, McCarran-Ferguson §§ 1011—1015, prohibits regulating such having statutes. We granted certiorari review this interpretation an important federal statute. 355 867, 119, 120, 73. Respondents, Company Number 435 Insurance 436, engage sale health accident insurance. is licensed sell policies all States, District Columbia Hawaii, while fourteen States. Solicitation business carried independent agents who operate commission. company's material prepared it shipped bulk agents, distribute locally assume expense dissemination. Only insubstantial amount any goes directly mail public, there no use radio, television, or other means mass communication company. does not materially differ method operation. 3 pertinent portions Act are forth margin.2 An examination statute its legislative history establishes withdrew authority regulate respondents' those which under laws.3 4 Petitioner asserts constitutional reasons should construed authorize regulation cases. It urged because Congress understood accordance with due process territorial limitations power interstate business, did intend foreclose a supplement state action.4 However, petitioner concedes infirmity hinder respondents instant Whatever may been intent regard cannot effectively, irrelevant cases before us. Respondents' programs require distribution local question but possess ample respective boundaries. Cf., e.g., Robertson People State California, 328 440, 445, note 6, 461,5 66 1160, 1163, 1171, 90 L.Ed. 1366. 5 also argues different vein even if bars where has effectively applied, exercise upheld 'regulated' meaning Section 2(b) proviso. This argument persuasive Each enacted prohibitory legislation proscribes authorizes enforcement through scheme administrative supervision.6 argue statutory provisions here were mere pretense. Rather, urges general prohibition designed guarantee standards conduct too 'inchoate' 'regulation' until crystallized into 'administrative elaboration application individual cases.' assuming some difference between 'legislation' 'regulation,' nothing language supports distinctions drawn So far we can determine records arguments cases, proviso satisfied. 6 judgments affirmed. 7 Affirmed. decision Circuit reported at 243 Reporter, 2nd 719. 245 883. ed 'That hereby declares continued taxation several public interest, silence part shall impose barrier 'Sec. 2. (a) insurance, every person engaged therein, subject laws relate business. '(b) No invalidate, impair, supersede law purpose imposes fee tax upon unless specifically relates insurance: Provided, That after 1948, * Sherman Clayton applicable extent regulated law. *' 59 Statutes-at-Large 33, amended, 61 448, 70 908. crucial was extended debate. See, especially, remarks Senator McCarran, 91 Cong.Rec. 1443, Ferguson, 1481. A substantial appears during formulating period Act. S.Rep. 20, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.; H.R.Rep. 143, Sess., Senators Murdock, Radcliffe, 482—483, Representatives Hancock Gwynne, 1087, 1089—1090. Sess. 3, 1442. See Hoopeston Canning Cullen, 318 313, 63 602, 87 777; Osborn Ozlin, 310 53, 60 758, 84 1074. At time complaints filed thirty-six had 'Model Unfair Practices Bill Insurance.' Eight others essentially same effect Bill.'

Classification Label: 7