Insurance Litigation & Regulatory Law Blog : California Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Barger & Wolen Law Firm : CA Insurance & Bad Faith Litigation

As referenced in our February 23, 2010 blog, "Reprieve for Insurers: Medicare Secondary Payer Reporting Requirements Delayed," the CMS recently published several important alerts, including the latest version of the User Guide (3.0). A brief summary of the alerts and changes to the User Guide are described below. The documents are also linked in pdf for easy reference.

NGHP RRE Compliance Alert (2/24/2010): Specifies what CMS will consider to "be in compliance" with Section 111. Basically, compliance equals: (a) Registering with the CMS Coordination of Benefits Contractor ("COBC"); (b) Engaging in data exchange testing; (c) Beginning and continuing regular Section 111 production data exchanges with the COBC. In its 2/25/2010 Teleconference for NGHP Policy Questions and Answers, CMS emphasized that they are "not interested in civil monetary penalties but a good data exchange." The CMS Alert alleviates concerns over the $1,000 per day penalty provision.

NGHP RRE Who Must Report Alert (2/24/2010): Clarifies multiple scenarios in which questions have arisen as to who is an RRE, including corporate structure issues and siblings; deductibles versus self-insured retentions, self-insurance pools, subrogation, and workers compensation, among several others.

NGHP User Guide (Version 3.0) (2/22/2010): In connection with the first production of Claim Input Files for the first quarter of 2011, TPOC reporting begins 10/1/2010; ORM reporting goes back to 1/1/2010.  CMS provides a  summary of changes to the User Guide, which is set forth in Section 1 of the User Guide.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

U.S. Supreme Court Holds "Principal Place of Business" for Federal Diversity of Citizenship Purposes Is Corporations' "Nerve Center"— Where Their Executives Direct and Control Corporate Activities

by Sandra I. Weishart

In a decision closely watched by multi-state corporations, including those in the insurance industry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that a company’s “principal place of business” is where “a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.”  Hertz Corp vs. Melinda Friend et al., a class action which the corporate defendant wished to remove to federal court, presented the following issue:

[w]hether, for purposes of determining principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a court can disregard the location of a nationwide corporation’s headquarters – i.e., its nerve center.

In analyzing the issue, the Court first reviewed the history of Section 1332, noting the increasing difficulty, in modern times, of defining a corporation's "principal place of business," which resulted in the application of different criteria and inconsistent precedents among the federal Circuits. Accordingly, in an unanimous opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court held:

In an effort to find a single, more uniform interpretation of the statutory phrase [“principal place of business”] this Court returns to the “nerve center” approach: “[P]rincipal place of business” is best read as referring to the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. In practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters — provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center,” and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings.

This decision is of particular interest to insurance companies and other corporations with a "nerve center" in another state but which, nevertheless, conduct a significant amount of business in California. In recent years, the Ninth Circuit has imposed increasingly more onerous requirements on corporate entities' ability to remove actions to federal court, if the corporation has employees, offices or property or otherwise conducts business activities here in California. Now, in most cases, removal to federal court will be far more easily accomplished.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

by Steven Weinstein & Marina Karvelas

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced on February 16, 2010, that it will extend the deadline for reporting requirements under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act from April 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011. The news provides welcome relief for property and casualty insurers who have been working diligently to meet the new reporting requirements amidst significant uncertainties in implementation.

In addition, the HHS promised it will release during the week of February 22 the next version of its User Guide as well as provide an alert that describes the steps that reporting entities can take to assure their ongoing compliance with the new reporting requirements. 

The Medicare Secondary Payer Mandatory Reporting Requirements

Over two years ago, Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (“MMSEA”) 42 U.S.C., § 1395y(b)(7)(8). Section 111 of MMSEA added new and significant mandatory reporting requirements for liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault auto insurance and workers’ compensation (collectively “NGHPs” or non group health plans) as well as group health plans (“GHPs”). Every settlement, judgment, award, or other payment from insurers to a Medicare beneficiary must be reported to the HHS through its Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”). Likewise, individuals who receive ongoing reimbursement for medical care through no-fault insurance or workers’ compensation must be reported to CMS.

The new MMSEA reporting requirements do not change existing rules that determine whether Medicare or another payer is the primary or secondary payer with respect to the Medicare beneficiary. The goal behind the new reporting requirements is to enable the HHS through CMS to better obtain necessary information to determine when Medicare’s financial responsibility is secondary, and if so, reduce Medicare payments, or if already paid, recoup them. In this regard, Medicare may recover any conditional payments it has made that should have been paid by the primary insurance plan.

Take for example, an auto accident where the injured party is a Medicare beneficiary. If that Medicare beneficiary has available auto liability or no-fault auto insurance to cover medical expenses, payments under those policies are primary to any Medicare payments for such expenses. In fact, Medicare is always a secondary payer to liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance, and workers’ compensation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an article appearing in today's Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journals (pdf), I discuss H.R. 4115, which, if passed, will overturn the Supreme Court's recent rulings in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Twombly and Iqbal held that a complaint filed in federal court could be dismissed if it does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.  

H.R. 4115 (called "The Open Access To Courts Act of 2009"), by contrast, would prohibit a federal district judge from dismissing a complaint unless it appears

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of their claim which would entitle plaintiff to relief.

A judge would also be prohibited from dismissing a complaint based on the determination that the factual contents of the complaint do not show their claim to be plausible or do not warrant a reasonable inference that the defendant is laible for the misconduct alleged.  

The exact effect of this legislation is unclear, but, if passed, it is certain to invite the argument from plaintiff's lawyers that all they need to do to get a complaint past the pleading stage is to include as few facts as possible. Vagueness may become the order of the day, and it will certainly become more difficult to dismiss a case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12.  

This law may mean that we will soon see complaints in federal court containing fewer and vaguer allegations. For the insurance industry, this may mean rethinking the generally accepted practice of invariably removing state court actions to federal court on diversity grounds. If a motion to dismiss is being contemplated, it may see more success as a state court demurrer. 

Please feel free to contact me directly for more information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In November 2004, the voters of California passed Proposition 64, which was intended to rein in certain abuses in and bring some clarity to the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et. seq. (“the UCL”). Five years later, and after a number of decisions issued by the California Supreme Court construing the changes made by Prop 64, that clarity is still elusive.

Take, for example, the Court’s May 18, 2009 decision In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), which concluded that the new standing requirements for a UCL claim created by Prop 64 only require the named plaintiff/class representative to establish standing and not absent class members. In the months since the issuance of Tobacco II, a number of decisions have considered whether the Court’s conclusion as to “standing” applies to a trial court’s determination when it comes to considering the issue of “commonality” (i.e., whether common issues predominate over individual issues) for purposes of a class certification motion. Our firm’s blogs have reported on two intermediate appellate cases that found “Tobacco II to be irrelevant because the issue of ‘standing’ simply is not the same thing as the issue of ‘commonality.’”  See Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (2009); Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Insurance Co., 178 Cal. App. 4th 830 (2009). 

Cohen is now the subject of a Petition for Review pending before the Supreme Court, along with several requests for depublication of the intermediate court’s opinion. The court is expected to decide whether the case is to be accepted for review or depublished by March 1, 2010.

But Cohen is just one case on the Supreme Court’s plate. The following are cases now actual pending before the Supreme Court that address issues relating to the UCL, along with the date the Court accepted review and the issue(s) presented on the Court’s website:

Loeffler v. Target Corporation, Case No. S173972 (June 19, 2009) 

Does article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution or Revenue and Taxation Code section 6932 bar a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, section 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable?  [The Court also issued a “grant and hold” on November 19, 2009 in Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, Case No. S173972, pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Loeffler v. Target Corp.]

Clark v. Superior Court (National Western Life Insurance Co.), Case No. S174229 (September 9, 2009)

Is Civil Code section 3345, which permits an enhanced award of up to three times the amount of a fine, civil penalty, or “any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter” in actions brought by or on behalf of senior citizens or disabled persons seeking to “redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition,” applicable in an action brought by senior citizens seeking restitution under the Unfair Competition Law?

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, Case No. S171845 (June 10, 2009)

Does a plaintiff's allegation that he purchased a product in reliance on the product label's misrepresentation about a characteristic of the product satisfy the requirement for standing under the Unfair Competition Law that the plaintiff allege a loss of money or property, or is such a plaintiff unable to allege the required loss of money or property because he obtained the benefit of his bargain by receiving the product in exchange for the payment?

Pineda v. Bank of America, Case No. S170758 (April 22, 2009)

Can penalties under Labor Code section 203 (late payment of final wages) be recovered as restitution in an Unfair Competition Law action?

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., Case No. S170577 (April 22, 2009)

Request that the Supreme Court deicide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  (Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008) (now withdrawn))  The questions presented are: (1) Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week? (2) Does the UCL apply to the overtime work described in question one? (3) Does the UCL apply to overtime work performed outside of California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. section 207 et seq.)?

Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. S166435 (November 19, 2008)

This case presents the following issues: (1) When plaintiffs pay overcharges on goods or services as a result of the anticompetitive conduct of defendant sellers but recover the overcharges through increased prices at which the goods or services are sold to end users, may defendants assert a “pass-on” defense and argue that plaintiffs were not injured because they did not suffer financial loss as a result of the anticompetitive conduct? (2) Is restitution available under the Unfair Competition Law to plaintiffs who recovered from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants? (3) When plaintiffs recover from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants, have they suffered actual injury and lost money or property for purposes of establishing standing under the Unfair Competition Law, as amended by Proposition 64?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

California Insurance Code of Regulations, specifically 10 CCR § 2695.4, requires that an insurer notify its insureds of any contractual time limitation after the insured or beneficiary submits his or her claim. In the California Court of Appeal’s January 21, 2010 decision in Superior Dispatch v. Insurance Corporation of New York, the court found the failure to provide the notice required by § 2695.4 results in the insurer’s inability to rely on the contractual limitation provision in precluding litigation. 

In legal parlance, the appellate court found that the insurer was “equitably estopped” from benefiting from the contractual limitation provision. Being “estopped” from doing something is the same as being barred or blocked from doing something. When someone or an entity is equitably estopped from doing something, they are being barred or blocked from doing something based upon traditional notions of fairness or justice. 

Based on prior precedents, the court held that enforcing compliance with § 2695.4 in a way to negate the contractual limitation provision (despite how conspicuous the term was in the policy) was needed to “remedy the trap for the unwary.” This is especially troubling for insurers who are not intending to “trap” anyone, but expect that the policy will be enforced as a contract between the insurer and the insured (i.e., an insurer who expects the terms of policies that were agreed to by both parties to be enforced). Thus a warning to insurers is necessary: Just because the insured agrees to a term by purchasing the policy and has the opportunity to read the entire policy, the insurer cannot expect that all the terms will be enforced by California courts. In this case, the insurer must go beyond what is required in the policy and provide specific notice of the provision in the policy, despite the insured’s ability to read it for himself. The court went further in holding that the insurer needs to still provide notice of the contractual limitation even when the insurer knows that the insured is represented by counsel. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company (issued January 19, 2010), the California Court of Appeal found that an insurer properly rescinded an insured’s individual health insurance policy based on medical history misrepresentations contained in the application submitted to the insurer. The court also concluded that the insurer had no statutory duty to physically attach the application to the policy or to conduct further inquiries beyond the application during the underwriting process to ascertain the truthfulness of the insured’s representations before it issued the policy. The Nieto decision is addressed in Barger & Wolen’s Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied certification to a purported class of purchasers of deferred annuities. In a decision issued earlier today by United States District Judge Janis Sammartino in In re National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-1018-JLS (JSP), the court denied certification as to a nationwide class alleging RICO violations and a California state class alleging multiple statutory violations, including claims under the Unfair Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.).

Plaintiffs claimed that National Western “orchestrated a nationwide scheme to target senior citizens and lure them into purchasing its high cost and illiquid deferred annuities,” basing their claim on three alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions – the failure to disclose the high commissions paid to agents, the presence of an illusory bonus on premiums paid, and the use of an increasing asset fee, each of which impacted the interest credited on the annuities. Focusing solely on the commonality and typicality requirements to establish a viable class, the court found that such requirements were lacking. For example, the court emphasized that none of the class representatives possessed an annuity with an asset fee that was increased. Moreover, the court found plaintiffs had not met their burden in demonstrating that all of National Western’s more than twenty annuity products contained the alleged same misrepresentations and omitted the same information.  While the court did observe that National Western used standardized forms, they were not identical, and the evidence presented by plaintiffs failed to support their contention that those materials contained the same alleged misrepresentations and omissions.

The court denied the motion for class certification without prejudice and also explained that its ruling did not address any of the numerous other arguments advanced by the parties.

Larry Golub and Kent Keller of Barger & Wolen were co-counsel for National Western Life Insurance Company.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court, Costco had retained a law firm to provide it with legal advice regarding whether certain Costco warehouse managers in California were exempt from California’s wage and overtime laws. As part of the analysis, Costco’s attorney interviewed two warehouse managers. Afterward, the attorney generated an opinion letter.

Several years later, plaintiffs filed an action claiming that Costco had misclassified some of its managers as exempt employees, and thus did not pay them overtime to which they were otherwise entitled. In the course of discovery, plaintiffs sought to obtain a copy of the attorney’s opinion letter. Costco resisted producing the letter on the basis that it was a privileged attorney-client communication. The plaintiffs disagreed, contending that the letter was not privileged because it contained non-privileged factual information regarding the managers’ job duties that had been obtained during the course of the attorney’s interview of the managers.

The trial court ordered a discovery referee to review the opinion letter in camera to determine whether the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine should prevent its disclosure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link