Statute of Limitations Bars Bad Faith Action
Barry Zalma
Nov 2, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gVVahAMh and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/guGeaUFU and at https://lnkd.in/g3ve2kmw and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4650 posts.
PPO Health Insurance Policy Refusal to Pay Starts Running of Statute of Limitation
In Christina Terry, individually and on behalf of her minor child, G.T., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Health Care Service Corporation, a mutual legal reserve company, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, No. 21-6141, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (October 27, 2023) the Tenth Circuit dealt with the Oklahoma Statute of Limitations.
THE POLICY
A “preferred provider organization” or PPO health insurance plan consists of “networks” made up of healthcare practitioners, facilities, and affiliates who contract with health insurance companies such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma (BCBSOK) to provide its insureds medical services. Known as “preferred providers,” these practitioners, facilities, and affiliates offer healthcare services to PPO policyholders at reduced rates. Preferred providers accept a previously negotiated price from the insurer as payment for covered services. The insured is not responsible for the difference if a preferred provider bills more than the allowable charge. The policy informs the insured that where the policy’s allowable charge for a non-contracting provider is less than such provider’s billed charges, the insured is responsible for the difference. And according to the policy, “[t]his difference may be considerable.”
FACTS & THE CLAIM
Due to G.T.’s precarious condition, his doctor recommended G.T. be transported via air ambulance to the University of Oklahoma’s Children’s Hospital in Oklahoma City. Rocky Mountain Holdings (RMH) transported G.T. and billed charges of $49,999.00 for the 109-mile trip. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against BCBSOK on April 27, 2018, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and fraud. She invoked the district court’s diversity jurisdiction by way of her putative class action.
The court granted BCBSOK’s motion and entered judgment in its favor. The district court held the policy’s limitations provision barred Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The Tenth Circuit noted that a reasonable insured, who by definition has performed due diligence, could readily ascertain from the foregoing language that Plaintiff filed her breach of contract claim later than three years after the expiration of the time within which her policy required her to file an insurance claim.
Plaintiff was aware, or certainly should have been aware, of an injury-that is, BCBSOK would not meet her demands-at the time RMH, the emergency air service responsible for transporting her infant, had a garnishment order issued against her in February 2016. Having established Plaintiff’s knowledge of an injury, the next inquiry is at what point could Plaintiff have become aware of facts establishing her causes of action for fraud and bad faith.
Because Plaintiff’s claim rests in large part on the terms of her PPO policy, once she realized her injury, nothing prohibited her at that point from pursuing her bad faith claim based upon the wording of the policy and BSBSOK alleged representations regarding coverage, both of which she says entitle her to relief.
Plaintiff argued that BCBSOK was exercising bad faith throughout her ordeal and did not stop until just before she filed suit in April 2018. The plaintiff knew of facts that would put a reasonable person on notice that wrongful conduct caused the harm. In this context, a plaintiff must use reasonable diligence in seeking to discover facts giving rise to a claim for relief. Because Plaintiff’s bad faith claim accrued no later than February 2016, the Oklahoma two-year statute of limitations bars such claim.
ZALMA OPINION
Even health insurance policies are contracts and are contracts subject to state statutes of limitation. Regardless of the conduct of the insurer – even if in bad faith – the insured must file her suit within the times allowed by the state’s statutes of limitation. Plaintiff waited too long and it was not enough to claim that the insurer BCBSOK treated her badly by applying its contract as written.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/gmc5avn4 to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
