(Dennis J. Wall)
The District of Connecticut's decision in the case of Dane v. UtdHealthcare was the focus of an article published here on September 8, 2020, titled "FILED RATE DOCTRINE BELONGS TO STATES, NOT FEDS." A panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has updated that article.
On appeal, a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Dane v. UtdHealthcare Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ___, No. 19-2330-cv, 2020 WL 5415301 (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2020). However, the appellate panel refused to address the Filed Rate Doctrine, writing that it did not need to address it to decide the case.
As noted here on September 8th, the District Judge did find it necessary to address the Filed Rate Doctrine. Finding no Connecticut case law on point, he applied the federal FRD and let it go at that. The article noted that federal judges frequently default to the federal FRD instead of grappling with the consequences of a State FRD or lack thereof.
The appellate panel reported, incorrectly, that nonetheless the District Judge applied a "Connecticut" Filed Rate Doctrine in this case which the District Judge found did not exist. He didn't even try to invent it. To their credit, the appellate judges did not try to invent it either. But they were flat wrong in saying that the District Judge did.
What the Second Circuit panel decided was interesting, though, to say the least. The panel ruled that the plaintiffs' claims under what the panel termed "anti-rebating statutes" (the case involved allegations of insurance kickbacks) were the only way that the plaintiffs could state claims under Connecticut law, and that they hadn't adequately alleged facts to support "injury in fact" in order to bring such claims.
"'Injury in Fact': What Happens to Bad Faith Statutes" is the subject of § 9:14.50 in 2 Dennis J. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith (3d ed. and 2020 Supps. Thomson Reuters West).
Please read the disclaimer. © 2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments