Law Commons^™

Federal Preemption And Consumer Financial Protection: Past And Future

Patricia A. McCoy

Starting in 1995 and throughout the subprime boom during the next decade, Congress failed to take action to curb predatory mortgage lending. Many states and cities filled the void by passing anti-predatory lending laws of their own. Lenders, worried about potential liability, quickly organized a full-scale attack on the state and local initiatives. Their most potent strategy lay in challenging the laws and ordinances under federal preemption rules for national banks and federal savings associations that precluded states from enforcing their anti-predatory lending laws.

The Dodd-Frank Act curtailed the preemption rules by establishing that state consumer financial laws can only …

Regulation Not Prohibition: The Comparative Case Against The Insurable Interest Doctrine, Sharo Michael Atmeh

Sharo M Atmeh

American law requires an insurable interest—a pecuniary or affective stake in the subject of an insurance policy—as a predi-cate to properly obtaining insurance. In theory, the rule prevents both wagering on individual lives and moral hazard. In practice, the doctrine is avoided by complex insurance transaction structuring to effectuate both origination and transfers of insurance by individuals without an insurable interest. This paper argues that it is time to ab-andon the insurable interest doctrine. As both the English and Aus-tralian experiences indicate, elimination of the insurable interest doctrine will have little detrimental pecuniary effect on the insurance industry, while freeing …

Minors & Cosmetic Surgery: An Argument For State Intervention, Derrick Diaz

Derrick Diaz Mr.

This article focuses on whether a state may intervene to prevent minors from obtaining medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery. The article concludes that a state may prohibit such a procedure without running afoul of parental liberty interests by showing severe risk of harm to the minor. Furthermore, the article proposes that minors not have access to cosmetic surgery unless found by a court to be medically necessary. If medical necessity has been shown, then the parental presumption must control. However, if medical necessity has not been shown, then the service should be prohibited the same as any regulated service or product …