IBJNews

Judge stays decision in WellPoint policyholder case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former policyholders of WellPoint Inc., who won the right to a class-action trial over their claims that they were shortchanged when the company went public a decade ago, will have to put their plans on hold after a federal judge in Indianapolis stayed the case pending an unusual request for appeal by WellPoint.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt stayed the case on Wednesday after WellPoint earlier this month asked for permission to appeal Pratt’s granting of a trial. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to decide whether to hear WellPoint’s appeal.

Pratt had dismissed most of the policyholders’ claims in July, but said two of those claims deserved to be heard by a jury at a trial. Attorneys for WellPoint appealed that decision on Sept. 12, leading to Pratt’s stay order this week.

The policyholders covered by the class-action suit were part-owners of WellPoint’s predecessor, Anthem Inc., before it converted from a mutual insurance company to a publicly traded one in October 2001. That conversion resulted in Anthem shelling out nearly $2.1 billion in cash to more than 740,000 policyholders.

Other policyholders elected to receive stock in the conversion, and they have sued WellPoint in a separate lawsuit.

Anthem’s stock price rose rapidly after its IPO, gaining 20 percent in its first four days of trading. Policyholders sued in 2005, claiming Anthem’s directors under-priced the IPO, thereby cheating policyholders out of money.

In fact, if Anthem had calculated its cash payouts on Nov. 2—the day the state of Indiana officially approved Anthem’s conversion—instead of on Oct. 30—the day Anthem went public—the policyholders would have reaped an extra $167 million, they claim.

The policyholders also note that in the days leading up to the IPO Anthem directors increased the number of shares to be sold by nearly 20 million, but they did not appear to have seriously considered raising the price of the IPO, which would have generated more cash for the policyholders.

Pratt ruled that the policyholders had a right to have a jury decide whether Anthem had breached its fiduciary duty and been negligent. She rejected the policyholders’ other claims, which said Anthem had breached its contract with policyholders and had improperly included some employer groups in its distribution of cash.

It is unusual for an appeal to be made in the middle of an ongoing case, which is why WellPoint must first win permission from the appeals court. If the appeals court refuses to hear WellPoint’s appeal or if it affirms Pratt’s decision, then the case would proceed to a trial, scheduled for June 2012.

But if WellPoint is allowed to appeal and the appeals court reverses Pratt’s decision outright, it would end the policyholders’ case. However, the appeals court could also reject Pratt’s ruling in such a way that would still send the case back to her for further proceedings.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed an amicus brief with the appeals court, as his office had with the federal court in Indianapolis. The state claims that the Anthem policyholders should have brought their case to the Indiana Department of Insurance immediately after it approved Anthem's IPO. The fact that they did not, Zoeller and WellPoint claim, should invalidate their lawsuit.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These liberals are out of control. They want to drive our economy into the ground and double and triple our electric bills. Sierra Club, stay out of Indy!

  2. These activist liberal judges have gotten out of control. Thankfully we have a sensible supreme court that overturns their absurd rulings!

  3. Maybe they shouldn't be throwing money at the IRL or whatever they call it now. Probably should save that money for actual operations.

  4. For you central Indiana folks that don't know what a good pizza is, Aurelio's will take care of that. There are some good pizza places in central Indiana but nothing like this!!!

  5. I am troubled with this whole string of comments as I am not sure anyone pointed out that many of the "high paying" positions have been eliminated identified by asterisks as of fiscal year 2012. That indicates to me that the hospitals are making responsible yet difficult decisions and eliminating heavy paying positions. To make this more problematic, we have created a society of "entitlement" where individuals believe they should receive free services at no cost to them. I have yet to get a house repair done at no cost nor have I taken my car that is out of warranty for repair for free repair expecting the government to pay for it even though it is the second largest investment one makes in their life besides purchasing a home. Yet, we continue to hear verbal and aggressive abuse from the consumer who expects free services and have to reward them as a result of HCAHPS surveys which we have no influence over as it is 3rd party required by CMS. Peel the onion and get to the root of the problem...you will find that society has created the problem and our current political landscape and not the people who were fortunate to lead healthcare in the right direction before becoming distorted. As a side note, I had a friend sit in an ED in Canada for nearly two days prior to being evaluated and then finally...3 months later got a CT of the head. You pay for what you get...

ADVERTISEMENT