Plaintiff failed to properly plead he suffered an “injury in fact” where his complaint failed to allege he had been billed for unpaid medical expenses.

NOTE: Not precedential opinion

The plaintiff filed a class action suit against the defendant seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendant had violated 21 Del. C. §§ 2118 and 2118B. Section 2118 requires that all vehicle owners maintain auto insurance with certain minimum coverages. Section 2118B discusses the insurers’ obligations regarding processing and paying insurance benefits. the defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definitive statement. The district court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend the complaint. The court determined that the plaintiff lacked standing since the complaint “fails to state facts to support a claim that an actual injury has occurred to satisfy the first prong of the ‘injury in fact’ test.” While the complaint alleged that the defendant had reduced the amount that the plaintiff’s medical care providers were reimbursed for medical services, it did not allege that the plaintiff had been billed for, or paid, the outstanding medical expenses. The plaintiff appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit determined that the lower court had thoroughly and carefully explained why the complaint failed to allege that the plaintiff had suffered an “injury in fact” to establish standing. The court noted that “[i]t is a fundamental principle of law that a plaintiff must demonstrate injury to himself by the parties whom he sues before that plaintiff can successfully state a cause of action.” The court also held that the district court was not required to give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. The plaintiff failed to submit a draft amended complaint to the district court so that the court could determine whether leave to amend would be futile. Thus, the order of the district court was affirmed.

Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013