32nd St. Surgery Ctr. v. Right Choice Managed Care, No. 15-1727 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case32nd Street filed suit against the insurers for quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and vexatious refusal to pay an insurance claim, as well as injunctive relief arising out of medical services provided to the insurers' insureds. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurers and denied 32nd Street's motion to compel discovery. The court concluded that the plain language of the provisions at issue support the district court's conclusion that, in the ancillary-provider agreement, 32nd Street agreed to accept the Blue Traditional rate for services rendered to insureds belonging to all of the insurers’ networks; the district court did not err by finding that the equitable claims were barred by the contracts governing the reimbursement rates paid by the insurers; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the insurers on the vexatious-refusal claim where 32nd Street fails to establish any genuine issue of material fact that the insurers refused to pay an amount due under an insurance policy; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 32nd Street's motion to compel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. Defendant's interpretation of the contract provision for provider reimbursement was supported by the language of the applicable sections and the district court did not err in concluding plaintiff agreed to accept the rate defendant was paying for services provided to insureds belonging to all of the insurer's networks; the district court did not err in finding the parties' contract barred plaintiff's claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment; vexatious refusal to pay claim rejected; the district court's denial of certain discovery requests is affirmed as the plaintiff's requests are irrelevant given the court's disposition of the issues.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.