IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company v. MSPA Claims 1, LLC
3D2021-1790
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (MSPA and La Ley) were assigned rights to reimbursement for conditional medical payments made by Florida Healthcare Plus (a now-defunct Medicare Advantage Organization, MAO).
- The defendant, IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co., is alleged to have failed to reimburse secondary payers for conditional payments it was primarily obligated to cover under primary insurance policies.
- The initial assignment of rights from Florida Healthcare Plus to La Ley (and then to MSPA) was not finalized until more than a year after the original class action complaint was filed by MSPA.
- The initial trial court granted class certification, but the appellate court reversed, finding MSPA lacked standing at inception and the class claims failed predominance.
- On remand, MSPA added La Ley as a plaintiff and sought only declaratory relief, but class certification was again granted and again appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing at case filing | Addition of La Ley as plaintiff cures standing; relation-back applies | Standing must exist at inception; cannot be cured by subsequent assignment or amendment | Plaintiffs lacked standing at inception and could not cure it by adding La Ley later |
| Applicability of relation-back doctrine | Relation-back allows cure of standing defect by adding La Ley | Relation-back does not apply when adding new plaintiffs or curing initial lack of standing | Relation-back does not cure lack of standing at inception |
| Class certification—predominance | Declaratory claim avoids predominance defect; appropriate for class relief | Claims still require individualized analysis of insurance and payments; predominance not satisfied | Class certification improper due to individual issues predominating and lack of proper class action basis |
| Relief nature—money damages | Sought declaratory relief only | Relief still essentially for money damages and past harms, requiring individualized inquiry | Class action inappropriate for predominantly monetary relief; certification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. MSPA Claims 1, LLC, 263 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (initial appellate decision reversing class certification for lack of standing and predominance)
- Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2011) (standing is a threshold inquiry for class certification)
- McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standing is determined at case inception, not by later assignment)
- Freedom Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wallant, 891 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ((b)(2) certification improper for cases seeking predominantly money damages)
- May v. Holley, 59 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1952) (declaratory judgment requires an actual, present controversy)
- Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001) (law of the case doctrine binds trial court to prior appellate rulings)