ILNews

WellPoint agrees to $90M settlement with 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 have sued WellPoint in a separate lawsuit.

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT