NRRA’S LATEST AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF NOW FILED BEFORE THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
The National Risk Retention Association backs its members – and all risk retention groups – when their ability to do business is jeopardized. To that end, NRRA contributed an amicus curiae brief in the Candace Reis and Melvin Williams v. OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc. case, which was heard by the Georgia Supreme Court on March 5.
The judge in the civil case had ruled in favor of OOIDA RRG’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs then appealed but the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia transferred the case to Georgia Supreme Court because “preemption cases invoke its constitutional question jurisdiction.”
NRRA Board Chair Michael J. Schroeder said in a statement that the association’s mission calls for supporting RRGs whenever states try to regulate their business.
“NRRA has been a staunch advocate for risk retention groups whenever states fail to recognize the ways in which the Liability Risk Retention Act preempts state statutes,” Schroeder said. “It is our contention that OOIDA is permitted, as a foreign RRG in Georgia, to insure its members within this state, exempt from nearly all Georgia state laws regulating the business of insurance. NRRA will continue to support OOIDA, our members, and all RRGs whenever we see evidence of regulatory overreach.”
Neither the appellant nor the appellee was allowed to provide a new brief to the Supreme Court. However, NRRA’s amicus curiae brief was accepted by the Court. In it, NRRA provided a primer on other cases were state insurance laws were ruled to be preempted by the LRRA. NRRA’s brief contended that imposing “Georgia’s Direct Action Statutes on foreign RRGs like OOIDA would improperly regulate their business operations, in violation of the LRRA. The harmful economic impact on OOIDA, as well as on the 109 other foreign RRGs doing business in Georgia, would undermine the intent of the LRRA by threatening the existence of affordable liability insurance coverage. This Court should affirm the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion which does nothing to change Georgia law relative to traditional insurance carriers or RRGs chartered in Georgia,” as argued in the brief.