USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

v.

MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, ET AL.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 28, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1116 Lower Tribunal No. 18-42110-CA-01 ________________

USAA Casualty Insurance Company, et al. , Appellants,

vs.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David Craig Miller, Judge.

Akerman LLP, and Alexander J. Hall, Valerie B. Greenberg, and Nancy

A. Copperthwaite, for appellants.

MSP Recovery Law Firm, and Erimar von der Osten, Michael O. Mena, and John H. Ruiz, for appellees.

Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC, and Jason Gonzalez and Robert E. Minchin III (Tallahassee); William W. Large (Tallahassee), for Florida Justice Reform Institute, as amicus curiae.

Colodny Fass, and Maria Elena Abate and Matthew C. Scarfone (Sunrise), for American Property Casualty Insurance Association and Personal Insurance Federation of Florida, as amici curiae.

2

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA General Indemnity Company (collectively, “USAA”) appeal the trial court’s order granting class certification. We reverse the order granting class certification due to MSP’s failure to satisfy the predominance requirement of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(3). This appeal arises from an expedited class certification proceeding sought by appellees MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC (“MSP Recovery”), MSPA Claims 1, LLC (“MSPA Claims”), and MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC (“Series 44”) (collectively, “MSP”). This case involves the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault (“PIP”) statute and the federal Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP Act”). See § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2018); 42 U.S.C. § 1395y et seq. (2018). MSP obtained assignments from Secondary Payers who made payments on behalf of Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”) and Managed Care Organizations ("MCOs"), or otherwise, reimbursed MAOs and MCOs for their Members’ medical expenses. MSP brought the underlying action as a result of USAA’s alleged failure to identify and to alert

3 other insurance coverage pursuant to the PIP statute, section 627.736, Florida Statutes (2018). On behalf of MSP and similarly situated entities, MSP sued USAA for a declaratory judgment and a pure bill of discovery. MSP requested the trial court declare that under section 627.736(4), and applicable law, USAA has an affirmative duty to determine whether its insureds are entitled to Medicare benefits to enable proper coordination of benefits and alert Medicare payers of their primary obligations. MSP sought to demonstrate that these duties are common to every single class member, and resolution of the case would provide common answers. In addition, MSP sought to establish that classwide proof of USAA’s failure to comply with their primary payer obligations under section 627.736(4) and its resulting harm can most efficiently be shown through information sharing between USAA, MSP, and the Class Members. In May of 2024, the trial court scheduled an expedited class certification hearing. USAA moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for multiple reasons including personal jurisdiction. Before the hearing, the trial court denied USAA’s motion to dismiss but withheld ruling on personal jurisdiction. A month later, the trial court entered three written

[In IDS I], we concluded that the putative class failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(b)(3). As an alternative basis for reversal, we also found that MSPA lacked standing because the assignment of its reimbursement rights from La Ley had not yet been finalized at the time of the complaint . . . .

1 MSPA and MSP are essentially the same party for our purposes.

Id. at 1080 (emphasis added). We adopt the sound reasoning in IDS II as it is directly analogous to the facts of the present case. Just as in IDS II, MSP seeks to avoid reversal of its class certification by bringing a “declaratory action” in lieu of direct money damages. However, this attempt is unsuccessful as MSP once again fails to satisfy the predominance requirement for the same reasons articulated by this Court in IDS II. This Court also addressed the predominance requirement in Ocean Harbor Cas. Ins. v. MSPA Claims, 1, 261 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “The appropriateness of the class certification turns largely on whether issues common to the class will predominate.” Id. at 639. In finding that

Id. at 648 (emphasis added). Once again, we find the same in this present case. Though there may be validity to USAA’s standing argument as an alternative basis for reversal, we reverse the order granting class certification due to MSP’s putative class failing to satisfy the predominance requirement of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(b)(3). We find MSP’s repeated attempts to overcome this failure through a declaratory judgment ineffective for the reasons stated in IDS II.

Reversed and remanded.