State Separation of Powers
Wooley v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins.
Co.,
893 So.2d 746 (La. 2005)
Quick Review of Adjudications


Like trials
 Specific parties
 Specific facts
 Individual due process rights
Contrast with regulations
 Like statutes
 Apply to everyone
 No due process rights
ALJs


Agency employees who hear adjudications
 Generally expert in the area
 Often work with other agency personnel
 Contrast with Article III judges
Powers
 Makes findings of fact
 Recommends a ruling to the agency
 Does not make policy
State Regulation of Insurance
McCarron-Ferguson Act - 1945


With a few exceptions, leaves the regulation of insurance
to the states
 Insurers are organized by state
 States do not have the information or expertise to do
the job
 Limits the risk sharing to small pools
 ERISA is the big exception - no regulation at all
Exempts insurance companies from antitrust laws
 Allows collusive action between the independent
companies
Office of Insurance Commissioner




Who served as Insurance Commissioner prior to
1956?
What did the constitutional amendment of 1960
provide?
What powers and duties did the 1973 constitution
provide to the insurance commissioner?
Any problems with office over the past few
commissioners?
ALJs in LA



Prior to the creation of DAL, did the LA APA have
specific provisions authorizing ALJs?
Who employed them at this time?
Were there uniform criteria for selection?
 Should there be?
 Should they be lawyers?
Key Provisions of the DAL - 1995



The DAL shall handle all adjudications required by the LAPA,
 that the ALJ shall issue the final decision or order and
 the agency shall have no authority to override the decision or
order,
 no agency or official thereof shall be entitled to judicial review
of an adjudication.
that the governor shall appoint, and the Senate confirm, a director
for DAL, who, in turn, shall employ the ALJs, and that the current
ALJs employed by the various affected agencies shall be
transferred to and employed in the DAL.
(Some agencies such as medical licensing are excluded)
Key Questions





Why go to a central panel of ALJs?
Why are the different backgrounds of the ALJs an
issue?
Why does finality mean that the ALJs are deciding
legal and not just factual questions?
What do other states and the feds do?
What is the effect of having the ALJ bind the
agency without appeal, while allowing the
regulated party to appeal to the courts?
The Big Picture

Pushed by concerns about fairness to the
regulated parties
 Protects little guys, like Exxon
 Smoke screen of individuals to pass the law
 Like family farming and the farm bill
Realities of Government


The rule of agencies
 Agencies can be effective
 Agencies can give extensive due process to
regulated parties
 Agencies can be cost-effective
PICK 2
Courts in LA


Article V, sec. 1 vests the judicial power of the state in the courts
making up the judicial branch of government, the supreme court,
courts of appeal, district courts, and other constitutionallyauthorized courts.
 Further, La. Const. art. V, sec. 22(A) provides that all judges
shall be elected.
 Finally, Article V, sec. 16 grants district courts original
jurisdiction of all civil and criminal matters and appellate
jurisdiction as provided by law.
While a court's jurisdiction and judicial power traditionally flow
from these constitutional grants, Article II, secs. 1 and 2 also
establish the basis for inherent judicial powers which are not
specifically enumerated in the constitution.
How are Agencies Hybrids?






What are the legislative functions of an agency?
What are the executive functions?
What are the judicial functions?
Why are these only "quasi-judicial"?
What would be the problem if they were really
judicial?
Does this make "quasi-judicial" a circular
definition?
Are DAL ALJs Judges - District Court
Opinion?

What factors did the district court focus on?
 Are these really legal factors?
 Why are they politically significant?
The Nature of the ALJ Decision in Wooley




What issue was before the ALJ?
Is this an appropriate question for an ALJ?
Did the court see the ALJs deciding these cases
as acting as a part of the Department of
Insurance?
Why is this a critical part of the opinion?
What did the LA Supreme Court Find?




DEQ decisions are not part of the traditional civil court
matters as defined in the 1973 constitution.
The testimony in the record reveals that ALJs do not
have the power to enforce their decisions and orders, a
power that unquestionably lies in Article V courts.
The ALJs simply are not constitutionally allowed to
exercise the judicial power of the state and Act 739 does
not impermissibly attempt to authorize the exercise of
judicial power.
The ALJs make administrative law rulings that are not
subject to enforcement and do not have the force of law.
Enforcement





Who does have the enforcement power?
What did the legislature intend for the agency to
do with the ALJ's ruling?
Did the court ignore the plain language of the
law?
What would they have to rule if they read the law
the way legislature intended?
Why would they dodge this?
You Are Counsel for State Farm



What are you worried that the agency will do?
 How would you have to fight that?
 What court would you end up in?
Can you mandamus the agency to approve it?
 Bonvillian v. Department of Ins., 906 So.2d 596, 20040332 (La.App. 1 Cir. 05)
Do you tell them to go ahead and use the policy based on
the ALJ's ruling?
 What about the res judicata act?
Does the Res Judicata Statute, La. R.S.
13:4231, Apply?


Pursuant to this statute, then, a second action is precluded when all
of the following criteria are satisfied:
 (1) the judgment is valid;
 (2) the judgment is final;
 (3) the parties are the same;
 (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit
existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and
 (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit
arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject
matter of the first litigation.
 Burguieres v. Pollingue, 02-1385, p. 8 (La. 2/25/03), 843 So.2d
1049, 1053.
Judgment by whom?
Changing this Ruling



Can the legislature change the Wooley decision
by statute?
 What about the law they just passed saying we
really mean it?
What was declared unconstitutional in Moore v.
Roemer?
 How was that fixed?
Has the legislature tried this with Wooley?
What about Limiting Appeals by the
Commissioner?


How does this limit the power of the
commissioner, assuming that the ALJ's opinion
means anything?
What is the commissioner's legal argument for
declaring this part of the law unconstitutional?
Interagency Powers



What does the court say about the legislature's
authority to limit the office of Insurance
Commissioner?
What is the general rule about right of an agency
to judicially appeal the decision of another
agency?
What does this make the independent status of
the DAL so important?
Does The Commissioner Have Another
Way to Get Into Court?




What is a declaratory ruling?
Why would it be exactly on point in this case?
Has the legislature prevented the commissioner
from requesting one?
 Could the legislature block this avenue of
appeal?
This was remanded to the Appeals Court
Wooley v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 928
So.2d 618, 2005-1490 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/10/06)


On Remand:
The "existing facts" of the present controversy, for our
purposes, are simply these: The ALJ made an
adjudication that the RCU form met La. R.S. 22:621's
requirement of compliance with law, an adjudication
which is not subject to judicial review at the request of
the Commissioner and with which the Commissioner is
now bound by law to comply. A litigant not asserting a
substantial existing legal right is without standing to seek
a declaratory judgment, and such lack of standing
renders any judicial opinion sought an impermissible
advisory opinion. Such is the present position of the
Commissioner.
Where does the Remand Leave the Case?


What is at issue before the Commissioner right
now?
Do you want an ALJ deciding these issues?
Bonvillian v. Dep't of Insurance, 906 So.2d
596 (La.App. Cir.1 2005)



What is the underlying dispute?
 Insurance Commission refused to renew a bail
bond agent's license
What did the plaintiff do?
 Went to the ALJ, who overruled the agency
What did the agency do?
 Refused to obey the ALJ's order
The District Court



What did plaintiff request in District Court?
What did the district court do?
Why could the agency appeal this?
 "[n]o agency or official thereof, or other person acting
on behalf of an agency or official thereof shall be
entitled to judicial review under this Chapter." Notably,
although the Department now appeals the district
court's grant of mandamus, the Department was
prohibited from appealing the merits of the ALJ's
decision.
Mandamus


Must be a specific, non-discretionary right
 The remedy is not available to command the performance of an
act that contains any element of discretion, however slight.
When may mandamus be used against the insurance commission?
 "writ of mandamus may be sought to compel the commissioner
of insurance to perform a ministerial duty as established by
law, where it is alleged that the commissioner of insurance is
acting fraudulently or not impartially fulfilling his duties, or
where the delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief may cause
injustice."
What are the Alternative Remedies?


Specifically, the Department suggests that
Bonvillian could have intervened in a certain
declaratory judgment action instituted by the
Department and could have requested mandatory
injunctive relief. Second, the Department
contends that Bonvillian could have instituted a
second lawsuit requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief in his favor.
Why are these alternatives important?
What did the Court Rule?


In sum, Bonvillian has not met his burden of showing that
a delay in obtaining ordinary relief would cause injustice
sufficient to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus
or that there were no ordinary remedies available through
which he could obtain relief. As set forth in Wiginton,
mandamus presumably can not lie in cases that are
doubtful.
Why did plaintiff avoid these alternatives?
 Agency cannot contest facts in a mandamus action