2014 Spring #4 part b
asked how the Sherman Anti Trust Act would apply to 2 insurers trying to create a pool.
the answer stated that it would not be allowed due to US v SEUA
but I thought initially it would be allowed due to Paul v Virginia - I stated that do you think it would be accepted.
the examiners report talked about MF answers not being allowed but I feel they kind of missed a step prior to US v SEUA in the answers.
Comments
Sherman is applicable to colluding, as evident in SEUA. This is the latest state of its applicability in history: Paul v Virginia is superseded by SEUA.
I am also confused on this question. It specifically says "discuss how this decision would be addressed solely under the Sherman Antitrust Act." Why would we then say anything about the SEUA case? That would not be "solely under the Sherman Antitrust Act." That would be under both the Sherman Antitrust Act and the SEUA case.
I agree with you. Especially given SEUA (1944) occurred so much later than Sherman (1890) I think purely under Sherman it would be allowed but not in the spirit of the law.
Collusion is prohibited as per Sherman, in the letter and the spirit of the law.
Paul v Virginia briefly made Sherman not applicable to insurance, before US v SEUA reinstated its applicability. I only mentioned SEUA, because mec06e had made an argument based on Paul v Virginia. Sherman, in and of itself, is sufficient in establishing the prohibition of collusion.