Pennsylvania v. ACE Limited
Plaintiff state reached a settlement with ACE Limited in connection with ACE’s involvement with other insurers and brokers in a scheme to rig bids for excess casualty insurance. These illegal business practices occurred between 2000 and early 2004. In addition to the bid-rigging tactics, ACE also paid “contingent commissions,” which are payments that insurers pay to brokers and agents in addition to their base commissions. In exchange for the “contingent commissions,” brokers agreed to steer policies for excess casualty to ACE and increased premiums on existing policies. The agreement requires ACE to reform its business practices. Ace will now disclose to any client, who asks how much it is paying in compensation to a broker or non-exclusive agent on that client’s insurance business and will etablish a toll-free telephone number that policyholders can request disclosure of compensation information.
Connecticut v. Acordia (Super. Ct. Hartford Jud. Dist.)
State alleged that insurance companies were paying kickbacks to Acordia, an insurance broker, for steering business to the insurer.
Connecticut v. Haggett
Plaintiff state filed suit alleging industry-wide illegal bid rigging by companies and individuals in the heating, ventilation and airconditioning (HVAC) business over the course of several years. Some defendants have settled for $160,000 in civil penalties
Connecticut v. B-G Mechanical Services
State settled allegations of bid-rigging in the market for HVAC services for municipal and private business customers.
People ex rel. Spitzer v. Acordia and Wells Fargo (NY Sup. Ct.)
State alleged that insurance companies were paying kickbacks to Acordia, an insurance broker, for steering business to the insurer.
Florida v. Ryan E. Phillips et al., Case No. 2006-CA-1986-C, Okaloosa Cty. Cir. Ct.
Florida settled allegations of price fixing in northwestern part of the state after price-gouging investigation revealed that gasoline station owner who sold station conditioned the sale on new owner matching prices as original owners station.
Illinois v. Acordia (Cook County Circuit Court)
State alleged that insurance companies were paying kickbacks to Acordia, an insurance broker, for steering business to the insurer.
Connecticut, Illinois & New York v. St. Paul Travelers
Plaintiff states charged St. Paul Travelers with illegal business steering, customer allocation, and bid rigging in the market for small business. The states alleged, and St. Paul Travelers did not deny, that millions of dollars in “contingent commissions” were paid to a number of brokers who “steered” business to St. Paul Travelers. Under the customer allocation scheme, Travelers was one of the insurers (with The Hartford and CNA) who secretly agreed with a broker to divide up the brokers small business customers in exchange for paying greater undisclosed contingent commissions to the broker.
Ilinois v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
The state of Illinois alleged that Liberty Mutual particiated in scheme led by Marsh McLennan to rig bids on insurance policies and distribute policies to particpating insurers, who would submit high bids when directed to do so. The State also alleged that Liberty Mutual paid undisclosed contingent commissions (payments on top of regular commissions)to insurance brokers and agents to induce them to steer business to Liberty Mutual.
California v. Infineon Technologies, No. 3:06-cv-04333 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2007)
33 Plaintiff States generally alleged a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S.
market for dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”), carried out by numerous manufacturer defendants. Samsung an
another company, Winbond, reached settlement for $113 million in 2007.. States and private parties settled with the remaining defendants for $173 million and injunctive relief.
