Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and Allegiance Benefit Plan Management, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Count XIX of the amended complaint. The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged a contract implied in fact for payment of reasonable fees for emergency medical services provided to out-of-network patients. The court declined to apply the pre-existing duty rule at the motion-to-dismiss stage and found that the statutory framework did not clearly abrogate the common-law contract theory.
Holdings
- The amended complaint plausibly alleged an enforceable contract implied in fact because the parties' conduct could support an inference of offer, acceptance, consideration, essential terms, and mutual assent, even absent a formal written agreement.
- The absence of an agreement on a particular contract price did not defeat the implied-in-fact contract claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- The court declined to apply the preexisting-duty rule to dismiss the implied-in-fact contract claim at the pleading stage in the statutory emergency-care context.
- Count XIX did not violate the cited shotgun-pleading categories because it identified the Cigna entity involved and relied on an exhibit listing the specific patients and claim details, providing adequate notice of the claims.
Questions Presented
- Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged the existence of a contract implied in fact under Florida law.
- Whether the alleged lack of agreement on a specific reimbursement rate defeated mutual assent or consideration at the pleading stage.
- Whether Plaintiff's statutory duty to provide emergency care triggered the preexisting-duty rule and barred consideration for the alleged implied-in-fact contract.
- Whether Count XIX was an impermissible shotgun pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (16)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents, 477 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1484 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)(followed)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)(followed)
- Merle Wood & Assocs., Inc. v. Trinity Yachts, LLC, 857 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2012)(followed)
- St. Joe Corp. v. McIver, 875 So. 2d 375, 381 (Fla. 2004)(followed)
- Com. P'ship 8098 Ltd. P'ship v. Equity Contracting Co., 695 So. 2d 383, 385, 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(followed)
- Fla. Emergency Physicians Kang & Assocs., M.D., Inc. v. United Healthcare of Fla., Inc., 526 F. Supp. 3d 1282, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2021)(followed)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2015)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.