Ids Property Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mspa Claims 1
263 So. 3d 122
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- MSPA Claims 1, LLC (MSPA) is an assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus (a Medicare Advantage Organization) and sued IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company under Florida PIP law seeking reimbursement for medical payments Florida Healthcare Plus made for an IDS-insured (M.A.) after a 2014 auto accident.
- Florida Healthcare Plus paid $87,491 for M.A.’s care; assignments: Florida Healthcare Plus → La Ley Recovery Systems → MSP Recovery, LLC → MSPA; MSPA demanded reimbursement from IDS but IDS said the insured’s PIP was exhausted.
- MSPA sought class certification for Florida’s Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) who paid conditional Medicare Advantage benefits and sought reimbursement from IDS; trial court certified the class after a September 2016 hearing.
- The district court reversed the class certification, holding individual issues predominated (necessitating bill-by-bill, case-by-case factual inquiries) and therefore Rule 1.220’s predominance requirement was not met.
- The court also held MSPA lacked standing at the time it filed its amended complaint because MSPA’s assignment approvals by Florida Healthcare Plus (via the Receiver’s June 1, 2016 settlement) occurred after MSPA filed on March 8, 2016; standing must exist at inception of the suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class certification — predominance | MSPA: common legal question (IDS’s obligation to reimburse) predominates and class treatment is appropriate | IDS: each claim requires individualized fact inquiries (payments, payees, exhaustion of PIP) defeating predominance | Reversed: individual issues predominate; class certification improper |
| Standing of assignee (MSPA) | MSPA: holds valid assignment rights and may sue for reimbursement | IDS: MSPA lacked valid assignment approvals at filing, so no standing at suit inception | Reversed on alternate ground: MSPA lacked standing when amended complaint filed |
| Applicability of Eleventh Circuit AllState decision | MSPA relied on AllState to support its standing | IDS: AllState addressed different assignment/anti-assignment issues and does not resolve validity-of-assignment timing here | Court: AllState inapplicable to this standing challenge |
| Proof for absent class members | MSPA: representative’s proof will prove other class members’ claims | IDS: proof for one claimant (M.A.) does not necessarily prove others due to case-specific payment histories | Court: MSPA failed to show representative proof would resolve absent members’ claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Porsche Cars of N. Am., Inc. v. Diamond, 140 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (predominance requires that representative proof will prove absent class members’ claims)
- Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Sugarman, 909 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (predominance not satisfied when factual determinations are unique to each plaintiff)
- MSP Recovery LLP v. Allstate Ins. Co., 835 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2016) (interpretation of federal anti-assignment statute in related MSPA disputes)
- Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. McGrath Cmty. Chiropractic, 913 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (standing must exist at the inception of the case)
- MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 204 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (holding MSPA lacked standing due to unapproved assignments)
- MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 204 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (same conclusion on standing)