CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12875, 1998 WL 484387
...ber 1996 until July 1997, Defendant then wrongfully terminated his coverage. As a result, Plaintiff filed suit in state court, alleging that Defendant unlawfully terminated his coverage due to his diagnosis and/or treatment for AIDS, in violation of section 627.6646 of the Florida Statutes. That section provides that "no insurer shall cancel or nonrenew the health insurance policy of any insured because of diagnosis or treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection or acquired immune deficiency syndrome." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 627.6646 (West 1996)....
...n integral part of the policy relationship; and (3) whether the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry. See id. at 48-49,
107 S.Ct. 1549; accord Anschultz v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co.,
850 F.2d 1467, 1468 (11th Cir.1988). Section
627.6646 of the Florida Statutes in fact appears to be a law that regulates insurance....
...1549 ("A common sense view of the word `regulates' would lead to the conclusion that in order to regulate insurance, a law must not just have an impact on the insurance industry, but must be specifically directed toward that industry.") Furthermore, section 627.6646 transfers some risk to the insurer by prohibiting cancellation of the policy on the ground that the policyholder has become HIV-positive or has acquired AIDS. The section is also an integral part of the policy relationship between an insurer and an insured because it places limits on an insurer's ability to terminate coverage. Finally, as noted above, section 627.6646 is directed only at entities within the insurance industry. Despite the seeming applicability of this analysis to section 627.6646, the savings clause alone cannot save Plaintiff's claims from preemption....
...Because the remedy that Plaintiff seeks is the recovery of plan benefits, and because this remedy can be obtained solely through section 502(a) of ERISA, Plaintiff cannot proceed under state law. Plaintiff protests that "[i]n effect, Defendant argues that § 627.6646, Fla....
...is void and that Florida courts are powerless to enforce it." (Pl.'s Mot. To Remand, at 4.) Without endorsing the wisdom of this outcome, the Court must conclude that insofar as the recovery of benefits under ERISA plans is concerned, Plaintiff is right: ERISA preemption prevents him from recovering benefits through section 627.6646....
...ERISA plan. Cf. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002(1) (describing ERISA plans). [2] ERISA also preempts Plaintiff's state law claims for breach of contract and statutory bad faith. Plaintiff appears to concede as much given that, in his brief, he argues only that section 627.6646 survives preemption....
