Allstate Insurance v. Serio

Second Circuit

Allstate Insurance v. Serio

293 F.3d 95, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11155, 2002 WL 1253130

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 2002

DocketDocket Nos. 00-7769(L), 00-7780(CON)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 F.3d 95 (Allstate Insurance v. Serio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allstate Insurance v. Serio, 293 F.3d 95, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11155, 2002 WL 1253130 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Familiarity with the facts of this case, as set forth in this court’s decision in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Serio, 261 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.2001), is assumed. In that decision, we certified four questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Is Circular Letter 4 a valid interpretation of New York Insurance Law § 2610(b)? (2) Under § 2610(b), can the Department of Insurance properly impose a settlement of the sort reached by the Department with Allstate? (3) Under § 2610(b), can the Department of Insurance prohibit the “preferred repairer” clause proposed by GEICO for its Automobile Casualty Manual? (4) If any of these Department actions is permitted under Insurance Law § 2610(b), is that statute an unconstitutional regulation of commercial speech under Article I, Section 8 of the New York Constitution?

The New York Court of Appeals accepted certification and answered three of these questions. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Serio, 98 N.Y.2d 198, — N.Y.S.2d -, — N.E.2d -, No. 46, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 03288, 2002 WL 753924 (N.Y. Apr. 30, 2002). It held that Circular Letter 4 and the settlement reached between the Department of Insurance and Allstate are “invalid” as they “exceed the statute’s requirements” and that the rejection of the [96]*96“preferred repairer” clause proposed by Geico “is not sustainable” under § 2610(b). Id. at — N.Y.S.2d at--, — N.E.2d at-, 8-10. In light of these responses, the Court of Appeals declined to reach the fourth question. Id. at — N.Y.S.2d at-, — N.E.2d at-, 12. In addition, it stated that its holding did not address the question whether the Department would have been justified in rejecting Geico’s proposal pursuant to § 2610(a). Id. at-N.Y.S.2d at-, — N.E.2d at-, 10.

The district court had previously prohibited and enjoined the Department from “enforcing Section 2610(b) and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Circular 4.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Seno, No. 97 Civ. 0670, 2000 WL 554221, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2000). In addition, it declared the Enforcement Letter “null and void, and ... unenforceable against Allstate.” Id. It premised each of these holdings on federal' constitutional grounds.

In light of the Court of Appeals’ decision, we Remand this case to the district court for reconsideration of the issues and of its opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Familiarity with the facts of this case, as set forth in this court’s decision in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Serio, 261 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.2001), is assumed. In that decision, we certified four questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Is Circular Letter 4 a valid interpretation of New York Insurance Law § 2610(b)? (2) Under § 2610(b), can the Department of Insurance properly impose a settlement of the sort reached by the Department with Allstate? (3) Under § 2610(b), can the Department of Insurance prohibit the “preferred repairer” clause proposed by GEICO for its Automobile Casualty Manual? (4) If any of these Department actions is permitted under Insurance Law § 2610(b), is that statute an unconstitutional regulation of commercial speech under Article I, Section 8 of the New York Constitution?

The New York Court of Appeals accepted certification and answered three of these questions. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Serio, 98 N.Y.2d 198, — N.Y.S.2d -, — N.E.2d -, No. 46, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 03288, 2002 WL 753924 (N.Y. Apr. 30, 2002). It held that Circular Letter 4 and the settlement reached between the Department of Insurance and Allstate are “invalid” as they “exceed the statute’s requirements” and that the rejection of the [96]*96“preferred repairer” clause proposed by Geico “is not sustainable” under § 2610(b). Id. at — N.Y.S.2d at--, — N.E.2d at-, 8-10. In light of these responses, the Court of Appeals declined to reach the fourth question. Id. at — N.Y.S.2d at-, — N.E.2d at-, 12. In addition, it stated that its holding did not address the question whether the Department would have been justified in rejecting Geico’s proposal pursuant to § 2610(a). Id. at-N.Y.S.2d at-, — N.E.2d at-, 10.

The district court had previously prohibited and enjoined the Department from “enforcing Section 2610(b) and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Circular 4.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Seno, No. 97 Civ. 0670, 2000 WL 554221, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2000). In addition, it declared the Enforcement Letter “null and void, and ... unenforceable against Allstate.” Id. It premised each of these holdings on federal' constitutional grounds.

In light of the Court of Appeals’ decision, we Remand this case to the district court for reconsideration of the issues and of its opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 F.3d 95, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11155, 2002 WL 1253130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-v-serio-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack