McNeal v. The Hartford Insurance Company
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-07448
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In McNeal v. The Hartford Insurance Company, Judge Wood dismissed McNeal’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction but granted 30 days to replead.
David Joseph McNeal’s federal case against The Hartford, Gerard Degregoris III, and Aetna Inc. was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but McNeal was allowed 30 days to replead.
What happened
In McNeal v. The Hartford Insurance Company, David Joseph McNeal sued The Hartford, Aetna, and Gerard Degregoris over insurance coverage, medical care, and alleged disclosure of medical records. He sought insurance-related relief and $300,000 in damages.
The court ruled that McNeal’s reference to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act did not create federal jurisdiction because that law does not allow individuals to bring private lawsuits. The court also found no diversity jurisdiction because McNeal and Degregoris appeared to reside in New York.
Judge Kimba M. Wood dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted McNeal 30 days to file a second amended complaint. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- McNeal v. The Hartford Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-07448
- Laura Swain
- July 21, 2025
Background
David Joseph McNeal, representing himself and proceeding without prepaying filing fees, sued The Hartford, Gerard Degregoris III, and Aetna Inc. The opinion states that McNeal resides in New York, that Hartford and Aetna are citizens of Connecticut, and that Degregoris has a work address in New York City. McNeal alleged that Hartford terminated his insurance claim and payments in June 2020, that Hartford and Degregoris failed to complete necessary documentation, and that Degregoris was negligent in his medical care. McNeal also alleged that Hartford and Aetna disclosed medical records, including records concerning “David McNair,” to people he said were not authorized to receive them. He sought reinstatement of his insurance or payment on his claim and $300,000 in damages.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court concluded that McNeal’s allegations did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Although he referred to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the court held that HIPAA does not create a private right of action, meaning an individual cannot sue to enforce its provisions. The court found no other basis for a federal-law claim.
The court also concluded that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable for any state-law claims. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete citizenship diversity between the plaintiff and all defendants and more than $75,000 in controversy. Because McNeal and Degregoris appeared to reside in New York, the court found that complete diversity was lacking. The opinion did not determine whether McNeal’s insurance, medical-care, or other underlying allegations were legally valid.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and granted McNeal 30 days’ leave to replead. The court stated that McNeal could file a second amended complaint alleging facts showing that Degregoris resides outside New York, or could proceed against only Hartford and Aetna if Degregoris is a New York resident but is a dispensable defendant. If McNeal did not amend within 30 days, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment, without prejudice to any state-court action McNeal wished to pursue. Judge Kimba M. Wood also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.