Summary
The Supreme Court of Maryland held that a putative class action was not moot when the insurer tendered individual relief while a substantially identical action was pending in federal court and the plaintiffs promptly refiled in state court before having a reasonable opportunity to seek class certification. The Court further held that Maryland Insurance Article § 15-810(c), together with applicable regulations, requires coverage for medically necessary expenses arising from in-vitro fertilization to the same extent as other pregnancy-related procedures. The Court concluded that the policy exclusion for ovum transplants, certain reproductive procedures, and preservation techniques did not exclude medically necessary embryo-thawing expenses associated with IVF, and remanded for further proceedings.
Holdings
- A tender of individual relief to a putative class representative does not moot a class action before the representative has had a reasonable opportunity to seek class certification, including necessary discovery. This rule extends to a putative class action initially filed in another court, dismissed there for lack of jurisdiction, and promptly refiled in substantially the same form in state court.
- Policy Exclusion 16.11 does not apply to any medically necessary expenses arising from IVF procedures. Whether embryo thawing is covered turns on whether it was a medically necessary component of the IVF procedure, not on whether IVF is similar to the procedures listed in the exclusion.
Questions Presented
- Whether CareFirst's tender of individual relief to the putative class representatives while a substantially similar class action was pending in federal court rendered the subsequently refiled state-court action moot or deprived the Skippers of standing.
- Whether the Skippers' complaint failed to state a claim because Policy Exclusion 16.11 excluded coverage for embryo thawing associated with IVF.
- Whether Maryland Insurance Article § 15-810(c), COMAR 31.11.06.06B(11), and Maryland Insurance Administration Bulletin 13-01 require individual health insurance policies purchased through the Health Benefit Exchange to cover medically necessary expenses arising from IVF procedures to the same extent as other pregnancy-related procedures.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (22)
- Frazier v. Castle Ford, LTD., 430 Md. 144, 153, 157, 160-64 (2013)(extended)
- RRC Northeast, LLC v. BAA Maryland, Inc., 413 Md. 638, 643 (2010)(followed)
- D.L. v. Sheppard Pratt Health Sys., Inc., 465 Md. 339, 350 (2019)(followed)
- Blackstone v. Sharma, 461 Md. 87, 110 (2018)(followed)
- Hancock v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 480 Md. 588, 603 (2022)(followed)
- Kendall v. Howard County, 431 Md. 590, 602 (2013)(followed)
- Suter v. Stuckey, 402 Md. 211, 219 (2007)(followed)
- State v. Ficker, 266 Md. 500, 506-07 (1972)(followed)
- Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980)(persuasive)
- Creveling v. GEICO, 376 Md. 72, 83-87 n.3 (2003)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 22.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.