Opinion ID: 4562985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Travelers Claims

Text: MSPRC did not present any representative claims in its case for reimbursement against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (Travelers). Instead, it alleged that it “holds, and otherwise owns the rights and interests to, claims that have been processed for items and/or services pertaining to Medicare Beneficiaries for which the Defendant is the primary payer.” Travelers D.E. 20 at 12. MSPRC made this allegation on the basis that Travelers had “reported some or all of [its] cases to [an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services] admitting it has primary payer responsibility.” Id. MSPRC asserted that, pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the names of the beneficiaries and their corresponding MAOs could be provided to Travelers “upon execution of a qualified protective order.” Id. at 11 n.8. MSPRC later indicated that its claims regarded medical expenses paid by HFAP, which it alleged was an MAO. See MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co., No. 17-23628, 2018 WL 3599360, at  (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2018). MSPRC submitted the same Keeler affidavit that was submitted in the Auto-Owners case. Citing the opinion dismissing MSPRC’s claim against 11 Case: 18-12139 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 12 of 34 Auto-Owners, the district court (Kathleen M. Williams, J.) found that HFAP was not an MAO, that MSPRC did not hold any assignments from an MAO, and that HFAP categorically could not access the Medicare Secondary Payer Act’s private right of action. Id. at . Here, too, the district court dismissed MSPRC’s claims against Travelers with prejudice.