 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Murphy v. United Services Auto Assn.5/10/2005
Date Argued: April 28, 2005
ORDER
Upon careful review of the filings in the above captioned matter, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lacking of Standing is granted, and Certain Defendants' motion to Dismiss is granted as to the Class Claims. It appears to the Court that:
Plaintiffs Melissa Murphy ("Murphy") and Peter Galley ("Galley") have brought suit for themselves and as representatives of a class of persons who have purchased no-fault auto insurance pursuant to 21 Del. C. ยง 2118. They are suing Progressive Northern Insurance Company ("PNIC") and GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company ("GEICO"), their providers, respectively, and fifteen other insurance companies who provide no-fault insurance in Delaware, as a defendant class. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in an industry-wide practice that unfairly denies full payment for medical expenses.
They are seeking monetary damages in the amount of $1,606.00 for Murphy and $1,633.60 for Galley. In addition, they seek monetary damages for the amounts each class plaintiff has had to pay for medical expenses as a result of this practice, and they seek punitive damages. The Plaintiffs also have requested a declaratory judgment that the practice violates the public policy of Delaware and undermines the intent of the No Fault Law. Specifically, they ask for "an order declaring denials based on the insurers' medical reports, unauthorized and illegal, an order declaring the practice of unilateral reductions in medical expense payments unauthorized and illegal . . . ." Pl.'s Compl. at 6. A motion for Class Certification has not yet been made.
The Defendants (other than GEICO and PNIC) have filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), claiming the representative Plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit against them. PNIC has adopted the reasoning of and joined in a limited capacity the Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing. It claims that Galley and other non-PNIC policy holders have no standing to sue it, for the same reasons they have no standing to sue the other insurance companies.
GEICO and PNIC have also filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, alleging that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead the Superior Court Civil Rule 23 class action criteria, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They have been joined in this motion by the other fifteen defendants. More specifically, GEICO and PNIC claim that Plaintiffs 1) have failed to adequately define their class; 2) have not shown how common questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions; 3) have failed to allege how the representative Plaintiffs, Murphy's and Galley's, claims are typical of those of the class members; 4) have not proved that the representative Plaintiffs are adequate to represent the interests of the class members; and, 5) did not allege in their complaint that handling the case as a class action is superior to other means of resolving these disputes. Moreover, these two Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs had pleaded those Rule 23 requirements, they would not, as a matter of law, be able to meet them. In addition, GEICO and PNIC allege that the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a class action because the relief they seek is primarily monetary. They also claim that the Complaint is not clear enough under Superior Court Rule 8 to give Defendants notice of the nature of the claim (and, in a footnote, that it is prolix, in violation of Rule 8's mandate that a Complaint be "simple, concise and direct").
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiffs, Murphy and Galley do not have standing to sue the Insurance Company Defendants from which they have
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|