The Third Circuit, through a panel including retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, relied on the filed-rate doctrine to hold that a rate-setting agency need not closely scrutinize a rate application in order to trigger an exemption from the antitrust laws. The homeowner plaintiffs had argued that New Jersey and Delaware title insurers engaged in price fixing. But the court found the activity exempt from the antitrust laws because the filed-rate doctrine prohibits challenges to rates filed with regulators.
The plaintiffs argued that the court should follow the Ninth Circuit, which held that a regulatory regime that permits a rate to go into force if not affirmatively rejected by regulators was insufficient to trigger the filed-rate examption. This precendent, they contended, was more consistent with the antitrust state-action exemption, which requires active state supervision.
But the Third Circuit refused, explaining that “Appellants would have this court disregard a decision of the United States Supreme Court and the numerous cases that have relied on it,” which require only that the rate be filed. “[N]either this court nor the Supreme Court has suggested,” the court explained, “that a distinction should exist between agency authorization through ‘approval’ or ‘nondisapproval’ of filed rates.”