Price v. Humana Insurance

Eleventh Circuit

Price v. Humana Insurance

333 F.3d 1247, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11615, 2003 WL 21349954

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 2003

DocketNos. 01-10247, 01-12596

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 333 F.3d 1247 (Price v. Humana Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Price v. Humana Insurance, 333 F.3d 1247, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11615, 2003 WL 21349954 (11th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[1248]*1248ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before BARKETT, FAY and WINTER *, Circuit Judges.

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

This case comes to us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, see PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. v. Book, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1531, 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003), reversing, in part, our decision in In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation, 285 F.3d 971 (11th Cir.2002). In Humana, we, inter alia, affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant managed-health-care organizations’ arbitration clauses, which specifically prohibited punitive damages, were unenforceable because they precluded the recovery of treble damages under the Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. See In re Humana, 285 F.3d at 973. In affirming the district court, we refused to compel arbitration of the RICO claims. See id. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that “since we do not know how the arbitrator will construe the [arbitration clauses’] remedial limitations, the questions [of] whether they render the parties’ agreements unenforceable and whether it is for courts or arbitrators to decide enforceability in the first instance are unusually abstract [and, therefore,] the proper course is to compel arbitration.” PacifiCare, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. at 1536. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court with instructions for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in PacifiCare. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1248]*1248ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before BARKETT, FAY and WINTER *, Circuit Judges.

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

This case comes to us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, see PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. v. Book, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1531, 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 578 (2003), reversing, in part, our decision in In re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation, 285 F.3d 971 (11th Cir.2002). In Humana, we, inter alia, affirmed the district court’s finding that the defendant managed-health-care organizations’ arbitration clauses, which specifically prohibited punitive damages, were unenforceable because they precluded the recovery of treble damages under the Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. See In re Humana, 285 F.3d at 973. In affirming the district court, we refused to compel arbitration of the RICO claims. See id. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that “since we do not know how the arbitrator will construe the [arbitration clauses’] remedial limitations, the questions [of] whether they render the parties’ agreements unenforceable and whether it is for courts or arbitrators to decide enforceability in the first instance are unusually abstract [and, therefore,] the proper course is to compel arbitration.” PacifiCare, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. at 1536. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court with instructions for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in PacifiCare. Id.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 F.3d 1247, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11615, 2003 WL 21349954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-humana-insurance-ca11-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack