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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT