Hawaii Medical Association v. Hawaii Medical Service Association, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Maxwell Cooper, M.d., And…

Summary

Consolidating two appeals against HMSA — one by the Hawaii Medical Association (HMA) and one by two participating physicians — the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the PAR Agreements' dispute resolution provision (internal administrative appeal of individual HMSA 'decisions' followed by individual binding arbitration) did not reach the plaintiffs' collectively asserted, systemic claims, so the circuit court erred in compelling arbitration. The court further held that HMA had organizational standing to sue on behalf of its members for declaratory and injunctive relief and standing in its own right based on frustration of its purpose and diversion of resources independent of litigation costs; that HRS § 480-2(e) created a private right of action for unfair methods of competition only prospectively from June 28, 2002; that plaintiffs need not be competitors of, or in competition with, HMSA to assert post-amendment claims, though the nature of the competition must be alleged; and that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated tortious-interference claims — affirming in part and vacating in part the judgments below. Acoba, J., joined by Nakayama, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, would reject any requirement that HMSA and the plaintiffs be in competition.