316 F.R.D. 57
D. Conn.2016Background
- Five named plaintiffs (including estates) sued CNA alleging breach of long-term care insurance policies, bad faith, unjust enrichment, and CUTPA violations for denying coverage of assisted-living stays in Connecticut.
- Dispute centers on CNA’s interpretation that Managed Residential Communities (MRCs) and services provided through Assisted Living Services Agencies (ALSAs) do not qualify as Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCFs) under two policy forms (LTC 1 and Con Care B). Denials rested on lack of state facility licensure, absence of 24‑hour nursing, and lack of daily medical records.
- Plaintiffs propose a Rule 23(b)(2) class of current Connecticut LTC 1 and Con Care B policyholders and a Rule 23(b)(3) subclass of members who were medically eligible, resided in MRCs receiving ALSA care, were denied coverage for licensing/24‑hour nursing/daily-records reasons, and suffered damages.
- The court evaluated Rule 23 prerequisites (ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) requirements, addressing CNA’s arguments about overbreadth, individualized issues, standing, and predominance/manageability.
- Court certified the (b)(2) class (representatives: Foster and Miller) and a narrowed (b)(3) subclass (representatives: all named plaintiffs), finding common questions — primarily CNA’s uniform policy interpretation — predominate and injunctive relief appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of (b)(2) class | Class of current CT LTC 1 and Con Care B holders is objectively definable and administratively feasible | Class overbroad; many members lack standing (never will make MRC claims) | Class limited to current CT residents who bought policies in CT; ascertainable and standing satisfied |
| Ascertainability & definition of (b)(3) subclass | Subclass can be defined as MRC residents receiving ALSA care denied for licensure/24‑hr nursing reasons | Term "assisted‑living facility" not a CT term; membership requires individual factfinding | Court redefined subclass to MRC/ALSA criteria; ascertainable via objective criteria |
| Commonality/Typicality | Central dispute is uniform policy interpretation; identical policy language makes classwide resolution appropriate | Coverage qualification depends on individualized facility-level and medical facts; damages and defenses vary | Common questions predominate; typicality satisfied despite some individualized issues to be handled at claims stage |
| Rule 23(b)(2) appropriateness & standing for injunctive relief | Broad, class‑wide declaratory/injunctive relief needed to stop CNA’s uniform refusal to cover MRC/ALSA stays; living reps are threatened with ongoing injury | Plaintiffs primarily seek money; living reps lack imminent injury or remaining benefits for injunctive relief | (b)(2) certification appropriate; living reps (Foster, Miller) have standing for prospective relief; estates cannot represent injunctive interests |
| Rule 23(b)(3) predominance & superiority | Common contractual interpretation and uniform conduct make class treatment efficient; individual damages do not defeat predominance | Individualized damages, causation, and defenses make predominance/manageability lacking | (b)(3) subclass certified: common issues predominate; class action is superior despite individualized damage calculations |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Am. Int’l Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 689 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2012) (district court must conduct rigorous analysis under Rule 23)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requirement and limits on broad class certification)
- Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, 806 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2015) (ascertainability as an implied Rule 23 requirement)
- Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006) (class must be defined so that everyone in it has Article III standing)
- Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp., 778 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2015) (damages requiring individual calculation do not alone defeat predominance)
- In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 574 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2009) (typicality analysis: class members’ claims must arise from same course of events)