Insurance Litigation Law Blog | Regulatory Law | Bad Faith | California | Lawyer | Attorney | Barger & Wolen

In Gray v. Begley, (filed March 22, 2010), the Second Appellate District, Division Three (Justice Croskey), confirmed that an insurer defending its insured may intervene in the underlying action to protect its interests against a private settlement between the insured and the injured party. This right exists even if the insurer has reserved its rights to deny coverage later.

Dicta in prior case law suggested that, in reservation of rights situations, insurers did not have a sufficient interest to justify intervention. The Begley decision, however, confirms that the right to intervene is no different in a situation where the insurer has admitted coverage than a situation where the insurer defends under a reservation of rights.

[T]he key factor in determining whether an insurer is bound by a settlement reached without the insurer’s participation is whether the insurer provided the insured with a defense, not whether the insurer denied coverage.’ It therefore follows that an insurer providing a defense, even though subject to a reservation of rights, may intervene in the action when the insured attempts to settle the case to the potential detriment of the insurer.” Begley at pp. *20-22, citing Safeco Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. App. 4th 782, 785, 787 (1999).

The necessity for such a rule was evident from the facts of the particular case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

by Richard De La Mora

Having unsuccessfully urged Congress to impose a national freeze on health insurance rates, Harvey Rosenfield has refocused his efforts on the California legislature and AB 2578.

Who is Harvey Rosenfield? He is, in his own words, the “author of California’s landmark property-casualty insurance rate regulation Proposition 103 – recognized as the most successful rate regulation in the country.” In fact, AB 2578, which cleared Assembly Health Committee earlier this week, includes the following provisions modeled closely on Proposition 103:

• A requirement that all rates and rate changes be filed with and approved by the Department of Insurance or Department of Managed Health Care before they go into effect;

• A prohibition on the use or approval of rates that are “excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory”;

• A right for consumer advocates to request a hearing on a rate application, and a requirement that a hearing be granted whenever the rate increase sought exceeds 7%.

Finally, Mr. Rosenfield has made sure that he and his friends in the consumer advocacy industry are taken care of by advocating a provision requiring health plans to pay the consumer advocacy fees associated with fighting the health plan’s rate application.    

We have seen this played out before, as our firm has represented property-casualty insurers in administrative and judicial matters involving insurance rates regulated under Proposition 103 since 1989.

While property-casualty insurers have had plenty of time to adjust to the dictates of rate regulation, health plans will face a steep learning curve if AB 2578 becomes law. 

We are hopeful that this legislation will not become law. Even if it does, AB 2578 will likely face legal challenges and hurdles as did Proposition 103.

From our experience, we learned some of those challenges will be more successful than others. Nevertheless, if rate regulation comes to pass, a company’s goals can still be achieved provided that it has a complete understanding of the proposed regulatory system, plans ahead, has input into the development of regulations, and prepares itself for life after the system is implemented.

Barger & Wolen will continue to keep our clients and friends apprised on new issues pertaining to AB 2578 via the firm’s Insurance Litigation & Regulatory Law Blog and the Life, Health & Disability Law Blog. If you would like to be notified about upcoming events and seminars pertaining to AB 2578 and other issues, please subscribe to our blog via the RSS feed or add your e-mail in the left column.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We are inundated with news reports and talking heads discussing "health care reform" or "ObamaCare."  Always a favorite target, insurers are scrutinized for proposed premium rate increases and we hear calls for Congressional hearings on the topic.

What is absent from the noise is an intelligent discussion of what the government can and can't legally do.

For example, on March 3, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in California Pharmacists Association, et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, Director of The California Department of Health Services enjoining California's legislative attempt at reducing payments to medical service providers by five percent under the State's Medicaid program.

The Court held that the State must establish reimbursement rates that are (1) consistent with high-quality medical care and (2) sufficient to enlist enough providers to ensure that medical services are generally available to Medicaid recipients.

In other words, under the Federal Medicaid Act, a State cannot pick a rate that may lead to rationing or shortages in the market place. Apparently, California's legislature failed to conduct the necessary analysis before attempting to mandate lower reimbursement rates.

The government's ability to fix prices is ultimately constrained by the very instrument that gives the government its legitamacy, the United States Constitution. California has a long history of insurance premium rate regulation and the Courts have recognized that the Constitution places very real limits on what the government can do.

California's Proposition 103 was passed in 1988 and attempted to require insurer's to “rollback” by 20% the premium on policies of property and casualty insurance issued or renewed after November 8, 1988. Proposition 103 allowed relief from the 20% rate rollback requirement only if an insurer could establish that it was “substantially threatened with insolvency.”

In Calfarm v. Deukmejian, 48 Cal.3d 805 (1989), the California Supreme Court struck down the “insolvency” standard for relief from the rollback requirement. To replace that standard the Court held that an insurer must be granted relief from the rollback if it would deny the insurer the “possibility of a just and reasonable return” on its Proposition 103 lines of business. Calfarm, supra at 816, 820-825.  Specifically, the Court stated at page 817:  

[t]he concept that rates may be set at less than a fair rate of return in order to compel the return of the past surpluses is not one supported by precedent. ‘The just compensation safeguarded . . . by the Fourteenth Amendment [of the Constitution] is a reasonable return on the value of the property used at the time that it is being used for the public service . . . . [T]he law does not require the company to give up for the benefit of future subscribers any part of is accumulations from past operations. Profits of the past cannot be used to sustain confiscatory rates for the future.’

So, as we hear calls for hearings on health insurance premium rates and politicians making promises regarding what health insurers will be required to provide and do under proposed health care reforms, remember that every service promised comes with a cost. A cost for which the health insurer has the Constitutional right to charge a premium sufficient to reimburse its cost and provide it with a fair rate of return [profit].

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the backdrop of the raging battle over healthcare reform, a Los Angeles jury rendered on Monday a verdict in favor of an insured against Anthem Blue Cross arising out of the health insurer’s refusal to provide coverage for an out-of-state liver transplant. The case, Ephram Nehme v. Wellpoint, Inc.; Blue Cross of California d/b/a/ Anthem Blue Cross, initially filed on August 14, 2008, has been closely followed in the legal and health insurance communities.

As reported in the Los Angeles Times, the jury found, by a vote of 10-2, that Anthem Blue Cross had breached its contract by refusing to pay for the cost of the out-of-state transplant operation, and by a vote of 9-3 that Anthem Blue Cross had acted in bad faith. Anthem Blue Cross stated in the article that its contract provides that transplants must be preformed in California and that it had approved Nehme for a transplant at UCLA Medical Center once his name came up on the UCLA waiting list. The same article stated that the jury awarded Nehme $206,000 for the cost of the operation, and that he would also be able to recoup his legal fees. (Under California law, pursuant to the decision in Brandt v. Superior Court, upon a finding that an insurer has acted in bad faith, the insured is able to seek to recover only those attorney’s fees incurred to obtain the contract benefits, but not the fees incurred to show bad faith.) The jury did not, however, award any punitive damages against Anthem Blue Cross.

The trial court proceedings are not yet concluded, with further post-trial motions to be filed, and it is unknown whether Anthem Blue Cross will appeal the jury’s verdict.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This week, the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation of the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DWC”) proposed a regulation, California Code of Regulations, title 8, Section 9789.70(c), that would completely exempt air ambulance companies from the Official Medical Fee Schedule (“OMFS”) that applies to all other providers who furnish medical services under the California workers’ compensation system.

The DWC’s purported impetus for this abrupt action was “to avoid the hazards and cost of litigation against the Division,” as stated in the DWC’s Initial Statement of Reasons. That Statement further advised that the DWC based its proposed regulation on the contention that the OMFS may likely be preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which it says “prohibits states from adopting or enforcing regulations which have any effect on airline rates of air carriers.”

This issue of preemption by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (“FAA/ADA”), was asserted in a lawsuit filed last year by California Shock Trauma Air Rescue (“CALSTAR”), an air ambulance company rendering services primarily in California. That action, filed in federal court in Sacramento against more than 75 workers’ compensation insurers and self-insured employers, is entitled California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, et al.  This blog reported on that case on July 30, 2009, after the federal district court dismissed the case, finding that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over CALSTAR’s claims.  

CALSTAR then appealed the action to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is now fully briefed and awaiting oral argument.

Apparently not satisfied with the court's decision in its federal court action, CALSTAR threatened to sue the DWC unless it did something to offer relief to CALSTAR and other air ambulance companies.  In an article posted on workcompcentral.com, the president and chief executive officer of CALSTAR stated that, after having the federal trial court dismiss his company’s action, “we went back to the DWC and said, ‘We’ve been instructed to sue you,’ is what brought this action on their part.” It is clear that the threat of a lawsuit prompted the DWC to issue the proposed regulation and completely exempt CALSTAR and other air ambulance companies from the ambit of the OMFS.  

The defendants in the pending federal court action contend that the FAA/ADA does not preempt the OMFS as it applies to the medical services that air ambulance companies provide in California, and indeed exempting such companies from the scope of the OMFS on preemption ground is anathema to the legislative goals and purposes of the FAA/ADA. Larry Golub and Sandra Weishart of Barger & Wolen LLP represent a number of the defendants in the litigation.

The DWC will be holding a full-day hearing on the proposed regulation in Oakland on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, to receive statements and argument from all interested persons.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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