Areas of Practice
Education
  • Yale Law School, J.D., 1974
  • Yale University, B.A., 1968
Bar & Court Admissions
  • District of Columbia

Mark F. Horning

Partner
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20036
TEL: +1 202 429 8126
FAX: +1 202 429 3902

Mark Horning is a partner in Steptoe's Washington office, where he is a member of the Regulatory & Industry Affairs and Litigation Departments.  He practices in the area of the representation of insurance industry clients in litigation matters, principally including antitrust, unfair trade practice, fraud, RICO and regulatory cases.  Mr. Horning has represented clients in government enforcement proceedings, parens patriae actions by state attorneys general, and private class actions brought in both federal and state court.  He has substantial familiarity with class certification issues under both federal and state rules.  Additionally, he has regularly addressed exemptions and immunities from federal and state laws available to insurers, including the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the state action doctrine, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the filed rate doctrine and the doctrines of exclusive and primary jurisdiction.  He also has extensive knowledge of state unfair and deceptive practices acts (so-called “little FTC acts”), often relied upon in private class actions.

In recent years, Mr. Horning has represented insurers in antitrust cases brought by state attorneys general and private class action plaintiffs alleging:  (1) agreements to restrict environmental coverages in commercial liability policies; (2) agreements to raise rates for windstorm coverages in homeowners’ policies; (3) agreements to withdraw from workers’ compensation insurance markets; and (4) agreements to fix the price for services provided in so-called “residual markets.”  With respect to litigation involving RICO, unfair trade practice and fraud claims, Mr. Horning has represented insurer clients in cases alleging failure to disclose use of unapproved rates, failure to disclose use of so-called “aftermarket crash parts” in automobile repairs, and “bad faith” refusal to pay for diminution in value of motor vehicles covered by automobile insurance policies.

Representative Matters

The following are significant litigation matters in which Mr. Horning has represented insurer clients:  

Supreme Court Cases

  • St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Barry, 438 US 531 (1978):  filed amicus brief on behalf of insurance industry trade associations.
  • Group Life & Health Insurance Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 US 205 (1979):  represented the defendant health insurer.
  • Union Labor Life Insurance Co. v. Pireno, 458 US 119 (1982):  filed amicus brief on behalf of insurance industry trade associations.
  • Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 US 764 (1993):  filed amicus brief on behalf of insurance industry trade associations.
  • American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan, 119 S. Ct. 977 (1999):  filed amicus brief on behalf of insurance industry and employers associations.  

Parens Patriae and Class Actions

  • In re Insurance Antitrust Litigation, 938 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1991), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds sub nom. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 US 764 (1993): represented Aetna in consolidated parens patriae cases brought by 20 state attorneys general, settled after favorable McCarran Act decision by Supreme Court reversing Ninth Circuit.
  • Sandy River Nursing Care Center v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 985 F.2d 1138 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 70 (1993):  represented Aetna in private class action brought against workers’ compensation insurers and dismissed on state action/Noerr grounds.
  • Slagle v. ITT Hartford, 102 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 1996):  represented Aetna in private class action brought against Florida homeowners insurers, dismissed on McCarran Act grounds.
  • N.C. Steel, Inc. v. National Council on Compensation Insurance, 496 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. 1998): represented Travelers in private class action brought against workers’ compensation insurers, in which North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed dismissal on filed rate grounds.
  • Amundson & Associates Art Studio, Ltd. v. National Council on Compensation Insurance, 1999 WL 721640 (Kan. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 1999): represented Travelers in private class action brought against workers’ compensation insurers, in which Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal on filed rate grounds.
  • Forman v. National Council on Compensation Insurance, No. 01-A-01-9805-CH00260 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 1999):  represented Travelers in private class action brought against workers’ compensation insurers, in which Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal on grounds that Tennessee antitrust statute did not apply to insurance.
  • Musumeci v. Travelers ( Conn. Dist. Ct.):  represent Travelers in private class action alleging that failure to disclose use of non-original equipment crash parts for auto repairs is an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

Noteworthy

Recommended in Legal 500 US for Energy: Regulatory 2013

Select News & Events

Selected Publications

Professional Affiliations

  • American Bar Association, Antitrust Section