Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
2d 81
Robert Weiner, Sr., a gasoline station owner and operator in Broward County,
Florida, wanted to obtain group health insurance for himself and family
members. Through a Florida association of gasoline retailers, he obtained the
coverage for his family which he desired. What he received was a group policy
showing a national group, the Service Station Dealers of America, as an
The policy obtained by Robert Weiner, Sr. covered himself and his wife and
two dependent children, Steven and Mark. Another son, Robert Weiner, Jr.,
was an employee of his father's gas station and was over the age of majority.
Consequently, he obtained an individual policy.
Then, in 1982, tragedy struck. Steven was diagnosed as suffering from, and
died less than two years later with, AIDS. Mark was rendered a quadriplegic as
the result of an automobile accident.
Benefits were paid under the policy for medical care until August 1983, when
such benefits were discontinued on the grounds that Steven and Mark were no
longer covered. Robert Weiner, Sr. promptly filed suit to compel continuation
of benefits. Approximately seven months later, Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc.
resumed payments under the policy and reimbursed Weiner for past payments
which had been omitted. Blue Cross has, since March of 1984, complied with
all contractual obligations under the policy.
However, claiming substantial hardship, Weiner and his wife sued Blue Cross
of Maryland (as well as Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, a servicing agent) in
a Florida state court. Fraud, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress were asserted. The case proceeded to trial on the merits, and judgment
was entered for $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive
damages against Blue Cross of Maryland. Compensatory damages of $200,000
and punitive damages of $1.5 million were assessed against Blue Cross/Blue
Shield of Florida. The trial judge further awarded $1.4 million in attorney's
fees. Judgment, entered in September 1986, was under Florida law to bear
interest at 12% per annum.
An appeal was taken to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal where the
Florida Blue Cross, for the first time, made the contention which is the focus of
the case we are called upon to resolve. It asserted that the health care plan in
question involved an employer and an employee and consequently was covered
by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001 et seq.
(ERISA). It was thus argued that, since ERISA confers exclusive and
preemptive jurisdiction on the federal courts, the trial court should have been
impotent to enter the judgment. The request was made to vacate the judgment
or, alternatively, to remand to the trial court for a further hearing on the
preemption issue.
7
We need not linger over the question of whether, if the plan were indeed
covered by ERISA, the case should not have been heard by a state court. We
may at least arguendo assume that such would be true. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v.
Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987). However, before
we even reach that question, which depends on ERISA's governing the plan, we
first must determine whether the Florida state courts found that the plan did or
did not constitute an ERISA plan. The Florida intermediate appellate court
determined that the plan was not governed by ERISA on the basis that no
employee plan had been shown to exist. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
v. Weiner, 543 So.2d 794 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989). Thereafter the Florida
Supreme Court denied Blue Cross' request for review, 553 So.2d 1164 (1989),
and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct.
1475, 108 L.Ed.2d 612 (1990).
Blue Cross/Blue Shield did not give up easily. When Weiner filed the Florida
judgment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County under the Uniform
Enforcement of Judgments Act, Md.Code Ann., Courts and Jud.Proc.Art., Secs.
11-801 et seq., Blue Cross removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, filing a motion to vacate or, in the alternative, to
hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the plan was covered by ERISA. Judge
Paul V. Niemeyer, then of the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, refused to take a step which would interfere with the res judicata
status of the Florida case. Weiner v. Blue Cross of Maryland, 730 F.Supp. 674
(D.Md.1990).
11
Here, determining that on the merits there were no grounds sufficient to justify
disregard of the result where jurisdiction existed, we do not interfere.
12
The commentators are assiduously careful to make the very same distinction.
See 13A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 3536
n. 12 at 539 (1984), and Karen Nelson Moore, Collateral Attack on Subject
Matter Jurisdiction: A Critique of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, 66
Cornell L.Rev. 534, 542, 560-61 (1981).
13
We conclude, therefore, that the decision giving res judicata effect to the
Florida judgment should be
14
AFFIRMED.