Employers Insurance Company of Wasau v. First State Orthopaedics, P.A., 312 A.3d 597

First State Orthopaedics (FSO), a Delaware orthopedic practice, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Liberty’s use of a billing code (Code x553) to deny workers’ compensation insurance coverage violated Delaware law.
Before FSO filed its complaint, Liberty (the group of insurance company defendants) had already stopped using Code x553 due to switching billing systems, with the change occurring six months pre-suit.
Despite new denials no longer containing Code x553 language, FSO pointed to 19 uncorrected pre-suit invoices as ongoing injury and also argued for class certification.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for FSO, finding standing based on Liberty’s refusal to correct old denials or concede illegality, and issued a declaratory judgment that Code x553 did not provide a meaningful explanation as required by law.
On appeal, Liberty argued FSO lacked standing since the code was discontinued pre-suit, among other points; the Supreme Court’s en banc panel reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge discontinued practice	Standing existed due to uncorrected denials and potential for future use	No standing since challenged conduct ceased pre-suit and no imminent injury	No standing; controversy not justiciable
Mootness/Voluntary cessation distinction	Mootness should apply—future risk if Liberty resumes code use	Standing analysis controls since conduct ceased before litigation	Standing applies, not mootness; standing lacking
Redressability of declaratory relief for past harms	Declaratory judgment would redress ongoing harm from past denials	Prospective declaratory relief can’t remedy past uncorrected invoices	Declaratory relief wouldn't redress past injury; no standing
Effect of defending discontinued policy on standing	Liberty’s ongoing defense suggests possible recurrence and thus injury	Defense of policy irrelevant if no risk of re-use, especially after pre-suit cessation	Defense of code does not establish injury in fact

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (core Article III standing requirements: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (defines "injury in fact" and standing requirements)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (clarifies distinction between standing and mootness)
Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) (past exposure to illegal conduct does not by itself show current standing for injunctive relief)
Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing requires real and immediate threat of injury, not past actions alone)