IBJNews

WellPoint settlement: $90M for former Anthem members

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 700,000 former members of Anthem Insurance Cos. Inc., lawyers for the plaintiffs said Friday afternoon.

The suit was set to go to trial on June 18 in federal court in Indianapolis on claims arising from Anthem’s 2001 conversion from a mutual company, owned by its insured policyholders, to a public company.

WellPoint is the corporate parent of Anthem.

The settlement, if approved by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, will resolve the lawsuit filed in 2005 by Anthem members who received cash compensation as part of the conversion process to a public company. The conversion resulted in Anthem’s shelling out nearly $2.1 billion in cash to more than 700,000 policyholders.

The complaint alleged that Anthem did not pay the former mutual company members the fair value of their interests.

Other policyholders elected to receive stock in the conversion, and they sued WellPoint in a separate lawsuit. Judge Pratt dismissed that case in December, in favor of WellPoint.

If the $90 million settlement is approved, checks should be mailed to class members later this summer. Each class member would receive about $128.57, not counting attorneys’ fees.

Anthem was prepared to “vigorously defend itself at trial but is pleased to have reached a settlement," the company said in a prepared statement.

“We continue to believe that in all ways the company acted appropriately and in the best interests of its former members,” WellPoint said. “Today’s settlement enables us to put this matter behind us and focus our time and energy on meeting the needs of our customers.”

The company said the Indiana Department of Insurance reviewed the transaction and found it to be fair, reasonable and equitable to Anthem's former members.
 
 

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT