Today's paper | eEdition | Subscribe
The Truth-O-Meter
Latest print edition
St. Petersburg Times
Special report
  • Testing Grounds
    The latest industry being outsourced to India is clinical drug trials. And any number of tragic things can happen on the way to your medicine cabinet.
  • More special reports
Video report
  • Friday Night Rewind
    It doesn't matter which team you cheer for. We've got video previews of every high school football program in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Hernando County.
  • More video reports
Multimedia report
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Recipient email
You may enter up to 20 multiple email addresses, separated by commas.
Your message
Validation Code
Hear
validation
code
  Enter validation code

No ruling on insurer's bid to block inquiry information

By Times Staff Writer
Posted: Sep 03, 2008 07:39 PM


Social Bookmarking
Digg Facebook Stumbleupon
Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Video...
Loading...

The Connecticut Supreme Court has declined to rule on a Florida company's efforts to block Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal from disclosing information he obtained while investigating the insurance industry. The lawsuit by Brown & Brown Insurance Inc., which is still pending in Hartford Superior Court, could determine whether Blumenthal can share data with other states' attorneys general who also are reviewing antitrust allegations in the industry. The case stemmed from Blumenthal's 2006 subpoena of Brown & Brown, a general insurance broker based in Tampa and Daytona Beach. The company initially provided documents, but stopped and sued under state antitrust laws when it could not get ironclad assurances from Blumenthal to keep the information confidential. Brown & Brown had asked the trial court for summary judgment, which would have ended the case in its favor. The court rejected its request in 2007, and the company appealed. In a 4-1 decision released Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and said it did not have jurisdiction because the case is still pending in the lower court.



[Last modified: Sep 03, 2008 07:39 PM]



Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

 
ADVERTISEMENT