Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Insurance Balance Billing Class Fails Rule 23’s Requirements

January 30, 2015 by Paul G. Williams

Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Arkansas state court against his automobile insurer for alleged failure to pay the full amount it was contractually required to pay for his medical bills following a car accident.  Specifically, the defendant insurer allegedly paid a reduced in-network rate comparable to that negotiated by health insurers, which plaintiff argued improperly left him – and a putative class of similarly situated policyholders – to pay the difference between the bills he incurred and the amounts paid by his insurer, despite the fact that the full amount of the bills was less than his automobile insurance policy limit.

After defendant removed the case to federal court under CAFA, plaintiff moved for class certification.  In denying the motion for class certification, the Arkansas federal district courtfound the class was not ascertainable because – in many cases – the medical providers might accept the in-network payment as payment in full, leaving no balance due from the insured.  As a result, the court would need to conduct individualized inquiries to determine whether each insured for whom the insurer paid a lower in-network rate was harmed by the practice.   In so holding, the court expressly rejected plaintiff’s argument that an insured has standing to assert a claim for breach-of-contract even if he has not suffered any actual damages.  For similar reasons, the class failed the commonality, typicality, superiority, and predominance tests: individualized inquiry was required to determine whether, after the insurer’s payment of the reduced in-network rate, each policyholder was left with an outstanding balance.

Littleton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5:14-CV-05007, 2015 WL 128577 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 8, 2015).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Eighth Circuit Decertifies Four FDCPA Classes Where District Court Failed to Conduct Rigorous Analysis Required by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

Next Article »

Florida District Court Rejects Motion To Strike But Allows Pre-Certification Standing Challenge In Snack Food Labeling Case
Avatar

About Paul G. Williams

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.