Doctors, Inc. v. Blue Cross
This text of 557 F.2d 1001 (Doctors, Inc. v. Blue Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
After a remand from this Court, see 490 F.2d 48 (3d Cir. 1973), the district court entered summary judgment for the defendants,1 reasoning that:
(1) The state action exemption as announced in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), was properly invoked;
(2) The statutory exclusion of the “business of insurance” by the terms of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012 was applicable; and
(3) There was no boycott, coercion or intimidation which would avoid the provisions of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
We affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis that the facts of this case bring it within the scope of our holding in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania, 481 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1973). Thus, we conclude that the “business of insurance” provisions of the McCar[1002]*1002ran-Ferguson Act remove Blue Cross’ conduct here from coverage of the Sherman Act. We agree also with the district court’s conclusion that there was no boycott, coercion or intimidation which would affect the applicability of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
We do not reach the state action issue and intimate no view on whether the holding of Parker v. Brown, supra, governs disposition of this case.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
557 F.2d 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doctors-inc-v-blue-cross-ca3-1976.