## Facts

- Property purchasers acquired multiple parcels at tax sales in El Dorado County, California.
- The purchasers alleged the only title insurers offering coverage in the county were Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Placer Title Company, and First American Title Insurance Company.
- The purchasers alleged the insurers knowingly refused to issue title insurance on tax-sale (tax-deed) properties.
- In one alleged transaction, First American conditioned issuance of title insurance on the purchaser initiating a quiet-title action, and the sale allegedly failed.
- The complaint alleged the insurers collectively refused to insure tax-deed properties while marketing title insurance as necessary for marketable title, thereby restraining trade and interfering with plaintiffs’ contracts and economic relations.

## Issues

1. Whether California Insurance Code provisions governing title insurance, including the “exclusive regulation” language in Ins. Code § 12414.29, displace private remedies under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) for an alleged concerted refusal to issue title insurance on tax-deed properties.
2. Whether the same Insurance Code provisions preclude Cartwright Act antitrust claims and common-law economic interference claims based on the alleged refusal to insure.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment sustaining demurrers and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held Ins. Code § 12414.29 makes the Insurance Code exclusive only as to title-insurance activities relating to rate setting, not all title-insurance business practices.
- Because the alleged misconduct concerned a refusal to issue policies (not rate setting), the Insurance Code did not bar UCL, Cartwright Act, or common-law interference claims.
- The court applied the demurrer standard by treating properly pleaded material facts as admitted and asking whether any legal theory could state a claim on those facts.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory “exclusive regulation” clauses are construed according to their text and context; exclusivity limited to “as it relates to rates” does not create broad immunity for all business practices.
- Repeal or displacement of statutes of general application by implication is disfavored and will not be found absent irreconcilable conflict.
- The UCL may provide remedies for business conduct that is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, including conduct that is independently actionable under antitrust law or common law, unless a clear legislative directive makes another remedial scheme exclusive for that subject.
- Industry-specific insurance regulation primarily directed at administrative oversight does not, without clear legislative intent, preempt concurrent civil enforcement under the UCL or antitrust statutes for non-rate conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that title-insurance rate regulation is exclusively governed by the Insurance Code, but alleged anticompetitive refusals to insure tax-deed properties fall outside that exclusivity, allowing UCL, Cartwright Act, and interference claims to proceed.


Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 19 Cal. 4th 26, 960 P.2d 513 (Cal. 1998)