We’ve blogged before, on numerous occasions, about McCarran-Ferguson Reverse Preemption of the Federal Arbitration Act. Specifically, we’ve blogged about the Kepka case out of Houston, whereby the Court held that Texas medical malpractice legislation, which holds that an agreement to arbitrate a med-mal case must be signed by both the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney, was legislation to regulate the insurance industry, and as such the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempts the FAA, which would normally say that no such requirement is enforceable in an FAA case. The Texas Supreme Court, having requested briefing on the merits, had seemed like it was going to rule on a petition for mandamus which sought to over-rule Kepka. Given that Court’s recent history, we feared for the ongoing viability of McCarran-Ferguson preemption in the Texas medical malpractice arbitration context (we actually do fear for these things).
Today, however, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We know nothing of the details of this, but we can say that Kepka lives to fight another day.
Technorati Tags:
arbitration, ADR, Texas Supreme Court, law
Related Posts
Reverse Pre-Emption of the FAA!
U.S. Supreme Court Grants Cert in Arbitration Case, Denies Another
The Arbitration Bootstrap
Texas Supreme Court Holds Agreement to Arbitrate is Not Substantively Unconscionable Despite Unenforceable Provisions
THE McCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT AND REVERSE PREEMPTION PART III
THE McCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT AND REVERSE PREEMPTION PART I
