Printer Friendly

SUPREME COURT REMANDS 'SMALL TOWN' INSURANCE SALES CASE TO APPELLATE COURT

 WASHINGTON, June 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by David A. Winston, chairman of the Alliance for Separation of Banking and Insurance (ASBI), in response to a decision issued today by the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an earlier U.S. Court of Appeals decision involving Section 92 of the National Bank Act. ASBI is a coalition of national agents' groups:
 We're disappointed that the Supreme Court today decided to reverse a 1992 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which held that Section 92, "the small town exemption," was repealed in 1918.
 However, it was not surprising that the Supreme Court refused to strike down a statute that Congress, and the courts have recognized to be in existence for over 75 years.
 The issue decided by the Supreme Court was one which the Court of Appeals raised on its own. ASBI did not raise the issue but believed that the Court of Appeals' opinion was defensible.
 However, the original issue at hand remains -- that is, the Comptroller of the Currency's ruling that Section 92 can be interpreted to permit the nation's largest national banks to sell insurance beyond the limits of small towns. It must be underscored that Section 92 provides a limited exception to the general prohibition against the sale of insurance by national banks. The comptroller's ruling would turn this limited grant of power into a launching pad for nationwide insurance activities.
 The alliance fully intends to continue to litigate this critical issue before the appellate court to clarify that the geographic breadth of Section 92 not extend beyond small towns.
 ASBI represents the National Association of Life Underwriters, the Independent Insurance Agents of America, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, the National Association of Casualty and Surety Agents, the National Association of Surety Bond Producers and the American Land Title Association.
 -0- 6/7/93
 /CONTACT: Ann Kappler, 202-639-6000, or Jay Morris, 202-331-6030, both for the Alliance for Separation of Banking and Insurance/


CO: Alliance for Separation of Banking and Insurance ST: District of Columbia IN: INS FIN SU:

DC-KD -- DC020 -- 6149 06/07/93 15:20 EDT
COPYRIGHT 1993 PR Newswire Association LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:PR Newswire
Date:Jun 7, 1993
Words:362
Previous Article:SMALL-BUSINESSES OPPOSE PAYROLL TAX INCREASE TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM; FAVOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR REFORM
Next Article:SMALL HOSPITALS MAJOR ECONOMIC FORCE IN RURAL MICHIGAN
Topics:


Related Articles
U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR APPEAL ON VALIDITY OF NEW YORK'S REGULATIONS TAXING SALES OF CIGARETTES TO NON-INDIANS ON RESERVATIONS
IIAA SAYS CONGRESS SHOULD ASSERT ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN WAKE OF BARNETT DECISION
APPELLATE COURT UNANIMOUSLY DENIES APPEAL IN NEW YORK LIFE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
/C O R R E C T I O N -- APPELLATE COURT UNANIMOUSLY DENIES APPEAL IN NEW YORK LIFE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT/(Correction Notice)
/C O R R E C T I O N -- APPELLATE COURT UNANIMOUSLY DENIES APPEAL IN NEW YORK LIFE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT/(Correction Notice)
THE LAW.
Who's Got the Power?
Durst Organization cannot be charged additional penalties by Cigna or LaSalle in terrorism insurance case.
Court opinions differ on diminished value.
PR: Pt. with chest pains discharged from ER dies: does EMTALA apply to non-hospital providers?

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters