Jerry M. Adair, et al. v. Cigna Corporate Services, LLC and The Cigna Group

Summary

The opinion addresses Defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended putative class action alleging that Cigna and its subsidiary used third-party tracking technologies on Cigna websites and member portals to intercept insureds’ medical and other electronic information. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, and common law theories including intrusion upon seclusion, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The court grants the motion in part and denies it in part, including ruling on the materials properly considered at the pleading stage and Plaintiffs’ Article III standing.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a concrete and particularized injury because the alleged interception of healthcare-related communications and medical information bore a close relationship to the traditionally recognized harm of intrusion upon seclusion.
2. Plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing for unjust enrichment because neither their diminution-in-value theory nor their benefit-of-the-bargain theory alleged a sufficient personalized economic injury.
3. Plaintiffs had standing to assert breach of fiduciary duty because Defendants' argument that no fiduciary duty existed was a merits challenge rather than a standing challenge.
4. Plaintiffs had standing to seek prospective injunctive relief because they alleged that the tracking technologies remained embedded and that some named Plaintiffs continued to use, or remained insured by, Cigna.
5. At the pleading stage, Plaintiffs' allegations that they agreed to Cigna's Terms of Use, which incorporated the Privacy Notice, established consent to the disclosed tracking practices and were dispositive of the ECPA, WESCA, and intrusion-upon-seclusion claims as pleaded.
6. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim by alleging that a confidential relationship arose because they entrusted Cigna with private medical information and ceded decision-making control over its handling.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged concrete and particularized injuries sufficient to establish Article III standing for their ECPA, WESCA, intrusion-upon-seclusion, unjust-enrichment, and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims.
2. Whether Plaintiffs had standing to seek prospective injunctive relief based on alleged continuing tracking.
3. Whether the court could consider Defendants' exhibits under incorporation-by-reference or judicial-notice doctrines at the pleading stage.
4. Whether Plaintiffs' alleged assent to Cigna's Terms of Use and incorporated Privacy Notice established consent sufficient to defeat their ECPA, WESCA, and intrusion-upon-seclusion claims on a motion to dismiss.
5. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Cigna sufficient to state a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

Disposition

other