With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". And by continuing to approve USAA's rates after DeHerrera, the Insurance Commissioner has found that the premiums charged for such additional coverage were not excessive. Thus, this damage theory would involve judicial second-guessing of the approved insurance rates, which the doctrine's nonjusticiability rationale forbids. See McCray v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 682 F.3d 229, 242 (8d Cir.2012). 184 Plaintiffs' assertion of this damage theory based on an underlying claim of consumer fraud does not change the foregoing analysis because "[tlhere is no fraud exception to the filed rate doctrine." AT & T Corp. v. JMC Telecom, LLC, 470 F.3d 525, 535 (3d Cir.2006); see also Horwitz ex rel. Gilbert v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 319 Ill.App.3d 890, 253 Ill.Dec. 468, 745 N.E.2d 591, 605 (2001) (<HOLDING>) (applying Colorado law); Richardson, 853 A.2d

A: holding that the filed rate doctrine barred private right of action for consumer fraud
B: holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine
C: recognizing private right of action
D: holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties
A.