Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
ERISA Class Action Settlement Results in Business Reforms (Not Payment)
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: July 21, 2014
Key Contacts
Back
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Inc. (Horizon) will alter its business practices and pay $2.5 million in attorney’s fees under the terms of a class action settlement approved in federal court last week.
The suit alleged the insurance company under-reimbursed health plan subscribers for out-of-network services in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Lead plaintiff Catherine McDonough first filed the suit in 2009 and was later joined by the New Jersey Psychological Association. While Horizon plan document required reimbursement for out-of-network services at the “usual and customary rate,” the insurer relied on two inaccurate methods of calculation: a database provided by Ingenix Inc. and an in-house schedule known as “Top of Range.” The settlement’s affected class ultimately included 2.7 million insureds and over 181,000 out-of-network health-care providers.
The parties reached a proposed settlement in December 2013, which recently received final approval by U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler. Under the terms of the settlement, Horizon will discontinue using both the Ingenix database and the “Top of Range” reimbursement schedule for such claims. The insurer will also update its plan language, member handbook, website and marketing materials to explain how it calculates reimbursement amounts for covered services provided by out-of-network providers.
Objectors to the settlement argued that it provided no real benefit to the class members, whose expert valued their claims at $10 billion. However, Judge Chesler maintained that the business reforms required under the agreement met the criteria of the law: “By requiring Horizon to update and revise plan language, member handbooks and marketing materials, the settlement tangibly addresses a significant problem about which the class complained in this action,” he concluded.
The court also rejected arguments against the $2.5 million fee, noting that existing precedent allows for attorneys fees in settlements that call for policy and procedure changes rather than monetary payments. It will be interesting to see whether that aspect of the Judge’s decision is challenged on appeal.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
ERISA Class Action Settlement Results in Business Reforms (Not Payment)
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Inc. (Horizon) will alter its business practices and pay $2.5 million in attorney’s fees under the terms of a class action settlement approved in federal court last week.
The suit alleged the insurance company under-reimbursed health plan subscribers for out-of-network services in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Lead plaintiff Catherine McDonough first filed the suit in 2009 and was later joined by the New Jersey Psychological Association. While Horizon plan document required reimbursement for out-of-network services at the “usual and customary rate,” the insurer relied on two inaccurate methods of calculation: a database provided by Ingenix Inc. and an in-house schedule known as “Top of Range.” The settlement’s affected class ultimately included 2.7 million insureds and over 181,000 out-of-network health-care providers.
The parties reached a proposed settlement in December 2013, which recently received final approval by U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler. Under the terms of the settlement, Horizon will discontinue using both the Ingenix database and the “Top of Range” reimbursement schedule for such claims. The insurer will also update its plan language, member handbook, website and marketing materials to explain how it calculates reimbursement amounts for covered services provided by out-of-network providers.
Objectors to the settlement argued that it provided no real benefit to the class members, whose expert valued their claims at $10 billion. However, Judge Chesler maintained that the business reforms required under the agreement met the criteria of the law: “By requiring Horizon to update and revise plan language, member handbooks and marketing materials, the settlement tangibly addresses a significant problem about which the class complained in this action,” he concluded.
The court also rejected arguments against the $2.5 million fee, noting that existing precedent allows for attorneys fees in settlements that call for policy and procedure changes rather than monetary payments. It will be interesting to see whether that aspect of the Judge’s decision is challenged on appeal.