Mr. Curtin sued Travelers, alleging breach of a written contract based on communications sent from Travelers' employees to Mr. Curtin.

According to Mr. Curtin, on “June 20, 2013 Travelers sent me a letter stating that if I would give them medical authorization in writing they then would 'evaluate my claim'. They would 'determine the reasonableness of those claims.'” He stated that on “July 16, 2013 Sandy Nolan [an employee at Travelers] sent me an email stating 'I don't doubt a bit that you were injured Mr Curtin and I am sure this has been a frustrating experience for you'. This now became an amendment to the contract, to determine what my injuries were. . . . 'When I receive the medical records and bills we can discuss medical payment coverage and verify what can be afforded toward your medical costs.'”

Mr. Curtin contended that it was “clear from the above that I had a written contract with Travelers.”

Travelers moved to dismiss.

The District Court's Decision

The district court granted the insurer's motion.

In its decision, the district court first explained that Mr. Curtin was not entitled to additional payment under Travelers' policy with Ranger, observing that there was a “clear distinction” between the scope of medical payments coverage under a liability policy, which typically were limited benefits payable directly to a claimant regardless of whether the named insured had been found liable for the claimant's injuries, and the broader liability coverage under such a policy that only applied when the named insured had become legally obligated to pay damages to the claimant.

Mr. Curtin, the district court found, was not a third-party beneficiary under the Travelers-Ranger policy because Ranger was not liable for Mr. Curtin's injuries. Because Ranger was not liable for those injuries, Mr. Curtin was entitled only to the $10,000 per person medical payments under the Travelers-Ranger policy, which was due regardless of fault. Given that that amount already had been paid, Mr. Curtin could not bring a claim under the Travelers-Ranger policy, the district court stated.

It then rejected Mr. Curtin's claim that, based on his correspondence with Travelers' employees, he had a separate, independent contract with the insurer under which it agreed to pay all of his medical bills arising out of the automobile accident.

The district court ruled that Mr. Curtin had not pleaded facts to show the existence of a contract between himself and Travelers. The district court pointed out that the letter from Travelers requested documents from Mr. Curtin and stated that “we use this information to help assess the reasonableness and reasonable cost of the medical treatment you have received.” It added that an email from Travelers said, “When I receive the medical records and bills we can discuss medical payment coverage and verify what can be afforded toward your medical costs.” These correspondences did “not create a contract,” the district court said.

Mr. Curtin had:

extrapolated the statement in Ms. Nolan's . . . email, that after receiving copies of his medical records and bills related to the . . . accident, Travelers would “discuss medical payments coverage and verify what can be afforded toward your medical costs,” as a promise by Travelers that it would pay all of [Mr.] Curtin's medical bills arising out of the accident, regardless of whether Travelers' insured, Ranger, was ever found to be legally liable to [Mr.] Curtin for those injuries.

The district court concluded that Travelers had requested documentation from Mr. Curtin to assess whether it would make any payment towards his medical costs, and it had never made an offer to pay his medical bills.

The case is Curtin v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., No. 2:17-CV-14403-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD (S.D. Fla. April 20, 2018). Attorneys involved include: For Travelers Property Casulity Corp, Defendant: William Gray Dunlap, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, W. Gray Dunlap, Jr., P.A., St. Petersburg, FL.