DWFII Corporation v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 469 F. App'x 762

DWFII Corporations filed a class action against State Farm challenging reimbursement determinations for PIP under Florida no-fault statute.
The class sought includes Florida health care providers whose claims were denied or reduced with an EOR coded 318, 319, 322, or 323 due to NCCI edits.
The district court denied class certification and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Eleventh Circuit reviews class certification decisions for abuse of discretion under Rule 23.
The court held DWFII failed to satisfy Rule 23(a) typicality and Rule 23(b)(2)/(b)(3) requirements.
DWFII seeks both monetary and injunctive/declaratory relief, but monetary damages are not incidental to equitable relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class satisfies Rule 23(a) typicality	DWFII argues typicality is met via common NCCI edits	State Farm contends individual defenses and facts predominate	No; typicality not satisfied
Whether Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate	Class seeks injunctive relief and damages	Damages predominate; not appropriate	Not appropriate under 23(b)(2)
Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3)	Common questions exist around NCCI edits	Individualized proof required for each provider	Predominance not shown

Turner v. Beneficial Corp., 242 F.3d 1023 (11th Cir. 2001) (typicality and class certification standards)
Heffner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., Inc., 443 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 23 review)
Murray v. Auslander, 244 F.3d 807 (11th Cir. 2001) (23(b)(2) injury relief predominance considerations)
Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (common questions and predominance framework)
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) (abrogation/part on other grounds; impact on class issues)