T. Brooks Proctor

Associate
Legal Assistant
TaJay White
P: 205.521.8425 twhite@bradley.com
Experience
    • MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Infinity Property & Casualty Corp., Case No.: 2:17-CV-513-KOB, U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Northern District of Alabama
      Represented Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation in a class action complaint filed by plaintiff claim recovery companies on behalf of numerous Medicare Advantage Organizations. The allegations in the complaint were similar to other class actions that these same plaintiffs have filed against dozens of insurers and medical providers across the country arising under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. The complaint alleged that Infinity failed to fulfill its statutorily mandated duty under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act to reimburse these Medicare Advantage Organizations for medical expenses paid to Medicare beneficiaries arising out of automobile accidents. The plaintiffs alleged that they hold the rights of these Medicare Advantage Organizations through various assignments allowing them to bring these claims and that these organizations provided Medicare benefits to eligible beneficiaries who were simultaneously covered by insurance policies issued by Infinity. By allegedly failing to reimburse these organizations for medical bills and services that Infinity was responsible for paying under their no-fault insurance policies, the plaintiff claim recovery companies argued that Infinity violated provisions of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. After conducting jurisdictional discovery, Bradley assisted Infinity in filing for summary judgment and challenged whether the plaintiff organizations have standing. Infinity’s motion argued, inter alia, that the plaintiffs’ alleged standing is based on a chain of assignments that are invalid or ineffective, and that these assignments do not link to any actual claim that Infinity should have paid but failed to do so. On March 18, 2019, Judge Karen Bowdre granted Infinity’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The court agreed with Infinity that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and found that “MSPA’s purported web of assignments and secondary payer rights suffers from several defects, each of which is fatal to MSPA’s standing to bring its claims…”

      Shelithea Hallums and Samuel Castillo v. Infinity Insurance Company and Infinity Auto Insurance Company, Case No.: 16-24507-CIV-Moreno, U.S Dist. Ct. for the Southern District of Florida
      Successfully obtained summary judgment for Infinity Insurance Company and Infinity Auto Insurance Company in putative class action lawsuit alleging that Infinity’s Lessor Liability Endorsement was illusory and did not provide any valuable coverage. Plaintiffs argued that the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, foreclosed any possibility of lessor liability. Plaintiffs pleaded claims for declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and negligent omission. The case involved allegations that, under the Lessor Liability Endorsement, the damages that a lessor becomes legally obligated to pay can only stem from an injury for which the insured is also legally liable. Plaintiffs argued that this liability fell within the definition of “vicarious liability” that was disallowed by the Graves Amendment. At various stages of the litigation, Infinity challenged whether plaintiffs had Article III standing and argued that the endorsement was not illusory because it provided coverage for lessors in many different situations. Infinity also maintained that plaintiffs’ interpretation of the endorsement was contrary to various rules governing the interpretation of insurance policies under Florida law, as well as that, regardless of plaintiffs’ interpretation, Infinity still had an obligation to defend the lessors, even against claims barred by the Graves Amendment. After extensive briefing and a hearing on summary judgment and class certification issues, the court granted Infinity’s motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment in favor of Infinity and against the plaintiffs. The court held that the endorsement was not illusory because plaintiffs’ interpretation would render the Graves Amendment’s savings clause a nullity, and, regardless, Infinity still owes a duty to defend the lessor and raise the Graves Amendment as an affirmative defense. Bradley’s work on the matter included collaboration with local counsel Raoul Cantero and Ramon Abadin. The case involved extensive analysis of insurance policy interpretation and standing issues, as well as extensive analysis of different comparative fault statutes nationwide.