eNotes: Maryland – Liability – May 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

MARYLAND CASE SUMMARY

Skipper v. CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc.
Maryland Appellate Court
No. 2479, Sept. Term, 2023

Decided: March 3, 2025

Defendant’s payment of compensatory monetary relief to a Plaintiff after a Complaint is filed does not automatically render Plaintiff’s claim for pre-judgment interest moot.

Background

Plaintiffs entered into an Enrollment Agreement with CareFirst (“Defendant”), effective January 1, 2018. At the time the Defendant’s policy was in effect, the Plaintiffs were attempting to conceive a child through in-vitro fertilization (“IVF”). On July 2, 2018, Plaintiffs’ physician contacted Defendants to request coverage for IVF treatment using embryos frozen in 2016. Defendant denied coverage for the thawing of the embryos, but otherwise approved coverage for the IVF treatment. Plaintiffs proceeded with the IVF, paying $900 out of pocket to cover the cost of thawing the embryos. Plaintiffs appealed that denial. Defendant denied the appeal as it fell outside the 180 window.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a breach of contract and lack of good faith Complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration (“MIA”). Additionally in April 2021, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Around this time, Defendant chose to pay the $900 embryo thawing charge. This payment caused the MIA to close the matter in June 2021. The Federal case continued until it was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction in March 2023. Plaintiffs then filed an action with the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County alleging breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing as the claim was moot since the Defendant had already paid the $900 central to the case. The Circuit Court granted Defendant’s Motion to dismiss on lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed.

Holding

The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed. It noted that a case becomes moot when there is no longer an existing controversy before the court or when there is no effective remedy that can be prescribed by the Court. The Appellate Court held that the Defendant’s $900 payment provided incomplete relief as it did not account for interest and did not address Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. The Appellate Court found the Plaintiffs adequately pled pre-judgment interest as an element of their damages and that the failure of Defendant to provide complete relief gave the Plaintiffs standing. Additionally, the Appellate Court held that the satisfaction of the $900 principal prior to judgment did not render the pre-judgment interest claim moot, as Plaintiffs were aggrieved by Defendant’s failure to reimburse the funds in 2018. The Circuit Court’s judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

Questions about this case can be directed to Lucas Duty at (443) 641-0572 or lduty@tthlaw.com.