Eleventh Circuit Reminds Lawyers to Get Back to Basics when Dismissing Long-Pending Case Due to Lack of Standing
by Jordan C. Loper, Associate
As attorneys, it can be easy to get bogged down in the minutia and complicated details of a case. In a recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit, the complex details of the language of an insurance policy were at issue; however, the Court doubled back to dismiss the case based on the class representative’s lack of standing to bring the case in the first place.
In A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO General Insurance Co., Conor Carruthers was injured in an auto accident and was treated by Gerber Chiropractic for injuries. Carruthers made a claim under his auto insurance policy with GEICO for “personal injury protection” benefits, for which he had a limit of $10,000. Under the language of GEICO’s policy, Carruthers had to be diagnosed with an “emergency medical condition” in order to receive more than $2,500. Carruthers did not have an emergency medical diagnosis at the time he made his claim with GEICO. Even without this diagnosis, GEICO paid Carruthers $7,311.00 pre-suit, well over the $2,500 cap.
Gerber believed GEICO underpaid personal injury protection benefits as a “general business practice” and sought declaratory relief to establish GEICO’s policy breach on behalf of a class of health care providers. Carruthers assigned his rights to Gerber. Gerber became the class representative, and the complaint made no claim for monetary damages or future injury.
In District Court, GEICO argued that Gerber lacked standing due to GEICO’s payment of benefits to Carruthers. The District Court granted summary judgment for Gerber on the policy language. GEICO appealed for lack of standing and error in certifying a class, as well on the decision regarding policy language.
First, the Court addressed Gerber’s rights as assignee, noting that an assignee cannot have greater rights than the assignor. The Court goes further, stating that in class actions, a plaintiff is not relieved of meeting standing requirements just because another member of the class meets them. The Court determined Carruthers suffered no injury as he was paid beyond the amount he was entitled to under his policy with GEICO at the time of filing of his complaint, and therefore the case and controversy requirement under Article III of the Constitution was not met.
Second, the Court addressed Gerber’s claims for declaratory judgment and found that no facts asserting a “substantial likelihood of future injury” were included in the suit.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s decisions and dismissed the case. In its opinion, the Court reminded us that standing cannot be waived or conceded and can be brought at any stage of litigation, even on the Court’s own motion.