Plaintiffs’ Class Certified in Dispute over LTC Insurance Coverage for Care by “Managed Residential Communities” or “Assisted Living Services Agencies”

As we’ve reported fairly often on this Blog (see e.g., here, re California litigation), the long-term care insurance (LTCI) industry has been battling disputes on many fronts.  One of the fronts is whether insurers can deny benefits to pay for care provided in settings other than “skilled nursing facilities.”  On March 1, 2016, a federal court in Connecticut granted class certification to estates and policy holders who are challenging denial of coverage for stays in “managed residential communities” (MRCs) in Connecticut or to cover services provided through “assisted living services agencies” (ALSAs).  In Estate of Gardner v. Continental Casualty Company, 2016 WL 806823, the court agreed the plaintiffs had satisfied the class certification requirements for “numerosity,” commonality, and typicality of issues, as well as establishing grounds to argue “imminence of injury” to support a claim for injunctive relief:

While Plaintiffs do seek monetary relief, it appears to the Court that what they primarily seek is forward-looking relief. Plaintiffs purchased long-term care policies, presumably with the expectation that they would utilize their coverage over a long term. Any adequate remedy would have to ensure that they could obtain coverage for claims prospectively. For that, an injunction is required. Moreover, Plaintiffs leave no ambiguity about the content of the injunction they seek: an end to Defendant’s alleged policy of denying claims for assisted–living facilities across the board. This is exactly the type of relief Rule 23(b)(2) was designed to facilitate. Because Plaintiffs’ proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class satisfied all of the requirements of Rule 23, certification is proper.

For more on the background of the Connecticut case, see “Connecticut class action accuses insurer of denying assisted-living claims.”