ST. LOUIS — In a recent decision, the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by healthcare providers against National Insurance, affirming that certain legal assignments signed by the providers' patients were invalid under Missouri law.
The case stemmed from a 2020 accident in which individuals who were riding in a party bus were struck by another vehicle that fled the scene.
The injured individuals sought chiropractic treatment, assigning their insurance claim rights to the healthcare providers before treatment.
The issue in the case revolved around these assignments, which transferred the patients’ rights to receive insurance payments to the providers, according to the opinion filed Oct. 1.
The providers—Dr. David Eisenmenger and Injury Treatment Centers of Kansas City—subsequently sought reimbursement from National Insurance under the uninsured motorist coverage for the bus.
National refused to pay, arguing that the assignments were invalid under Missouri law, which prohibits the assignment of personal injury claims.
The providers then sued National, alleging breach of contract based on the assignments.
In response, National filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the assignments violated Missouri’s public policy because they effectively transferred the patients' rights to personal injury claims.
Under Missouri law, personal injury claims cannot be assigned to another party, a rule designed to prevent the "trafficking of lawsuits for pain and suffering." National contended that the broad language in the assignments crossed this line, making them void.
The trial court agreed with National, dismissing the providers’ claims with prejudice.
It concluded that the assignments' language was too broad and encompassed personal injury claims, which are non-transferable under state law.
The providers appealed, arguing that the assignments only pertained to contractual rights to payment for medical expenses and were not meant to transfer personal injury claims.
The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling. The appellate court found that the language in the assignments was indeed overly broad, allowing the providers to seek payment for medical treatment and litigate claims on behalf of the patients.
This included the power to control lawsuits and collect insurance payouts tied to personal injury claims.
The absence of a severability clause in the assignments further complicated matters, as it prevented the court from salvaging any valid parts of the agreement.
The appellate court noted that Missouri courts have consistently barred the assignment of personal injury claims.
"The motion court did not err in granting National’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because the broad language of the Assignments includes Patients’ personal injury claims, and, thus, the Assignments are void under Missouri law," Judge Karen King Mitchell wrote in the opinion. "The motion court’s judgment is affirmed."
It ruled that the broad language of the assignments in this case violated that long-established policy.
The court concluded that the assignments were void in their entirety, as they failed to separate permissible insurance claims from impermissible personal injury claims.
As a result, the providers’ lawsuit against National could not proceed, and the trial court's decision to grant judgment on the pleadings was affirmed.
The appellant was represented by Kyle A. Branson of Mission, Kan.
The respondent was represented by M. Courtney Koger and William H. Henderson of Kansas City, Mo.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District, Division Two case number: WD87011