ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> North Carolina Appellate Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Appellate Law

: North Carolina Appellate Blog

COA: Filed Rate Doctrine Bars UDTP Claims Related to Workers' Comp Rates Set by Rate Bureau

By Sean E. Andrussier

ADVERTISEMENTS
Today, in Stutts v. Travelers, the COA held that the "filed rate doctrine" applied and barred Plaintiff's claims of unfair and deceptive trade practices against his workers' comp insurer. Plaintiff applied for a workers' comp insurance policy through the NC assigned risk plan. The NC Rate Bureau assigned defendants as plaintiff's servicing insurance carrier. Plaintiff excluded himself from coverage under the policy, and did not have any employees for the policy periods of 2003 and 2004. In 2005, Plaintiff was injured on the job, and filed a workers' comp claim under his policy with defendants. Defendants denied coverage because Plaintiff had ddeclined to cover himself. Defendants did, however, return some premium to Plaintiff because he had no employees in 2003 and 2004.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices and demanding a return of his entire premium balance. He also filed a complaint with the Rate Bureau, which was dismissed.

The COA held that Plaintiff's suit was barred by the filed rate doctrine, which provides that "a plaintiff may not claim damages on the ground that a rate approved by a regulator as reasonable is nonetheless excessive because it is the product of unlawful conduct." The COA specifically noted that this doctrine applies to UDTP claims.

Plaintiff also argued that a risk of loss did not attach where the insured Plaintiff had no employees and was not covered himself, and thus there was thus no consideration for the insurance contract. The COA rejected this argument, holding that because Plaintiff might have hired employees during the covered period, a risk of loss did in fact attach.

Full post as published by North Carolina Appellate Blog on September 15, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0184 secs (new cache)