IBJNews

WellPoint settles Los Angeles lawsuit for $6M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The city attorney for Los Angeles announced a $6 million settlement Thursday to resolve a lawsuit that alleged health insurer Anthem Blue Cross illegally dropped more than 6,000 policyholders from coverage.

The settlement is far less than the $1 billion in fines and restitution former Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo threatened when the lawsuit was filed in 2008.

At the time, Delgadillo said some of the dropped policies affected elderly patients and patients with health costs that topped $100,000. Anthem denied the allegations then, and is admitting no fault in the settlement now.

The settlement took into account Anthem's steps to enhance policyholder safeguards, including revised applications and implementation of an independent review process for dropped policies, the city attorney's office said.

The $6 million will be divided between the city and the county, earmarked to be used on consumer enforcement efforts.

None of the people who initially worked on the case for Delgadillo still works in the office and the current staff is satisfied with the settlement, said William Carter, chief deputy city attorney.

Policyholders won't get relief from the settlement, which doesn't call for restitution or reinstatement of insurance policies.

Anthem Blue Cross spokesman Darrel Ng said the settlement bars him from making additional comment, and he referred to the city attorney's statement.

Delgadillo filed a similar lawsuit seeking $1 billion in fines and restitution from Blue Shield of California in 2008. It was settled for $2 million in 2011.

Anthem Blue Cross is a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc.

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT