they nonetheless concede that the DOBI approved Appellees' rates, see App. at 82. Under New Jersey law, such approval necessarily requires a determination that the rates are "not unreasonably high, and are not inadequate for the safeness and soundness of the insurer, and are not unfairly discriminatory.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:46B-45(a); see also N.J. Builders Ass’n v. Sheeran, 168 N.J.Super. 237, 402 A.2d 956, 961 (App.Div. 1979) (noting that N.J. Stat. Ann. § 17:46B-45 evidently requires the DOBI Commissioner to conduct “some degree” of fact-finding). 3 . It is well established that the filed rate doctrine can serve as a defense against both federal and state actions. See, e.g., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cent. Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 228, 118 S.Ct. 1956, 141 L.Ed.2d 222 (1998) (<HOLDING>). 4 .Appellants also argue that "the filed rate
holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties holding that the filed rate doctrine precludes insureds fraudulent inducement claim