Dameron Hosp. Ass'n v. AAA N. Cal., Nev. & Utah Ins. Exch.
Decision Date | 26 April 2022 |
Docket Number | C086518 |
Parties | DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, NEVADA & UTAH INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant and Respondent. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
HATTON, PETRIE & STACKLER, Gregory M. Hatton and John A. McMahon, Newport Beach, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH, Richard Wardell Loveland and Min K. Kang, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Dameron Hospital Association (Dameron) requires patients or their family members to sign Conditions of Admissions (COAs) when Dameron provides the patients’ medical care. The COAs at issue in this action contain language that assigns to Dameron direct payment of uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM) benefits and medical payment (MP) benefits that would otherwise be payable to those patients under their automobile insurance policies. Here, Dameron treated five of AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah Insurance Exchange's (also known as California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, here CSAA) insureds for injuries following automobile accidents. Those patients had UM and/or MP coverage as part of their CSAA coverage, and Dameron sought to collect payment for those services from the patients’ UM and/or MP benefits at Dameron's full rates. Instead of paying to Dameron the lesser of either all benefits due to the patients under their UM and MP coverage, or Dameron's full charges, CSAA paid portions of those benefits directly to the patients which left balances owing on some of Dameron's bills. Dameron sued CSAA to collect UM and MP benefits it maintains CSAA owed Dameron under the assignments contained in the COAs.
The trial court concluded that Dameron could not enforce any of the assignments contained in the COAs and entered judgment in CSAA's favor following CSAA's successful motion for summary judgment.
Here, we hold Dameron cannot collect payment for emergency services from the UM or MP benefits due to patients that were covered under health insurance policies. Additionally, we find (1) the COA forms are contracts of adhesion; (2) it is not within the reasonable possible expectations of patients that a hospital would collect payments for emergency care directly out of their UM benefits; and (3) a trier of fact might find it is within the reasonable expectations of patients that a hospital would collect payments for emergency care directly out of their MP benefits. Finally, we find that the parent of a minor lacked the authority to assign UM or MP benefits payable to that minor under a policy taken out by his nonparent legal guardian. Accordingly, we conclude that Dameron could not maintain causes of action to collect MP or UM benefits due to four of the five patients directly from CSAA. However, consistent with this opinion, the trial court can consider whether an enforceable assignment of MP benefits was made by one adult patient.
O.N., P.F., Stephen L., R.D., and D.W. were each in separate vehicle accidents. All of the patients were treated for injuries at Dameron following their accidents.
At the time of the patients’ respective accidents and treatment at Dameron, they were covered by CSAA automobile insurance policies that included UM coverage and/or MP coverage. CSAA's policies described its MP coverage as follows: "We will pay reasonable expenses incurred within one year from the date of accident by an insured person who sustains bodily injury as a result of an accident covered under this Part for necessary medical, surgical, X-ray, and dental treatment, including prosthetic devices, eyeglasses, and hearing aids and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing, and funeral costs." It indicated, with respect to MP benefits, "[w]e may pay the insured person or the person(s) providing the necessary services, or the person(s) responsible for payment of expenses incurred under this Part, as we deem appropriate."
CSAA described its UM coverage for bodily injury as follows:
At the time of the accidents, O.N. and P.F. had health care insurance coverage. This record does not tell us if any of the other patients had health insurance.
Before they left the hospital, each patient or a member of their family signed a COA, that included the following paragraph numbered 11 regarding an assignment of insurance benefits and third party billing:
According to Craig Haupt, the Credit & Collection Manager for Dameron, who has had that position since 1989, Haupt believes COAs are "contracts of necessity."
Additional factual background will be provided as to specific patients in the discussion below.
Dameron filed this action on May 11, 2011. The First Amended Complaint contains two causes of action. In the first cause of action, Dameron seeks an injunction prohibiting CSAA from engaging in "unfair business practices" in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the Unfair Competition Law). The second cause of action seeks damages and declaratory relief to remedy CSAA's alleged breach of contract in failing to honor the patients’ purported assignments of their UM and/or MP benefits to Dameron. Both causes of action hinge on Dameron's position that, in failing to honor the purported assignments and pay UM and MP benefits to Dameron, CSAA acted unfairly and/or unlawfully. The trial court sustained CSAA's demurrer to the first cause of action without leave to amend.
CSAA brought a motion for summary judgment on the first amended complaint and the trial court entered a judgment in CSAA's favor.
Dameron appeals.
In its opening brief, Dameron does not mention, let alone ask for relief from, the trial court's ruling on the demurrer. Dameron also makes no argument as to the proper standard of review for this court to apply when reviewing rulings on demurrer. Dameron also made no argument as to why, specifically, CSAA violated the Unfair Competition Law in its opening brief. Dameron also did not include a copy of the ruling on the demurrer with its appendix. Instead, the demurrer is first addressed in CSAA's filings...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Humboldt Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. A.B. (In re J.R.)
...element. We decline to consider these arguments because they have been forfeited.6 (See Dameron Hospital Assn. v. AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah Ins. Exchange (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 971, 997 [improper to raise new argument in reply brief].) Further, even if we considered them on the ......
-
Curtis v. Palomar Health
...disregard such belated arguments. (E.g., Dameron Hospital Assn. v. AAA Northern California, Nevada &Utah Ins. Exchange (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 971, 982; Cox v. Griffin (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 440, 453.) Plaintiffs further forfeited the argument by failing to cite any supporting legal authoritie......
-
State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Superior Court of Ventura Cnty.
...77 Cal.App.5th 998293 Cal.Rptr.3d 124STATE of California ... ...
-
Med. Staff of St. Mary Med. Ctr. v. St. Mary Med. Ctr.
...opening brief (or even in its reply brief). (See Dameron Hospital Assn. v. AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah Ins. Exchange (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 971, 982.) [6] To the extent the Medical Staff contends the termination of group contracts violated the Hospital's agreement with the Attorne......