The NRA Carry Guard insurance program, launched in 2017, offered coverage for legal fees, therapy and other costs associated with someone's use of a gun in New York. (Photo: NRA/Facebook)

Claims from the National Rifle Association that New York selectively investigated and enforced the state's insurance laws against insurance products marketed by the gun lobby group, while ignoring others, were thrown out by a federal judge Friday.

U.S. District Senior Judge Thomas McAvoy of the Northern District of New York wrote in the decision that the NRA had not shown that state officials had turned a blind eye to other violators while singling out products marketed by the association.

“Defendants also argue that the selective enforcement claims must be dismissed because the amended complaint lacks plausible allegations that defendants had knowledge of the purported Insurance Law violations by the comparators,” McAvoy wrote in the decision. “The court agrees.”

It's the latest development in the NRA's lawsuit against Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a state agency, both of which are accused in the litigation of acting to infringe on the group's First Amendment rights.

McAvoy said he would allow the NRA to re-plead the claims if they wanted to. William Brewer III, the NRA's lead attorney on the case from Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors in Dallas and New York City, said they plan to take him up on that offer.

“With respect to selective enforcement, the NRA will amend and re-plead this claim, as the court explicitly allows,” Brewer said. “Our client is confident that discovery will confirm that defendants knew exactly what they were doing: ignoring similar or identical conduct across the insurance marketplace, while singling out the NRA for political reasons.”

The selective enforcement claims are over a handful of insurance products marketed by the NRA in New York that were eventually discontinued following an investigation by the state Department of Financial Services two years ago.

The inquiry was prompted by offerings of an insurance product called Carry Guard, which previously offered coverage for legal fees, therapy and other costs associated with someone's use of a gun in New York. The product was sold by Lockton Companies LLC, an insurance brokerage firm, and marketed by the NRA.

DFS determined through its investigation into that product that it did not meet the state's minimum liability requirements and “New York state law prohibits insurance coverage to defense costs arising out of a crime.”

The state regulator fined Lockton $7 million for selling Carry Guard, and accused the NRA in a consent order with the company of actively marketing the product to New York residents and soliciting their business.

DFS also identified a few ways in which Lockton allegedly violated the state's insurance laws through its agreement with the NRA. Lockton was accused of compensating the NRA based on actual premiums collected, which was allegedly unlawful because the association isn't licensed by the state, for example. That's where the group's selective enforcement claims come in.

The NRA alleged in its lawsuit against Cuomo and the state that, during the same time, other companies had also violated the state's insurance laws in similar, or identical ways. The association went as far as identifying nine other policies marketed under identical language, and said the agency had ignored those violators while placing a focus on the NRA.

“Even if such conduct does violate insurance law, DFS's selective enforcement of such offenses as to NRA-endorsed policies—but not as to other policies marketed by Lockton in an identical fashion—constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination and a denial of equal protection under the law,” the group wrote in its lawsuit.

The NRA furthered its argument on that point by saying public statements from Cuomo and former DFS Superintendent Maria Vullo showed their animus against the gun lobby group because of its policy views. McAvoy rejected both arguments in his decision Friday.

“Even assuming that Gov. Cuomo and Supt. Vullo's public statements portend their intention to harm the NRA for its gun-promotion efforts and advocacy, plaintiff fails to point to specific statements plausibly supporting the inference that either defendant knew of similar non-firearm-related Insurance Law violations by the comparators but consciously declined to prosecute them,” McAvoy wrote.

The decision does not dismiss the lawsuit altogether; the NRA still has multiple claims against the state that are still being litigated. Chief among them is the group's First Amendment claims, which have quickly become the center of the lawsuit since it was brought against the state last year.

“Most importantly, this decision has no bearing on the NRA's First Amendment claims,” Brewer said. “We will continue with our aggressive pursuit of the facts on behalf of all NRA members—and in the interest of protecting free speech for advocacy groups across the nation.”

The NRA filed the suit last May over claims that Cuomo and Vullo intended to financially impair the association through official state actions, which the gun lobby has said will limit its ability to advocate on behalf of gun owners in New York.

A spokeswoman for New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office is defending the state in the litigation, lauded the decision in a statement Friday evening.

“This result is an important victory for New Yorkers,” the spokeswoman said. “We look forward to building on this success and to continuing our fight to deliver justice on behalf of New Yorkers.”

James has also launched a civil investigation into the NRA's tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service. That probe is ongoing.

READ MORE:

NRA Allowed to Depose Former DFS Superintendent Vullo in Lawsuit Against NY

NY State Says Cuomo and Regulators Aren't Liable for NRA's Monetary Damages

Federal Judge Allows NRA Lawsuit Against NY to Continue on First Amendment Claims