BRAVO FORTY SIX LLC v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Bravo Forty-Six, LLC appeals the small-claims court's judgment for Infinity Insurance Company following a bench trial. Bravo raises a single issue for our review, which we restate as whether the small-claims court's judgment for Infinity is clearly erroneous.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On January 8, 2023, an insured of Infinity caused a car accident that injured a person referred to in the record as M.S. See Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 9-10. At the time of the accident, M.S. was enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan under Medicare Part C. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395w-21 (West 2022). Humana, a Medicare Advantage Organization, administered M.S.’s Medicare coverage. See id.

[4] M.S. incurred $1,201.78 in medical costs due to the car accident. Humana delegated its administration of M.S.’s coverage to a California company known as “Meritage,” and Meritage paid M.S.’s medical costs. Ex. Vol., pp. 3-4. But the point of the relationship between Humana and Meritage was to place the risk of M.S.’s coverage onto Meritage in exchange for a fixed payment from Humana. As Bravo's CEO testified, Humana paid Meritage “a fixed, undifferentiated sum ․ in exchange for Meritage ․ accepting the financial risk for [M.S. and other Humana] members.” Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 37. Thus, under the Humana-Meritage relationship, there are “no claims payment[s] by Humana. There[ are] only claims payment[s] by Meritage.” Id. at 38.

[5] As Infinity's insured was the cause of the accident, primary liability for M.S.’s injury-related costs fell to Infinity. Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“the Act”), where a Medicare payer covers medical costs for which a primary payer is responsible, the Medicare payer has a right to reimbursement from the primary payer. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii) (West 2022).

[6] Thus, when M.S. sought recovery for her personal injuries from Infinity, Infinity's claims adjuster searched for possible Medicare liens to ensure that Infinity could settle with M.S. without incurring secondary liability under the Act. Infinity's claims adjuster learned that Humana did not assert any liens that would entitle it to recover under the Act. Infinity's claims adjuster received a similar statement from the State of California that no liens existed there. Accordingly, Infinity entered into a settlement agreement with M.S.

[7] In the summer of 2025, Bravo employees “analyzed the claims data” of Meritage's clients, and the data returned “clear indicators of accident relatedness in the diagnosis codes” of M.S.’s data. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 16. Bravo's CEO saw this as a “classic example” of a scenario where secondary liability under the Act might exist. Id. at 15. Thus, Bravo “purchased from Meritage the rights to recover for the claims paid on M.S.’s behalf.” Id. at 16.

[8] Bravo then filed its notice of claim against Infinity in the small-claims court. Bravo's claim sought to recover the amount Meritage paid to M.S.’s health-care providers following the January 2023 accident. And, if Infinity had failed to reimburse Meritage properly, Bravo asserted that the Act entitled it to statutory damages equal to the unpaid amount (that is, an additional sum of $1,201.78).

[9] The small-claims court held an evidentiary hearing on Bravo's claim. At that hearing, Bravo's CEO and Infinity's claims adjuster both testified. Thereafter, the small-claims court concluded that Infinity acted with reasonable and due diligence in searching for Medicare liens, determining—correctly at the time—that none existed, and settling with M.S. without having made any payment to Meritage.

[10] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Bravo appeals the small-claims court's judgment for Infinity. Small-claims actions involve informal trials with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law. Harvey v. Keyed in Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 165 N.E.3d 584, 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. Accordingly, judgments from small-claims actions are provided a deferential standard of review. Id. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Pfledderer v. Pratt, 142 N.E.3d 492, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). However, this deferential standard relates only to procedural and evidentiary issues; it does not apply to substantive rules of law, which we review de novo. Id.

[12] The parties’ central argument on appeal is whether the Act permits a primary payer to avoid reimbursing a secondary payer under a “due diligence” exception. But we decline to reach that issue. Any claim for reimbursement necessarily requires two things: (1) an expenditure and (2) no other payment received for that expenditure. The record is clear that Meritage paid M.S.’s health-care claims, satisfying the first requirement.

[13] But Bravo's evidence in the small-claims court stopped there. Bravo presented no evidence that Meritage never received another payment for its services to M.S. Indeed, on cross-examination, Bravo's CEO conceded that Humana paid Meritage a fixed sum for Meritage to accept the financial risk associated with M.S. and other Humana clients. And the evidence was also undisputed that Meritage never asserted a lien in support of its expenditures for M.S. By all appearances, Meritage was paid for its services to M.S.

[14] Accordingly, we cannot say that the small-claims court's rejection of Bravo's claim for reimbursement as an assignee of Meritage is clearly erroneous.

[15] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.