Kenneth Wright v. Ameritas Life Insurance Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Ameritas Life Insurance Corporation’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action arising from a disability insurance claim. The court dismissed Counts I, II, and V without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed the ADA, HIPAA, and Maryland Consumer Protection Act claims with prejudice for failure to state legally cognizable claims. The court denied the remaining motions as moot, granted Ameritas’s out-of-time filing motion nunc pro tunc, and closed the case.

Holdings

1. Claims seeking to determine coverage under an individual disability insurance policy cannot proceed when the plaintiff has not exhausted the administrative remedies required by Maryland law.
2. A negligence claim alleging failure to settle or process an insurance claim fails when the asserted duty arises from the insurance contract rather than tort law.
3. A claim alleging bad-faith insurance practices under Maryland Insurance Code § 27-303 cannot be pursued directly in court because relief under that provision is available through administrative remedies only.
4. The ADA's employment-related reasonable-accommodation provisions do not apply to an insurer that is not the plaintiff's employer.
5. HIPAA does not confer a private right of action, so a plaintiff cannot sue an alleged violator directly under HIPAA.
6. The Maryland Consumer Protection Act does not apply to an insurance company authorized to do business in Maryland.
7. Leave to amend was properly denied where the plaintiff sought amendment after the scheduling-order deadline and close of discovery without showing good cause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether judgment on the pleadings was warranted because Wright failed to exhaust Maryland administrative remedies before asserting claims concerning denial of disability insurance coverage.
2. Whether Wright's negligence claim was cognizable when the alleged duty to process or settle the insurance claim arose from the insurance contract.
3. Whether Maryland Insurance Code § 27-303 provides a private judicial cause of action for alleged bad-faith claims practices.
4. Whether the ADA's employment-related reasonable-accommodation provisions applied to Ameritas when Ameritas was not Wright's employer.
5. Whether HIPAA provides a private cause of action against an alleged violator.
6. Whether the Maryland Consumer Protection Act applies to an insurance company authorized to do business in Maryland.
7. Whether Wright should be granted leave to amend the complaint after the amendment deadline and close of discovery.

Disposition

dismissed