Filing Summary

After being charged by the New York State Department of Financial Service (“DFS”) for various violations of the insurance law pertaining to Carry Guard and other insurance products it offered, the NRA sought a preliminary injunction from the federal court in the Northern District of New York – specifically asking for an injunction to stop DFS from “initiating enforcement proceedings against the NRA.” The Court denied that request in full in this decision and opinion. This decision clears the way for a trial at which the NRA could be assessed penalties in excess of ten million dollars with respect to alleged violations of the state insurance law.   

Key Points

• The Court held that the NRA “has failed to adequately demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm if the [Carry Guard] administrative hearing goes forward.” (p.23)
• As a result of this decision, the proceedings in New York State court against the NRA will continue undisturbed. The DFS website currently lists a public hearing for the NRA in this matter of September 22, 2020, where witnesses and evidence can be presented by both sides. 
• The NRA had attempted to argue that constitutional issues central to its own case against New York State for selective prosecution, among other issues, could be rendered moot in a state administrative hearing on Carry Guard. The Court called this argument “remote and based on the unsupported speculation that this testimony will occur.” (p.21)
• Perhaps most striking, the Court found that the NRA “appears to be attempting to insert ancillary matters into the hearing in attempt to obtain an injunction and delay the enforcement hearing.” (p.20).  The Court also notes that the NRA is essentially asking to “delay the adjudication of the alleged Insurance Law violations for an indefinite period of time…” (p.15).
• The Court also rejected the NRA’s arguments that findings in the state administrative hearing that the NRA violated New York State Insurance Law overlaps at all with the NRA’s speech-based retaliation claims against New York State. (p.18-19)  Please note, the majority of the NRA’s case against New York has been dismissed.