Resnick et al. v. AvMed, Inc., (11th Cir. 2012)
This case involved a class action suit filed against AvMed, a Florida corporation that delivers health care services, on behalf of AvMed customers whose sensitive information had been compromised and identifies stolen as a result of the theft of some AvMed laptops. The complaint alleged seven counts: negligence in protecting sensitive information; negligence per se in violating Florida statute § 395.3025; breach of contract; breach of implied contract; restitution/unjust enrichment; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and breach of fiduciary duties. The district court granted AvMed’s motion to dismiss, noting that the complaint “fail[ed] to allege any cognizable injury.”
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. The Court first ruled that because the complaint specifically alleged monetary loss and because the complaint’s contention that the theft of the AvMed laptops caused the plaintiffs’ identity thefts was plausible under the facts pled, the plaintiffs had met the pleading standards for their allegations and had adequately alleged a cognizable injury under Florida law.
The Court ruled, however, that two of the pled causes of action failed to adequately allege entitlement to relief. The first such count, negligence per se, failed because it was premised on application of Florida statute § 395.3025(4), a statute that regulates hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, and mobile surgical facilities. The Court found that because AvMed was an integrated managed-care organization and not a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, or mobile surgical facility, its failure to comply with § 395.3025 could not serve as a basis for a negligence per se claim.
The second count to fail was the count alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court explained that in order to properly assert such a cause of action, a plaintiff must allege a conscious and deliberate failure or refusal to discharge contractual responsibilities. The Court held that the count failed in this case since the plaintiffs had not alleged that AvMed’s shortcomings were conscious or deliberate acts. As to the remaining counts, the dismissals were reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Florida Insurance Coverage Law 