In its brief, UP argues that the Court of Appeal incorrectly decided a case involving unfiled title insurance rates, and that if upheld, could negatively impact consumers across multiple lines of insurance.
First, UP argues that the insurance code section in question does not provide immunity to a title insurance company for charging consumers for services for which there have been no rate filings with the Insurance Commissioner. UP argues that this code section (1) should be limited to antitrust violations, and (2) that the scope of the section should be narrowly construed and is expressly limited to acts done “pursuant to the authority conferred by” applicable articles. This case presented neither an antitrust violation and it was argued that the act was not done “pursuant to the authority” of the applicable section.
UP also argues that the Insurance Commissioner does not have exclusive jurisdiction over any action against a title insurer for services charged to the consumer, but not disclosed to the Department of Insurance. This argument is further supported by the fact that the Commissioner cannot provide an adequate remedy.