Class Action Lawsuits Against Not-for-profit Healthcare Provider and GEICO - Contract Law - California Case Law
California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

Class Action Lawsuits Against Not-for-profit Healthcare Provider and GEICO

Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, D054261, and Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, No. D054637, both involved a  putative class action against defendant-healthcare provider, alleging violations of the unfair competition act and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and other claims, claiming that defendant engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by billing uninsured patients the full standardized rates for their services, while giving substantial discounts to patients who are covered by Medicare or private insurance.

In Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, the Fourth District affirmed the trial court's dismissal after sustaining without leave to amend defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's second amended complaint in concluding that the court properly sustained the demurrer on all causes of action and that plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.  In Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint after sustaining without leave to amend defendant's demurrer for the most part, but reversed the judgment as to the UCL and CLRA causes of action as the plaintiff's second amended complaint sufficiently alleges plaintiff's standing. 

In Wallace v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. D055305, the Fourth District faced a challenge to the trial court's order striking the class allegations in plaintiff's proposed class action lawsuit filed against GEICO General Insurance Company and its employees under Business and Professions Code section 17200 claiming that GEICO wrongly denied coverage for body shop repairs performed at labor rates it considered to be above the prevailing rate.  In reversing the trial court's order striking the class allegations, the court held that the trial court erred in ruling that due to GIECO's offer to compensate plaintiff for her injury, she lost her standing to act as a representative plaintiff, as the pick off cases apply to a class action alleging a violation of section 17200. 

Related Resources: