130 F. Supp. 3d 236
D.D.C.2015Background
- Campbell participated in HealthExtras disability program from 2000 to 2014 and paid premiums.
- Program marketed as disability insurance but Campbell alleges it violated DC insurance laws and was illusory.
- Catamaran Health Solutions (formerly HealthExtras) underwrote/administered the program; various entities allegedly profited.
- Master Policy and related disclosures allegedly contained undisclosed exclusions and misrepresentations; Campbell never received the Master Policy.
- Plaintiff filed a five-count complaint asserting unjust enrichment, breach of contract, conversion, CPPA violations, and money had and received; defendants moved to dismiss under 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- Court grants in part and denies in part the motions to dismiss, addressing standing, accrual, and several claims on the merits.]
- Note: Alliant Insurance Services Inc. is dismissed as a party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under Article III | Campbell has injuries in fact: overcharged premiums and CPPA violations. | Standing premised on speculative injury from Master Policy and potential claim-denial unless claims actually denied. | Standing found for unauthorized charges and CPPA; Master Policy injury rejected for lack of concrete injury. |
| Timeliness under statutes of limitations | Continuing misrepresentation tolling and discovery rules render claims timely. | All claims time-barred; accrual in 2000 or 2004. | Not time-barred on face; insufficient to dismiss at 12(b)(6); limitations still analyzed for each claim. |
| Unjust enrichment claim viability | Defendants retained premiums illegally or in excess; unjust enrichment applies. | Policy lawful under DC statute; no unjust enrichment for void/illegal policy. | Unjust enrichment survives to extent of unauthorized premium overcharges; voided policy not viable basis. |
| Conversion claim viability | Defendants converted money by taking unauthorized premiums. | No identifiable fund; conversion requires identifiable money; overcharges not sufficient. | Converted claim dismissed for lack of identifiable fund/appropriation. |
| CPPA claim sufficiency and particularity | CPPA violations based on misrepresentations and concealments; Rule 9(b) applicability debated. | Some CPPA elements require Rule 9(b) specificity; others do not; some subclaims fail. | CPPA claim viable overall; § 28-3904(h) dismissal granted; rest of CPPA claims sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; avoid conclusory pleading)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claims)
- Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001) (standing/ jurisdiction considerations in 12(b)(1) context)
- Credit Lyonnais-N.Y. v. Washington Strategic Consulting Grp., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 92 (1995) (unjust enrichment and money had and received doctrine)
- Government of Rwanda v. Rwanda Working Group, 227 F. Supp. 2d 45 (2002) (conversion/standing context in complex financial disputes)
- McNamara v. Picken, 950 F. Supp. 2d 193 (2013) (money as subject of conversion requires identifiable fund)