Judge declines to grant partial summary judgment in Flowers v. Transamerica; Medicare Part D issues left for discovery

A contested partial summary‑judgment motion in Flowers v. Transamerica prompted extended argument over how a supplemental cancer policy should interact with Medicare coverage introduced after the policy was sold.

Plaintiff counsel sought a ruling that policy language excluding benefits payable under Medicare as amended would bar recovery for certain drug expenses once Medicare coverage (including Part D) existed; defense counsel said there are substantial factual disputes — notably whether the medications are for active cancer treatment or long‑term prevention, and whether any hypothetical Medicare plan would have covered those drugs. "We just learned... that apparently, Sarah's cancer was cured long ago," defense counsel noted, arguing that causation and damages remain contested.

Why it matters: a ruling for the insurer could narrow many claims for policyholders who bought supplemental cancer plans before Medicare Part D existed. The court said it would not grant partial summary judgment at this time and asked parties to complete discovery; the judge observed the case could have broad implications if appealed: "I mean, it could be a huge sort of shift in what kind of payments are made."

The judge directed the parties to continue discovery, noting depositions and expert work remain and asking counsel to keep the court informed about the schedule. The court signaled it may revisit summary judgment after fact development but declined to rule at the hearing.