The opinion of the court was delivered by: CONLON
John Doe ("Doe") and Richard Smith ("Smith") ("plaintiffs") bring a two count complaint against Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company ("Mutual").
The claims arise from plaintiffs' purchase of individual health insurance policies from Mutual. Count I alleges disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. Count II alleges a violation of Section 364 of the Illinois Insurance Code ("IIC"), 215 ILCS 5/364. Mutual moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs filed a timely response. The Department of Justice ("DOJ") also filed a response brief for the United States as amicus curiae.
For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Travel All Over The World, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423, 1429 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs are Chicago residents infected with the human immunodeficiency virus ("HIV"). Mutual is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Mutual offers and sells its insurance directly to members of the public at various office locations.
Both Doe and Smith hold Mutual health insurance policies that place significant limits on the amount of benefits available to individuals suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or AIDS Related Conditions (ARC) ("AIDS/ARC caps"). Doe's policy limits recoverable benefits to a lifetime maximum of $ 100,000. Smith's policy limits recoverable benefits to a lifetime maximum of $ 25,000. By contrast, each policy provides benefits for other medical care up to a lifetime maximum of $ 1,000,000. In addition, for medical conditions other than AIDS and ARC, Mutual will reinstate the million dollar maximum benefit and pay additional claims on the policy after the limit is reached, provided the insured does not incur any expenses for two consecutive calendar years.
In Count I, plaintiffs allege that Mutual's policy caps on AIDS and ARC benefits violate the ADA's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of a disability because they deny plaintiffs the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the $ 1,000,000 lifetime maximum and potential reinstatement of benefits provided to insureds with other medical conditions. Count II alleges a violation of Section 364 of the IIC based on Mutual's inability to support its coverage distinctions with reference to sound actuarial principles and actual experience. 215 ILCS 5/364. Mutual moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
I. Motion to Dismiss Standards
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court considers "whether relief is possible under any set of facts that could be established consistent with the allegations." Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G., 953 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)). A claim may be dismissed only if it is beyond doubt that under no set of facts would a plaintiff's allegations entitle him to relief. Travel All Over The World, Inc., 73 F.3d at 1429 (7th Cir. 1996); Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Beam v. IPCO Corp., 838 F.2d 242, 244 (7th Cir. 1988)). The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to decide its merits. Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990).
II. Scope of Title III of the ADA
This case presents a novel threshold issue of statutory interpretation under Title III of the ADA.
The issue is whether Title III's prohibition against unlawful discrimination extends to the content of insurance policies offered directly through an insurer. Title III's general anti-discrimination provision is found in § 302(a) of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The provision reads:
No individual shall be discriminated against based on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
In Mutual's view, the plain language of this provision dictates that Title III regulates only access to goods and services offered by places of public accommodation, as opposed to the content of the goods and services themselves. According to Mutual's interpretation, since plaintiffs indisputably enjoyed equal access to the same health insurance policies available to any other individual (disabled or non-disabled) their ADA claim fails as a matter of law.
Plaintiffs offer an alternative interpretation of the plain language of § 302(a) of the ADA and of the intended scope of Title III. Plaintiffs assert that Mutual's restrictive reading of the statutory text would render meaningless § 302(a)'s requirement that persons with disabilities be accorded "full and equal enjoyment" of facilities, goods, services, privileges, or advantages of public accommodations. Limiting the reach of § 302(a) to denials of access, as Mutual suggests, misreads the text because one can only enjoy something after gaining access. Plaintiffs find additional support for this broad interpretation of Title III in the text of § 302(b). The subsection states, in relevant part:
42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii). In plaintiffs' view, the text of this subsection confirms that Title III of the ADA is concerned with more than just equal access. Instead, Title III of the ADA reaches the discriminatory denial of an opportunity to benefit from or enjoy equally the goods and services of a public accommodation.
Mutual relies on Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert denied, 118 S. Ct. 871, 139 L. Ed. 2d 768 (U.S. 1998) and Leonard F. v. Israel Discount Bank of New York, 967 F. Supp. 802 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) as authority for its narrow interpretation of Title III's scope. In Parker, an en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit addressed whether Title III of the ADA prohibits an employer from providing a long term disability plan that distinguishes between mental and physical disorders in the amount of available benefits. The long term disability plan was challenged as discriminatory because it provided substantially lesser benefits to individuals suffering from mental disabilities, than it did to individuals suffering from physical disabilities. The Sixth Circuit held that "the provision of a long-term disability plan by an employer and administered by an employer and administered by an insurance company does not fall within the purview of Title III [of the ADA]." 121 F.3d at 1014. In arriving at this holding, the Sixth Circuit stated "the applicable regulations clearly set forth that Title III regulates the availability of the goods and services the place of public accommodation offers as opposed to the contents of the goods and services offered by the public accommodation." Id. at 1012. Mutual argues this language supports its restrictive reading of Title III's statutory scope.
The district court in Leonard F. addressed a nearly identical ADA challenge to that addressed in Parker. Plaintiff argued that the two year limitation for mental disorders provided by his employer's disability insurance plan was discriminatory. The first section of the court's opinion concluded that plaintiff could not state a discrimination claim against his employer under Title III of the ADA. In reaching this conclusion, the court disapproved of plaintiff's argument, in reliance on the First Circuit's decision in Carparts Distribution Center v. Automotive Wholesaler's Ass'n of New England, 37 F.3d 12, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1994), that Title III applies to "more than mere places, in the sense of physical structures." 967 F. Supp. at 804. The district court rejected the First Circuit's ruling because "[this] decision, which is not binding precedent in this Court, is essentially dictum which flies ...