In the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,1 the contract between Group Health Association, Inc., and its members may be unique, the obligation assumed by the corporation to its membership may be tenuous and the members' responsibility to it may be correlatively attenuated, but the contract is not one of insurance or indemnity. The court, in a decision rendered September 11, thus upheld the judgment of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, that Group Health Association does not have to comply with the insurance laws of the District of Columbia. Whether or not the contract is a fair one, or whether or not it lacks sufficient consideration or mutuality of obligation to be valid and enforceable, the court refrained from discussing; those issues were not before it. A contract of insurance, the court pointed out, is
GROUP HEALTH ASSOCIATION CONTRACT UNIQUE BUT NOT INSURANCE, SAYS U. S. COURT. JAMA. 1939;113(13):1230–1231. doi:10.1001/jama.1939.02800380048016
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: