Frankford Hospital v. Blue Cross of Greater Philadelphia
FRANKFORD HOSPITAL, Appellant, v. BLUE CROSS OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT 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 *1254 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” provision 1
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.
1
. 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.
2
. 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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Group Life & Health Insurance v. Royal Drug Co.
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
- A. Alexander Pireno v. New York State Chiropractic Association and Union Labor Life Insurance Company
- McIntyre v. Division of Youth Rehabilitation Services, Department of Services for Children, Youth & Their Families
- Royal Drug Co. v. Group Life & Health Ins.
- Michigan State Podiatry Ass'n v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan
Most recent
- McIntyre v. Division of Youth Rehabilitation Services, Department of Services for Children, Youth & Their Families
- Personal Touch, Inc. v. Lenox, Inc.
- Michigan State Podiatry Ass'n v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan
- A. Alexander Pireno v. New York State Chiropractic Association and Union Labor Life Insurance Company
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
- Anglin v. Blue Shield of Virginia
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.