FRANKFORD HOSPITAL, APPELLANT,
v.
BLUE CROSS OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that Blue Cross' conduct is exempt from the Sherman Act by the McCarran-Ferguson Act, as there was no boycott, coercion, or intimidation.
Frankford Hospital sued Blue Cross for Sherman Act violations and a state law claim. The district court granted summary judgment for Blue Cross on the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Boycott, Coercion, Or Intimidation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This action was commenced by Frankford Hospital against Blue Cross alleging violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, and asserting a pendent state claim under Pennsylvania common law. After certifying Frankford as a class representative for purposes of injunctive relief, and after extensive discovery, the district court granted Blue Cross’ motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim. Frankford appealed.
The narrative or historical facts are not in dispute. The issue is purely one of law: whether Blue Cross’ conduct is exempted from the Sherman Act by the McCarranFerguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1011 et seq. As the district court correctly concluded, that issue is settled by Travelers Insurance Co. v. Blue Cross, 481 F. 2d 80 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1093, 94 S.Ct. 724, 38 L.Ed.2d 550 (1973), and by Doctors, Inc. v. Blue Cross, 557 F. 2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1976). Those cases establish that the “business of insurance” provision1 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts Blue Cross’ conduct here from the coverage of the Sherman Act unless “boycott, coercion, or intimidation” is demonstrated which would remove the McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption.2 We agree with the district court that none of these elements was present here.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the district court on the grounds that the McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption applies and that there was no boycott, coercion, or intimidation to remove the exemption. We will also affirm the district court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
. 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b) provides:
the Sherman Act . . shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.
. 15 U.S.C. § 1013(b) provides:
Nothing contained in this chapter shall render the said Sherman Act inapplicable to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grp. Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., Inc., 440 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1979)
-
Pireno v. NEW York State Chiropractic Ass'n & Union Labor Life Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 387 (2d Cir. 1981)
-
Royal Drug Co., Inc. v. Grp. Life & Health INS. Co., 556 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross OF Western Pennsylvania, 481 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1973)
- Richards v. Crown Point Cmty. Sch. Corp., 414 U.S. 1093 (U.S. 1973)
- Foust v. North Carolina, 414 U.S. 1093 (U.S. 1973)
- Doctors, Inc. v. Blue Cross OF Greater Philadelphia, 557 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1976)