Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Francisco S. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

April 6, 2020, Decided; April 6, 2020, Filed

Case No. 2:18-cv-00010-EJF

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 37), AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE (ECF NO. 38)

Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Aetna") and the World Bank Group Medical Insurance Plan ("World Bank") move the Court1 to dismiss Plaintiffs Francisco S. and M.S.'s (collectively "Mr. S.") Amended Complaint "with prejudice and on the merits." (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl. ("Mot.") 1, ECF No. 37.) Aetna and the World Bank argue this Court should dismiss Mr. S.'s breach of contract claim because Mr. S. fails to plead diversity jurisdiction sufficiently. (Id. at 2.) The World Bank further asserts Mr. S.'s Amended Complaint fails because the World Bank Group Medical [*2]  Insurance Plan "is not a proper defendant that can be sued." (Id.) Additionally, the World Bank contends while Mr. S. fails to name the World Bank as a defendant, allowing him to amend to include the World Bank would prove futile because the International Organizations Immunities Act ("IOIA") shields the World Bank from suit. (Id. at 2, 7-9.) Lastly, Aetna contends this Court should dismiss Mr. S.'s claims against Aetna because Aetna does not insure the benefits under the Plan and therefore lacks privity of contract with Mr. S. (Id. at 9-10.)

Having considered the parties' briefing, the Court finds Mr. S. effectively named the World Bank as a party, and the Court has original jurisdiction over the claims against the World Bank. Furthermore, under the new rubric set forth in Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 586 U.S.    , 139 S. Ct. 759, 772, 203 L. Ed. 2d 53 (2019), the World Bank lacks immunity for commercial activities, which, in this case, provision of employee health insurance is. For these reasons, the Court DENIES the World Bank's portion of the Motion to Dismiss. The Court GRANTS Aetna's portion of the Motion to Dismiss because the Complaint does not allege it is a party to the insurance contract, and Mr. S. does not contest dismissal, therefore Mr. S. fails to state a claim against Aetna. [*3] 

Given the Court's ruling granting the Aetna Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Aetna Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 38.)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60469 *

FRANCISCO S., individually and as guardian of M.S. a minor, and M.S., Plaintiffs, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and WORLD BANK GROUP MEDICAL INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants.

Prior History: Francisco S. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51310 (D. Utah, Mar. 25, 2019)

CORE TERMS

Venue, immunity, motion to dismiss, witnesses, contends, parties, commercial activity, medical insurance, legal action, cases, foreign sovereign immunities, motion to transfer, choice of forum, district court, documents, questions, benefits, waived, weighs, subject matter jurisdiction, immunity from suit, allegations, coverage, argues, reside, fails, organizations, decisions, grievance, sovereign