Hawaii Insurer Successfully Dismisses California Suit for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

    Standard Health Care’s California lawsuit against Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA) was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Stanford Health Care v. Hawaii Med Service. Assoc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159192 (N.D. Cal. Sept 2, 2022). 

    Stanford and Anthem Blue Cross of California contracted for Stanford to provide medical services to Anthem Blue Cross plan members at negotiated rates. HMSA had a agreement with Anthem Blue Cross that allowed its plan members to also access Stanford’s medical care at the negotiated rates. 

    Between August 2016 and Janaury 2020, Stanford provided medical care under the Stanford/Blue Cross Contract to eight patients with HMSA insurance. The price provided under the Stanford/BlueCross Contract was $2,329,184.40. However, HMSA paid only $355,674.46 and refused to pay the balance. 

    Stanford sued HMSA in federal district court in California for breach of implied contract and quantum merit. HMSA moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. HMSA argued the court did not have general jurisdiction over it. General jurisdiction over a corporation was appropriate only when the corporation’s contacts with the forum state were so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in the state. HMSA was not regarded as “at home” in California because it was neither incorporated in or had its principle place of business in California. Stanford’s allegations failed to indicate that HMSA’s contacts with California were exceptional or so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in the state.    

    HMSA also argued that the court did not have specific jurisdiction over it. The test was whether the defendant deliberately engaged in significant activities within the forum or created continuing obligations between itself and forum residents. The court concluded that Stanford did not make a prima facie showing that HMSA reached out beyond Hawaii to create continuing relationships and obligations with the citizens of California. Merely providing out-of-state health coverage to insureds did not subject an insurer to personal jurisdiction in every foreign state in which an insured happened to obtain medical services. 

    Viewing HMSA’s contacts with California in their totality, the court found that Stanford did make a prima facie showing of purposeful availment by HMSA. The motion to dismiss dismiss for lack of specific personal jurisdiction was granted. The court noted it appeared the case could be brought in the District of Hawaii