On September 12, the Eleventh Circuit decertified an injunction class defined by the past denial of insurance benefits—a decision that may help thwart future efforts from plaintiffs to certify Rule 23(b)(2) classes, rather than damages classes, as a way to sidestep Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements.

• Medical providers brought a putative class action against an insurance company, claiming that the company’s claims-handling process illegally deprived providers of certain insurance benefits. The providers moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) injunction class (which essentially consisted of providers who had not received the benefits they were allegedly entitled to) and a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class (which consisted of providers who were not paid in full for their services).
• The district court refused to certify a damages class, determining that assessing each provider’s claims would require an individualized determination of medical expenses incurred. But the court certified an injunction class based in part on the providers’ assurance that there would be no need to determine individual damages for class members once the legal issue regarding benefits was determined. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the injunction class.
• The court focused on the requirement that injunctive relief must be “geared toward preventing future harm.” It noted that the injunction class here was framed by the providers’ allegation that they were improperly denied insurance benefits and thus entitled to a “future” opportunity for their claims to be reprocessed—which was, in actuality, a retrospective harm. The providers’ request that the company stop the allegedly wrongful conduct going forward was de minimis and could not overcome the retrospective, monetary nature of their requested relief. Finally, the request for declaratory relief could not save the class because declaratory relief, like injunctive relief, must be geared toward future harm.
• The decision sharpens the distinction between damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3) and injunction classes under Rule 23(b)(2). In particular, it may undermine future attempts by plaintiffs to avoid Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements through the “ploy” of styling a request to recover for past harm as a request for injunctive relief.

The case is AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. vs. Progressive American Insurance Company, and you can read more here.