Geico v. Mao-Mso Recovery Ii

Summary

The Supreme Court of Maryland held that assignments transferring Medicare secondary payers' rights to seek reimbursement from primary payers, including assignments made under contingent-compensation agreements, are not void as against Maryland public policy. The assignments did not violate Maryland's barratry statute because the plaintiffs did not solicit secondary payers to sue; they obtained assignments and sued in their own names. The court also concluded that the assignments did not violate any continuing common-law doctrines of maintenance, champerty, or barratry, and therefore declined to address the effect of contractual choice-of-law provisions.