MARK A. KEARNEY, District Judge.
A medical provider challenging an insurer's handling of a patient's medical claims must plead why it can recover an insured's claim. It is not the insured whose insurance claim is delayed or denied. We cannot simply assume the medical provider suffered injury caused by the insurer's conduct. As the medical provider presently fails to plead an identified injury through the insurer's treatment of at least one identified insured's claim, we grant the insurer's motion to dismiss without prejudice for the medical provider to amend its claim.
Delaware's General Assembly establishes the minimum automobile insurance to be maintained by an owner of a vehicle in the state.
Under the PIP mandate, insurers must pay or deny a PIP claim within 30 days of submission.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (collectively, "State Farm") issue automobile insurance policies to owners of Delaware registered vehicles.
Spine Care alleges State Farm violates the PIP scheme. Spine Care submits unidentified claims covered under PIP and State Farm fails to pay the claim within the 30-day statutory period.
Spine Care sued State Farm on behalf of itself and others similarly situated in Delaware state court alleging violations of the PIP mandate, breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, and seeking declaratory judgment. Spine Care alleges it qualifies as a claimant to bring this lawsuit in its own right because it submits PIP claims.
Spine Care alleges State Farm violated the PIP mandate when it failed to make timely payments, failed to pay all costs for a PIP covered procedure, denied timely payments based on "ongoing investigations," and failed to pay statutory interest on claims paid after the deadline.
State Farm moves to dismiss Spine Care's complaint for failure to state a claim.
Spine Care alleges State Farm violated the PIP mandate when it failed to make timely payments, failed to pay all costs for a PIP covered procedure, denied timely payments based on "ongoing investigations," and failed to pay statutory interest on claims paid after the deadline.
Spine Care alleges it is a claimant because it submitted the claim to State Farm. The Superior Court of Delaware instructs "the word `claimant' [in § 2118B] is used in recognition of the general practice that health care providers submit claims to insurers."
In Sammons, which Spine Care relies on, the court held a class representative must suffer harm to bring a claim and support the class action. Mrs. Sammons, as a class representative, alleged her insurer failed to timely pay her PIP claim and she suffered harm.
While Spine Care, as the medical provider, may be a proper claimant under Sammons, Spine Care fails to allege specific injury and harm caused by State Farm's conduct. It needs to identify a specific claim such as Mrs. Sammons' claim. Spine Care's burden is not difficult but it must specify a claim to support its alleged "unlawful practice" and the injury and harm caused by State Farm. We dismiss Spine Care's claim for violating the PIP for failure to state a claim.
Spine Care alleges State Farm also breached its insurance policies with its insureds and those insured patients assigned Spine Care the right to pursue their breach of contract claim. State Farm argues Spine Care fails to identify the patient-assignors. State Farm also argues Spine Care fails to allege an existing contract between its patient-assignors and State Farm and fails to allege any contractual terms which were breached.
Spine Care alleges its patients assign their right to pursue breach of contract claims against their insurance companies and attaches a blank assignment form to its complaint.
In response, Spine Care now claims it "is happy to amend the complaint to name its patient-assignors" while denying it has a legal obligation to do under Progressive Spine & Orthopaedics, LLC v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield.
While Spine Care satisfies the second part of Progressive Spine by alleging the language of assignment, Spine Care does not allege specific patients who assigned their rights, unlike Progressive Spine, where the medical provider filed claims for specific patients.
We dismiss Spine Care's breach of contract and bad faith breach of contract claims because it fails to allege an assignment of contractual rights from a patient for standing.
State Farm argues Spine Care fails to state a claim for declaratory judgment because it seeks judgment as to past conduct and declaratory judgments are inappropriate solely to adjudicate past conduct. Spine Care concedes it cannot seek declaratory judgment for past conduct and Spine Care seeks leave to amend its complaint to seek injunctive relief.
Spine Care omits a central step of bringing a claim against State Farm — the identity of a claim assigned to it and affected by State Farm's alleged conduct. In the accompanying Order, we grant State Farm's motion to dismiss without prejudice to Spine Care filing an amended complaint curing the present deficiencies.
Our court of appeals requires we apply a three-step analysis under a 12(b)(6) motion: (1) "it must `tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state a claim;'" (2) "it should identify allegations that, `because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth;'" and, (3) "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief" Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679); see also Burtch, 662 F.3d at 221; Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d. Cir. 2011); Santiago v. Warminster Township, 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d. Cir. 2010).