Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the United States of America, et al. ex rel. Michael Angelo and MSP WB, LLC (Relators-Appellants) against Allstate Insurance Company, et al. (Defendants-Appellees). The relators alleged that Allstate Insurance violated the False Claims Act by avoiding its obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. They claimed that Allstate failed to report or inaccurately reported to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) information regarding its beneficiaries, which led to Allstate failing to reimburse Medicare for auto-accident-related medical costs incurred by beneficiaries insured by Allstate.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case with prejudice, deeming the relators' second amended complaint deficient in numerous respects. The relators then moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied. They also filed a motion to amend or correct under Rule 59(e), asking the district court to amend its judgment to dismiss the case without prejudice to allow them to file another amended complaint. The district court denied the motion on all grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the relators failed to state a claim for a violation of the False Claims Act. The court noted that the relators did not provide sufficient facts demonstrating that Allstate had an "established duty" to pay money or property owed to the government. The court also found that the relators did not demonstrate Allstate's understanding that its conduct violated its obligations under federal law. Furthermore, the court found that the relators' claim for conspiracy also failed as they did not provide any specific details regarding the alleged plan or an agreement to execute the plan. The court also affirmed the district court's decision to deny the relators leave to amend their complaint again. View "United States ex rel. Angelo v. Allstate Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Bristol SL Holdings, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Sure Haven, Inc., a defunct drug rehabilitation and mental health treatment center, and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. Bristol alleged that Sure Haven's calls to Cigna verifying out-of-network coverage and seeking authorization to provide health services created independent contractual obligations. Cigna, however, denied payment based on fee-forgiving, a practice prohibited by the health plans. Bristol brought state law claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against Cigna.The district court initially dismissed Bristol’s claims, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that Bristol had derivative standing to sue for unpaid benefits as Sure Haven’s successor-in-interest. On remand, the district court granted Cigna’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted Bristol’s state law claims.On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Bristol’s state law claims were preempted by ERISA because they had both a “reference to” and an “impermissible connection with” the ERISA plans that Cigna administered. The court reasoned that Bristol’s claims were not independent of an ERISA plan because they concerned the denial of reimbursement to patients who were covered under such plans. The court also held that allowing liability on Bristol’s state law claims would interfere with nationally uniform plan administration, a central matter of plan administration. View "Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A teacher, who was involved in a car accident caused by a third party, sustained serious injuries. The teacher was covered under his employer’s self-insured healthcare plan, which stipulates that the employer has a right of reimbursement for medical expenses if a covered person receives a separate settlement. The employer paid for the teacher’s medical expenses and the teacher also received $500,000 in settlements from two separate insurers. The teacher requested that the employer waive its right to reimbursement twice, but the employer never agreed. Two years after the teacher notified the employer of his insurance settlements, the employer requested reimbursement and later sued him for breach of contract.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska granted summary judgment to the employer on the issue of whether the teacher breached the contract to reimburse the employer. The employer then moved for summary judgment on the amount of damages, providing an affidavit from its Plan Administrator and a claims ledger. The teacher opposed the motion, providing his own affidavit and a self-created spreadsheet in support of his argument that some of the medical costs paid by the employer were not associated with the accident. The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on contract damages.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment order regarding breach of contract, but held that the teacher raised a genuine dispute of material fact regarding damages. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court’s summary judgment order regarding contract damages. View "Fischer v. Kenai Peninsula Borough School District" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the amount of reimbursements for medical expenses that an insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, was required to pay under a personal injury protection (PIP) policy. The dispute arose when Revival Chiropractic, LLC, a medical provider, submitted charges for services rendered to two of Allstate's policyholders. Allstate paid 80% of the submitted charges, which was less than the amount that would have been reimbursable under the statutory schedule of maximum charges. Revival Chiropractic argued that Allstate was required to pay either 80% of the maximum charge under the schedule or the full amount of the submitted charge.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida agreed with Revival Chiropractic, ruling that Allstate violated Florida law by paying only 80% of the submitted charges when the charges were less than the amounts allowed under the statutory schedule of maximum charges. Allstate appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which certified a question to the Supreme Court of Florida due to the lack of controlling precedent.The Supreme Court of Florida, after reviewing the relevant statutory provisions and the terms of Allstate's PIP policy, concluded that Allstate was entitled to pay 80% of the billed charges. The court found that the PIP policy expressly authorized such a payment and that nothing in the statutory scheme stood in the way of that policy provision. The court held that the PIP statute contemplates that an insurer providing notice that it may use the schedule of maximum charges will not thereby be precluded from paying 80% of reasonable charges as otherwise determined under the provisions of the statute. The court also rejected the argument that the statutory provision requiring an insurer to pay the full amount of the charge submitted when that amount is below the reimbursement payable under the schedule was mandatory. The court concluded that the provision was permissive and did not displace the statutory provision limiting reimbursements to 80% of reasonable charges. The court answered the certified question in the affirmative and returned the case to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. View "Allstate Insurance Company v. Revival Chiropractic, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a patient, Tommy Harris, who contracted bacterial sepsis due to repeated infections from his dialysis treatment at a clinic in Belleville, Illinois. Harris filed a malpractice lawsuit against the operators of the clinic and later included a claim against Durham Enterprises, Inc., the janitorial company responsible for cleaning the facility. The case primarily concerns Durham’s insurance coverage. Durham submitted the lawsuit to Ohio Security Insurance Company, its insurer, which denied coverage based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for injuries caused by fungi or bacteria. Harris and Durham then negotiated an agreement in which Durham promised not to mount a defense and Harris promised to seek recovery only from the insurer. The state trial judge granted a motion to sever Harris's claim against Durham and set it for a bench trial. The judge held a short, uncontested bench trial and entered judgment against Durham for more than $2 million.Ohio Security was not a party to the state court proceedings and the insurance policy was not in the record. However, the consent judgment includes findings on insurance issues, notably, that the insurer breached its duty to defend and is estopped from asserting any policy defenses. After the judgment became final, Harris filed an amended complaint purporting to add Ohio Security as a defendant. Ohio Security removed the action to federal court and sought a declaration of its coverage obligations. The district court held that the bacteria exclusion precludes coverage.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Harris and Durham jointly appealed, challenging the no-coverage ruling but also raising a belated challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. The court found the jurisdictional argument meritless, as the Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not block federal jurisdiction over claims by nonparties to state-court judgments. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that the policy’s bacteria exclusion precludes coverage for this loss. View "Mitchell v. Durham Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Christine Matlock Dougherty, who sued U.S. Behavioral Health Plan, California (USB) for claims related to her son's healthcare. Dougherty's son, Ryan, was enrolled in a UnitedHealthcare HMO health plan, which Dougherty had access to through her employer. Ryan admitted himself into a residential treatment facility for severe drug addiction, but USB denied coverage for his stay after three days, arguing that he could be treated at home. Ryan fatally overdosed shortly after his discharge from the facility. Dougherty then sued USB, claiming that its wrongful denial of coverage for Ryan's treatment caused his death. USB petitioned to compel arbitration of her claims, but the trial court denied the petition, stating that USB's arbitration agreement was not enforceable because it did not comply with the disclosure requirements imposed by Health & Safety Code section 1363.1.The trial court denied USB's petition to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement did not comply with the disclosure requirements of Health & Safety Code section 1363.1. The court found that there were two separate contracts, one between Dougherty and UnitedHealthcare, and another between Dougherty and USB. The court ruled that the arbitration agreement in the supplement, which governed Dougherty's claims against USB, did not comply with section 1363.1's disclosure requirements.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that USB forfeited its argument that the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was valid under the disclosure requirements of section 1363.1 was delegated to the arbitrator. However, the court agreed with USB that the trial court erroneously denied USB’s petition because USB complied with section 1363.1. The court found that the only "health care service plan" at issue that "includes terms that require binding arbitration" is Dougherty’s plan with UnitedHealthcare, which includes both the EOC and the supplement as components of the plan. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no section 1363.1 violation and reversed the trial court's order denying the petition to compel arbitration. View "Dougherty v. U.S. Behavioral Health Plan" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Court reviewed a case involving the estates of two patients who passed away after undergoing liposuction procedures at CJL Healthcare, LLC in Georgia. After the patients' deaths, their estates filed lawsuits against the clinic and its doctor. The clinic's insurer, Prime Insurance Co., defended the clinic under a reservation of rights but ultimately withdrew its defense after the costs of defending the lawsuits exhausted the insurance coverage.The estates of the patients and the clinic then filed a lawsuit against the insurers, Prime Insurance Co., Prime Holdings Insurance Services, and Evolution Insurance Brokers, claiming they had breached their duties, contract, and acted negligently. They also claimed the insurers had unlawfully sold surplus lines insurance. The district court dismissed the case, and the plaintiffs appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The Court held that the policy unambiguously provided a $50,000 limit for a single professional liability claim and a $100,000 aggregate limit for all claims. The Court further held that the insurers' duty to defend the clinic ended when the policy limits were exhausted by payment of damages and claim expenses. The Court also affirmed the district court's finding that the Georgia Surplus Lines Insurance Act did not provide a private cause of action for the unauthorized sale of surplus lines insurance. View "Jumlist v. Prime Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this case, a group of healthcare providers (Providers) sued the insurer Sanford Health Plan, Inc. (SHP) for excluding them from participating in some of its health benefit plans. The Providers argued that according to South Dakota’s “Any Willing Provider” law (SDCL 58-17J-2), they had the right to participate as panel providers in all of SHP's plans. The law stipulates that a health insurer cannot block patient choice by excluding a willing and qualified healthcare provider from its panel of providers if the provider is within the geographic coverage area of the health benefit plan. The circuit court determined that the law did not permit SHP to exclude a qualified and willing healthcare provider from participating in every health benefit plan it offered, granting summary judgment in favor of the Providers.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's decision. It interpreted the law as plan-specific, meaning an insurer may not exclude any willing and fully qualified provider from any of its plans or from any tier within a plan. It also clarified that an insurer may still exclude providers from plans if they do not meet the statutory requirements for participation as a panel provider. The court concluded that, according to the law, SHP could not exclude the Providers from participating in its TRUE Plan or Tier 1 of the PLUS Plan, thus affirming the circuit court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the Providers. View "Orthopedic Institute v. Sanford Health Plan, Inc." on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered a case where Lawrence General Hospital (LGH) sued Continental Casualty Company for denying coverage for losses LGH alleges it suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. LGH argued that its insurance policy with Continental covered the losses under two types of coverage: coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to property" and a Health Care Endorsement covering losses and costs incurred due to compliance with government decontamination orders.Applying Massachusetts state law, the court ruled that LGH failed to state a claim that the SARS-CoV-2 virus caused "direct physical loss of or damage to its property," affirming the lower court's dismissal of this claim. However, the court found that LGH was subject to decontamination orders due to COVID-19 and thus had a valid claim for coverage under the Health Care Endorsement. As such, the court reversed the lower court's dismissal of this claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lawrence General Hospital v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, a minor and her parents, sued their health insurer, Premera Blue Cross, for denying coverage for the minor’s stay in a wilderness therapy program, claiming that the denial violates mental health parity laws. The plaintiffs also alleged breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim based on alleged violation of federal parity laws does not form a viable common law action. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that a violation of federal parity law would give rise to a viable common law action for breach of contract.Furthermore, the Court held that the breach of contract action based on Premera's alleged violation of state parity laws could not succeed based on the statutory language that was in place at the time.However, the Court did affirm the lower court’s finding that the plaintiffs were not required to produce evidence of objective symptomatology to support their insurance bad faith claim for emotional distress damages. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the bad faith and Consumer Protection Act claims. View "P.E.L. v. Premera Blue Cross" on Justia Law