McCarran-Ferguson Act

  • 1945 - Congress - McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945
  • Senator Homer Ferguson (R-MI) - 1943-1955
  • Senator Pat McCarran - (D-NV) - 1933-1954
  • It is important to note that McCarran is a power-sharing statute that reflects Congress’ judgment to delegate, not abdicate, authority over insurers to States that regulate the business of insurance themselves. (p6)

--  Marc Racicot, Former Governor of Montana, President, American Insurance Association (AIA)

2006 0620 - GOV (Senate) - The Mccarran-Ferguson Act: Implications of Repealing the Insurers' Antitrust Exemption, S. Hrg. 109-557 - [PDF-160p, VIDEO-?]

  • naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_mccarran_ferguson_act.htm
  • 1977 - DOJ - The Pricing and Marketing of Insurance: A Report of the U.S. Department of Justice to the Task Group on Antitrust Immunities - [401p-GooglePlay]
    • (piv) - The basic question under study was whether continuation of the present exemption of the business of insurance from the federal antitrust laws , by virtue of the McCarran Act and state regulation , is in the public interest. 
  • 1987 - LR - The McCarran-Ferguson Controversy: Should Problems In State Regulatory Departments Trigger Federal Reform?, by Jeffrey L. Schrader - 13p
  • (p71) - If you want to do something to help the regulation of insurance and to help the policyholders , then cut through the case law and amend McCarran- Ferguson to precisely state that "the business of insurance " includes insolvency proceedings.

--  Karl L. Rubenstein, (Special Deputy Insurance Commissioner, State of California)

1988 0914 and 0915 - GOV (House) - Insurance Company Failures - [PDF-4xxp-GooglePlay, VIDEO-?]  ---  [BonkNote]

  • 1945 0125 - Congressional Record - congress.gov/79/crecb/1945/01/25/GPO-CRECB-1945-pt1-15.pdf
    • (p17) - REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE
      • The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 340) in its opinion in the case of United States to express the intent of the Congress with reference to the regulation of the business of insurance.

    • Kenneth McKELLAR (D-TN) - As I understand the bill its purpose and effect will be to establish the law as it was supposed to be prior to the rendering of the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. Is that correct?

    • Homer FERGUSON (R-MI) - No.

      • ...

      • In other words, the bill would establish a moratorium on the application of the provisions of those acts until the date set forth in the bill.

  • Abe MURDOCK (D-UT) - Let us look at that phase of the subject for a minute. We new leave section 2 of the bill and drop down to section 4.
    • Paragraph (a) of section 4 provides for a moratorium, or a suspension of the Sherman and Clayton Acts insofar as they relate to insurance, for a period, respectively, until June 1, 1947, so far as the Sherman Act is concerned, and until January 1, 1948, so far as the Clayton Act is concerned.
  • Homer FERGUSON (R-MI) - The Senator is correct
  • (p483) - Joseph C. O'Mahoney (D-WY) - The Senator puts his finger upon the precise center of this dispute, or misunderstanding.
    • ...
    • It is no secret that Senate bill 12, introduced by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. HATCH] and myself, and Senate Bill 340, the bill which was reported by the committee, are modifications of a measure which was originally drafted by the legislative committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.  [NAIC]
    • So there was an effort to work with those groups. In drafting those two bills we sought to spell out each particular law which might apply to insurance. We referred specifically to the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
      • In other words a good-faith attempt was made to specify every single law which had an application, or might have an application, to insurance. 
  • 1987 0421, 0428, and 0429 - GOV (House) - Current State of the Liability Insurance Crisis
    • [PDF- 313p-GooglePlay, VIDEO-?]
    • Testimony - Daniel Oliver, Chairman of the FTC - p242-260
    • Letter - FTC to GOV - p290-291
      • Chairman La Falce has requested information on the circumstances that led to enactment of the 1980 amendment to the Federal Trade Commission Act that prohibits the Commission from studying the business of insurance .
    • (p288) - Chairman LAFALCE. All right, fine. I would also like you to supply for the record, a statement as to why the FTC believes it lost its authority in 1980, that is, what was the FTC doing in that era?
    • Mr. OLIVER. I am told that it resulted from a study that the Commission did on how good an investment life insurance was, the staff study.
      • I understand that it was a staff study that concluded that buying life insurance was not a good investment.
    • Chairman LAFALCE. The insurance industry did not like that, and therefore they got enough Members of Congress to support their position.
    • Mr. OLIVER. I think that is correct.
  • House - Committee on Small Business
  • 2006 0626 - GOV (House) - The McCarran-Ferguson Act: Implications Of Repealing The Insurers' Antitrust Exemption, S. Hrg. 109-557 - [PDF-160p, VIDEO-?]
    • J. Robert Hunter, Insurance Director, Consumer Federation of America, Washington, D.C
    • Michael McRaith, as Illinois Director of Insurance, Chair, Broker Activities Task Force
    • (p23) - Hunter:  I would like to comment on one thing.
      • There were huge life insurance market conduct violations with billions of dollars paid by MET Life, Prudential and others a few years ago.
      • I do not think there were any criminal charges brought in any of that.
      • I really do think that that Chairman Specter’s idea of calling for what has happened in terms of actual numbers of criminal charges is very important information, and I hope the NAIC would help with that as well.