In Huntt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 72 Md. App. 189, 527 A.2d 1333 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987), the court affirmed the dismissal of the insured's action because the insured refused to comply with the condition precedent of submitting to an independent medical examination by the insurer's physician. In Ostrof v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 200 F.R.D. 521 (D. Md. 2001), the district court did not dismiss the case for lack of standing. Instead, the court denied the insureds' motion for class certification because they did not meet the class requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. In Ny v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 1998 Mass. App. Div. 179 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1998), aff'd, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 471, 746 N.E.2d 578 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001), a Massachusetts appellate court concluded that summary judgment was proper because the insured was not an "unpaid party" under the Massachusetts statute because the insurer had obtained releases from the medical providers agreeing to accept as full payment what the providers had already received from the insurer. Finally, In Kinnard v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 992-00812 (Mo. Cir. Ct. Nov. 15, 1999), a Missouri circuit court dismissed a breach of contract claim against Allstate because the plaintiff failed to state facts indicating how his submission of damages and Allstate's refusal to pay the claim in full gave rise to the plaintiff's alleged damages of thirteen dollars. While the Missouri court order mentions that there was no allegation that the plaintiff incurred any out-of-pocket expenses or had paid the bill in full, it does not specifically state that these were the determining factors in the court's dismissal. See id., slip op. at 5. Instead, the court states that "the mere conclusion that the plaintiff had damages of $ 13.00 does not show how that sum relates in anyway to Allstate's alleged actions." Id., slip op. at 6.