We are following a unique case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, where Universal Health Care Insurance Company (UHCIC) has attempted to remove to federal court the receivership proceedings commenced in Florida state court by the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS). The DFS has moved to remand the matter to state court, briefs have been filed, and the matter awaits a ruling from the court.
UHCIC, a private provider of Medicare services, argues that the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) preempts Florida insurance laws, preventing the DFS from taking action. The DFS argues that MMA preemption is explicitly limited and inapplicable to receivership proceedings. The DFS also argues that UHCIC signed a consent agreement with the Florida Commissioner of Insurance, agreeing to receivership proceedings in Florida state court if certain targets relating to its surplus were not met. However, UHCIC argues that the consent agreement was entered into under duress and should not be enforced, while matters relating to its surplus are exclusively governed by the MMA. The Florida Life and Health Insurance Guarany Association has filed a proposed amicus brief arguing primarily that the court should exercise Burford absetention and remand the case.
UHCIC had previously brought separate actions against Florida regulators in both state and federal court contesting the consent agreement and seeking to prevent the receivership proceedings from being initiated, which matters are also pending.
UHCIC, a private provider of Medicare services, argues that the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) preempts Florida insurance laws, preventing the DFS from taking action. The DFS argues that MMA preemption is explicitly limited and inapplicable to receivership proceedings. The DFS also argues that UHCIC signed a consent agreement with the Florida Commissioner of Insurance, agreeing to receivership proceedings in Florida state court if certain targets relating to its surplus were not met. However, UHCIC argues that the consent agreement was entered into under duress and should not be enforced, while matters relating to its surplus are exclusively governed by the MMA. The Florida Life and Health Insurance Guarany Association has filed a proposed amicus brief arguing primarily that the court should exercise Burford absetention and remand the case.
UHCIC had previously brought separate actions against Florida regulators in both state and federal court contesting the consent agreement and seeking to prevent the receivership proceedings from being initiated, which matters are also pending.
