State Board of Insurance v. Todd Shipyards Corporation
Does this ruling no longer apply because of the provisions in Dodd-Frank? The ruling of this case, as per the Wiki, is: "under McCarran-Ferguson, the home state could not tax or regulate the transaction." Under Dodd-Frank, only the home state is able to tax and regulate the transaction, correct? So, Dodd-Frank essentially supersedes this ruling? Just want to make sure I have this right.
Comments
I see what you mean - it seems like Dodd-Frank potentially contradicts the Todd precedent but I don't know how to resolve this based on the syllabus readings.
The Dearie text did have some extra information about Todd but I felt it was too detailed to include in the wiki. It says the following:
I believe that in most situations, these 3 circumstances would apply. So as I mentioned in the wiki, despite subsequent decisions that distinguished this case, Todd is likely still valid in most jurisdictions.
EDIT: Ah, sorry. I see you’re getting at something different, as independent procurement / direct placement is separate from surplus lines placement. This is all very nuanced, but is making more sense.
Gr8!