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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit