Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), which was established by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nearly fifty years ago to address a medical malpractice insurance crisis. The JUA acts as a professional liability insurer of last resort for high-risk medical providers and is funded solely by premiums paid by its policyholders. Over the years, the JUA has accumulated a surplus of about $300 million through investments. From 2016 to 2019, the Commonwealth attempted to transfer the JUA’s surplus to the General Fund or assume control of the JUA through legislative actions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania reviewed the case multiple times. In 2017, the JUA sued the Governor after the enactment of Act 44, which mandated the transfer of $200 million from the JUA to the General Fund. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction and later summary judgment in favor of the JUA, holding that the JUA was a private entity and that the Act violated the Takings Clause. In 2018, after the enactment of Act 41, which placed the JUA under the control of the Insurance Department and mandated the transfer of all its assets, the JUA again sued. The District Court ruled in favor of the JUA, reiterating its earlier decision. In 2019, the JUA challenged Act 15, which required the JUA to be funded by the Commonwealth and categorized it as a Commonwealth agency. The District Court granted partial summary judgment for the JUA, holding that certain provisions of Act 15 constituted a regulatory taking and violated the First Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and applied the principles from Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward to determine whether the JUA is a public or private entity. The Court concluded that the JUA is a public entity because it was created to serve a public purpose, exercises the Commonwealth’s coercive power, and only the Commonwealth has a legally protectable interest in the JUA. Consequently, the JUA cannot assert constitutional claims against the Commonwealth. The Court reversed the District Court’s rulings in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association v. Governor of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. (GOH) engaged in a scheme to underpay its employees by misappropriating fringe benefits owed under the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) and the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA). This led to two class-action lawsuits against GOH. GOH sought coverage under its insurance policy with Twin City Fire Insurance Company (Twin City), which denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage. GOH and its Board of Directors counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that certain claims in the class actions were covered under the policy.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed GOH's counterclaims, concluding that the claims were not covered under the policy due to a policy exclusion for claims related to "Wage and Hour Violations." The court also granted Twin City's motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirming that Twin City had no duty to defend or indemnify GOH for the class-action claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit agreed that the claims in question were not covered under the policy because they were related to wage and hour violations, which were explicitly excluded from coverage. The court emphasized that the exclusion applied broadly to any claims "based upon, arising from, or in any way related to" wage and hour violations, and found that the factual allegations in the class actions were indeed related to such violations. Thus, Twin City had no duty to defend or indemnify GOH under the terms of the policy. View "Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Glenn O. Hawbake, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Marla Knudsen and William Dutra, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against MetLife Group, Inc. They alleged that MetLife, as the administrator and fiduciary of the MetLife Options & Choices Plan, misappropriated $65 million in drug rebates from 2016 to 2021. Plaintiffs claimed this misappropriation led to higher out-of-pocket costs for Plan participants, including increased insurance premiums.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and individualized injury. It reasoned that the plaintiffs had no legal right to the general pool of Plan assets and had not shown that they did not receive their promised benefits. The court found the plaintiffs' claims that they paid excessive out-of-pocket costs to be speculative and lacking factual support.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury-in-fact, as their allegations of increased out-of-pocket costs were speculative and not supported by concrete facts. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide specific allegations showing how the misappropriated drug rebates directly caused their increased costs. The court emphasized that financial harm must be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, to satisfy Article III standing requirements. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their ERISA claims. View "Knudsen v. MetLife Group Inc" on Justia Law

Levi Werley was seriously injured while riding an uninsured dirt bike. After the insurance of the driver who struck him did not fully compensate for his injuries, Levi’s parents sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under their own automobile insurance policies. Their insurer, Mid-Century Insurance Company, paid $250,000 under one policy but denied an additional $250,000 under another policy, citing a household vehicle exclusion. The Werleys argued that this exclusion was invalid and unenforceable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed with the Werleys, ruling that the household vehicle exclusion was invalid under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). The court held that the exclusion acted as a de facto waiver of stacking, which is not permissible under the MVFRL. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Werleys, entitling them to the additional UIM benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the District Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the household vehicle exclusion in the Multi-Vehicle Policy was valid and enforceable. The court distinguished this case from precedents like Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnification Co. and Donovan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., noting that the Werleys had never paid premiums for UIM coverage on the dirt bike. The court emphasized that exclusions limiting UIM coverage are generally enforceable unless they act as impermissible de facto waivers of stacking, which was not the case here. The Third Circuit remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Mid-Century. View "Mid-Century Insurance Co v. Werley" on Justia Law

The case involves the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and its affiliates, who sued several medical practices in separate actions in the District of New Jersey. GEICO alleged that the practices defrauded them of more than $10 million by abusing the personal injury protection (PIP) benefits offered by its auto policies. The practices allegedly filed exaggerated claims for medical services, billed medically unnecessary care, and engaged in illegal kickback schemes. GEICO's suits against the practices each included a claim under the New Jersey’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA).The practices sought arbitration of GEICO’s IFPA claim, arguing that a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim and that a different New Jersey insurance law allowed them to compel arbitration. However, each District Court disagreed, ruling instead that IFPA claims cannot be arbitrated. The practices appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' decisions, holding that claims under the IFPA are arbitrable. The court found that GEICO's argument that the IFPA implicitly prohibits arbitration was not persuasive. The court also concluded that GEICO’s IFPA claims must be compelled to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), as the claims fell under the scope of the arbitration agreement in GEICO's Precertification and Decision Point Review Plan. The court remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration of GEICO’s IFPA claims against the practices. View "GEICO v. Caring Pain Management PC" on Justia Law

The case involves Sherry and David Lewis, who sued their auto insurer, GEICO, for allegedly breaching their insurance contract when their car was totaled. The Lewises claimed that GEICO undercompensated them by applying a "condition adjustment" that artificially reduced its valuation of their car and by failing to reimburse them for taxes and fees necessary to replace the car. They sought to certify a class of similarly underpaid insureds for each instance of underpayment.The District Court certified both classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. GEICO appealed the decision, challenging the certification of the classes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the order certifying the class for the taxes-and-fees claim. However, the court found that the Lewises lacked standing to bring the condition-adjustment claim as they failed to show that GEICO caused them concrete harm when it applied the condition adjustment. Therefore, the court vacated the District Court’s order in part and remanded with instructions to dismiss the condition-adjustment claim.Regarding the taxes-and-fees claim, the court found that the Lewises met the requirements for standing as they alleged financial harm stemming from GEICO's pre-2020 practice of declining to pay taxes and fees to lessee insureds. The court also found that the class was ascertainable, meeting the requirements for class certification. View "Lewis v. GEICO" on Justia Law

The case involves the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and its affiliates, who sued several medical practices in separate actions in the District of New Jersey. GEICO alleged that the practices defrauded them of more than $10 million by abusing the personal injury protection (PIP) benefits offered by its auto policies. The practices filed exaggerated claims for medical services, billed medically unnecessary care, and engaged in illegal kickback schemes. GEICO's suits against the practices each included a claim under the New Jersey’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA).The practices sought arbitration of GEICO’s IFPA claim, arguing that a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim and that a different New Jersey insurance law allowed them to compel arbitration. However, each District Court disagreed, ruling instead that IFPA claims cannot be arbitrated. The practices appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' decisions and compelled arbitration. The court found that the IFPA does not implicitly prohibit arbitration. The court also found that the IFPA claims before them should be compelled to arbitration under a different New Jersey law. Furthermore, the court concluded that GEICO’s IFPA claims must be compelled to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court held that the arbitration agreement in the Plan covers the IFPA claims and therefore, must compel arbitration. The court also addressed practice-specific issues in the Mount Prospect and Precision Spine appeals. The court concluded that the District Court should not have granted GEICO leave to amend its complaint in the Mount Prospect case. In the Precision Spine case, the court held that the District Court abused its discretion by denying Precision Spine’s motion sua sponte because it was addressed to the unamended complaint. View "GEICO v. Mount Prospect Chiropractic Center PA" on Justia Law

M.P.N. manufactures radiators in Philadelphia. Mercer worked at M.P.N. from 2015-2017. In 2019, Mercer sued., alleging that M.P.N. concealed blood test results showing that he had dangerously high levels of zinc and lead after he was exposed to lead and cadmium on the job. A physician advised M.P.N. to remove Mercer from work but M.P.N. ignored the advice. As a result, Mercer continued working at M.P.N. and suffered permanent, avoidable brain damage. The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act is the “exclusive” source of employer liability for suits relating to workplace injuries suffered by employees. Mercer argued that he could recover from M.P.N. under a “fraudulent misrepresentation” exception recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.Zenith Insurance sought a declaration that it was not contractually obligated to defend M.P.N., against a workplace liability lawsuit. In a partial summary judgment, the district court declared that Zenith has a duty to defend M.P.N. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal. Because the district court did not rule on all of the claims before it, that order is not final and cannot be appealed under the usual source of jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1291. Zenith argued the court could consider its challenge under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), which permits appeals from non-final orders that relate to injunctive relief but the Third Circuit rule is that purely declaratory orders are not injunctive and cannot be enforced by contempt. View "Zenith Insurance Co. v. Newell" on Justia Law

For many years, Zurn, a manufacturer of plumbing products and accessories, has faced multiple lawsuits in which claimants allege bodily injury or wrongful death caused by asbestos in its products. To cover litigation costs, Zurn used various insurance policies issued by various insurance companies. Eventually, Zurn was told by its primary and umbrella insurers that Zurn had exhausted the limits of liability under those policies. When Zurn’s excess policy insurers refused to pay, Zurn sought a declaratory judgment that it had exhausted the limits of liability under its primary and umbrella policies and that Zurn’s excess policy insurers had a duty to defend and pay defense costs in the underlying asbestos suits. After discovery, the district court interpreted the meaning of various primary, umbrella, and excess policies, and determined the scope of some duties insurers have under them.One excess policy insurer—American Home—appealed several partial summary judgment orders. The Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. American Home does not challenge orders that are functionally equivalent to an injunction, No part of the declaration-granting orders compels American Home “to undertake the defense” of Zurn. View "Zurn Industries Inc v. Allstate Insurance Co" on Justia Law

Energy contracted with Superior for hydraulic fracking services to extract natural gas. In 2007, Energy advised Superior that it believed Superior had damaged some wells. Superior notified its insurance provider, American, which agreed to provide Superior with defense counsel, reserving its right to contest coverage. Energy sued Superior in state court. A jury determined that Superior had damaged 53 wells; the verdict form specified that Superior “fail[ed] to perform its contract" with Energy "in a workman-like manner” and that this “failure” was “a substantial factor in causing damage.”Superior’s policy with American provided coverage for “property damage” arising out of an “occurrence,” defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions[,]” but it did not define the term “accident.” Superior also purchased an “underground resources and equipment coverage” (UREC) endorsement for coverage “against risks associated with well-servicing operations[.]”In a federal court declaratory judgment action seeking indemnification, American argued that damage caused by a failure to perform a contract “in a workman-like manner” is not an “occurrence” under the policy and that, even if the policy covered Superior’s claim, it would involve a single “occurrence” under Pennsylvania law and would be subject to a $2 million per-occurrence limit.The district court granted summary judgment for Superior. The Third Circuit reversed. An accident is “unexpected,” which “implies a degree of fortuity that is not present in a claim for faulty workmanship.” The UREC endorsement does not eliminate the policy’s “occurrence” requirement. View "American Home Assurance Co. v. Superior Well Services, Inc." on Justia Law