Colonial Life Insurance Co. of America v. Curiale
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
617 N.Y.S.2d 377 (1994)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
As New York’s Superintendent of Insurance, Curiale (defendant) promulgated two insurance regulations designed to carry out provisions of Chapter 501 of the Laws of 1992. Chapter 501 required insurance companies in the state to employ a community standard and to offer open enrollment when issuing policies. The two regulations, parts 360 and 361 of 11 NYCRR, established a risk-sharing pool system in seven geographic regions. This pool distributed funds to insurers with worse than average demographic factors and required insurers with above average demographic factors to pay into the pool. Colonial Life Insurance Company (plaintiff) issued small group policies in the state. It commenced an action seeking to have both regulations invalidated. It claimed that the pool system established by part 361 imposed an unconstitutional tax and was a taking of property without just compensation. It also claimed that the Legislature did not intend for payments to the pool system to be mandatory and be based on existing policies. The supreme court dismissed Colonial’s petition as to part 361 but granted the petition as to part 360. The court determined that specific sections of part 360 exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to Curiale by Chapter 501. Both parties then cross-appealed from the trial court’s judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
