Originally from:
Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 2, No. 1
To view full journal at the Subscription rate:
Journal of American Arbitration (JAA)
Preview Page
ARTICLES
In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation: The Eleventh
Circuit Limits the Extent to Which Nonsignatories Are
Compelled to Arbitration
By Matthew Boyer
I. OVERVIEW
Two separate categories of plaintiffs brought suit against several
different managed health care insurance providers.1 One group of
plaintiffs consisted of patients, who sued under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO),2 the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA),3 and common law conspiracy.4 The other
group consisted of the providing doctors, who alleged causes of action
under RICO, ERISA, quantum meruit, breach of contract, federal clean
claim payment regulations, unjust enrichment, and prompt pay statutes.5
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
examined several issues under the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA)6
presumption in favor of arbitration.7 First, the district court determined
whether ERISA claims are subject to arbitration.8 Second, the court
looked at whether allegations of conspiracy of aiding and abetting may
be arbitrated where there is no contract to arbitrate between the parties.9
Third, it analyzed whether nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement
may be compelled to arbitrate.10 Fourth, the court determined whether a
class action affects whether a court will compel arbitration.11 Finally, the
Matthew Boyer, J.D. candidate 2004, Tulane Law School; B.B.A. (2001), University of Georgia. Mr.
Boyer is a contributing member of the Journal of American Arbitration.
