Blue Cross of California, Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
180 Cal. App. 4th 1237
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 2010B215035California8,916 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rothschild, J.

This writ proceeding arises out of a lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles City Attorney against a health insurer, a managed health care service plan, and their parent corporation concerning coverage rescission practices. Defendants demurred to the complaint on multiple grounds, and the trial court overruled the demurrer. Defendants then filed the instant petition for writ of mandate, seeking reversal of the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer. We deny the petition.

The principal issue presented is whether the regulatory and enforcement authority of California’s Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) over managed health care service plans, pursuant to the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Health & Saf. Code, § 1340 et seq.; hereafter the Knox-Keene Act), strips the city attorney of the authority to pursue the unfair competition and false advertising claims alleged in the complaint. We conclude that the DMHC’s regulatory and enforcement authority does not preclude the city attorney from pursuing the unfair competition and false advertising claims.

BACKGROUND

I. The Complaint

On April 16, 2008, the city attorney filed suit on behalf of the People of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.