Symetra Life Ins. Co.; Symetra Assigned Benefits Serv. Co. v. Rapid Settlements Ltd.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-20248
SYMETRA LIFE INS. CO.; SYMETRA ASSIGNED BENEFITS
SERV. CO.
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
RAPID SETTLEMENTS LTD.
Defendant-Appellant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RAPID SETTLEMENTS LTD.
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SYMETRA LIFE INS. CO.; SYMETRA ASSIGNED BENEFITS
SERV. CO.
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 11, 2009
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-20248
For Judge Rosenthal’s published memorandum opinion from the case, see Symetra1
Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 599 F.Supp.2d 809 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
See Allstate Life Insur. Co. v. Rapid Settlements Ltd, No. 08-60685 (5th Cir., May 1,2
2009); Allstate Settlement Corp. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 559 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2009); Pacific
Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 2009 WL 320184 (2d Cir., Feb. 10, 2009); Pacific Life
Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 2007 WL 2530098 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2007); R&W Reins.
Co. v. Rapid Settlements Ltd., 2007 WL 2330899 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2007); AllState Settlement
Corp. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 2007 WL 1377667 (E.D. Penn., May 8, 2007); CNA Structured
Settlements, Inc. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 2007 WL 811983 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 15, 2007).
2
For essentially the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM.1
In so holding, we join numerous state and federal courts concluding that
a sham arbitration cannot be used as a device to bring about an otherwise
unlawful transfer. To hold otherwise would be to sanction easy invalidation of2
a wide range of state policies. Arbitral powers do not extend beyond the
substantive capacity of the party agreeing to arbitration, and neither Prima
Paint nor any other Supreme Court case teaches to the contrary. And on
matters of insurance regulation, the congressional message of the Federal
Arbitration Act comes with the congressional message of the McCarran-
Ferguson Act. On that score, no fewer than forty-six states have seen fit to enact
statutes exercising the power, to which Congress has consented, to guard
recipients of structured settlements against abusive transfers. We are loathe to
read the Federal Arbitration Act to provide an end run around this dually
secured line of protection.

-- 2 of 2 --