Molloy v. Independence Blue Cross
56 V.I. 155
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2012Background
- D.M., a premature newborn, required urgent air evacuation to Miami due to VI medical limitations.
- Molloys sued BCBSVI and MASAI (and related Blue Cross entities) for torts, contract, and false advertising arising from delays in air-ambulance services.
- D.M. was transported to Miami three days after birth; care delay allegedly caused by insurer approvals and service gaps.
- BCBSA, alleged licensor, was dismissed early for lack of personal jurisdiction; case then languished for about two years before dismissal for failure to prosecute.
- D.M.’s claims were settled; Molloys appealed arguing errors on jurisdiction, discovery, and Halliday-based dismissal.
- This Court reversed in part: reinstated jurisdictional ruling for Count VI against BCBSA, and remanded for full Halliday-factor analysis on failure-to-prosecute dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Superior Court err in dismissing BCBSA for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Count VI? | Molloys contend BCBSA had sufficient Virgin Islands contacts via 4903(a)(1)/(2)/(4). | BCBSA challenged jurisdiction; lower court determined no qualifying contacts tied to Counts II–V. | Count VI jurisdiction established; reverse for Count VI only. |
| Was the discovery denial to compel BCBSPR interrogatories an abuse of discretion? | Interrogatories relevant to BCBSA–BCBSPR relationship and VI contacts. | interrogatories unrelated to BCBSA's VI contacts and thus not discovery-relevant. | No abuse; six interrogatories deemed non-relevant to jurisdiction. |
| Did the Superior Court abuse its discretion in dismissing the Molloys’ claims for failure to prosecute without addressing all Halliday factors? | Court should apply full six-factor Poulis/Halliday framework; misapplied by omitting meritoriousness and alternative sanctions. | Court found sufficient grounds to dismiss under applicable factors. | Yes; remanded to conduct full Halliday six-factor analysis with explicit findings. |
| If jurisdiction exists on Count VI, does due process allow specific jurisdiction over BCBSA? | Minimum contacts plus arising-from/related to advertisements justify specific jurisdiction. | Questionable link between BCBSA’s forum contacts and Counts II–V; only Count VI sustains. | Specific jurisdiction valid for Count VI; affirmed remand for Halliday analysis. |
| Should the court apply a claim-by-claim or broader approach to 4903(b) arising-from analysis? | Treat Counts II–V separately from Count VI; each arises from different contacts. | Unified relation among related acts could justify a shared arising-from analysis. | Adopted approach requires separate analysis per claim; Count VI sustained on 4903(a)(2)/(4). |
Key Cases Cited
- Halliday v. Footlocker Specialty, Inc., 53 V.I. 505 (V.I. 2010) (six-factor test for dismissal for failure to prosecute; explicit findings required)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (six-factor framework for sanctions in dismissal)
- In re Najawicz, 52 V.I. 311 (V.I. 2009) (two-part test for Virgin Islands personal jurisdiction (long-arm and due process))
- O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) (arising-from/related-to standard for specific jurisdiction in VI context)
- Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2009) (evidence standard for prima facie jurisdiction showing)