Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 1 of 16
`
`Lynn M. Allen, State Bar Number 012612
`lallen@tysonmendes.com
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`7910 East Thompson Peak Parkway, Suite 101
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
`Telephone: (480) 571-5031
`Facsimile: (480) 245-5424
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`
`
`Allied World Specialty Insurance Company
`f/k/a Darwin National Assurance Company,
`
` Plaintiff,
`vs.
`
`
`Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Arizona, Inc.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Allied World Specialty Insurance Company f/k/a Darwin National Assurance
`
`Company (“Allied World”), brings this action seeking declaratory relief against the Defendant,
`
`Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. (“BCBS-AZ”), and alleges the following:
`
`Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`1.
`
`This is a diversity action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to
`
`declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties regarding an insurance policy issued by
`
`Allied World.
`
`2.
`
`Allied World is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of New York.
`
`3.
`
`BCBS-AZ is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Arizona with its principal place of business in the State of Arizona.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332(a). There is complete diversity of citizenship between Allied World and BCBS-AZ. The
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over BCBS-AZ, and venue is proper in this
`
`District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`6.
`
`This action is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, which provides that the
`
`Court may declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties. Allied World and BCBS-
`
`AZ are both parties having an interest in the insurance policy referenced herein.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`The MDL Action
`
`7.
`
`Beginning in 2012, numerous class action lawsuits were filed against multiple
`
`Blue Cross Blue Shield entities or member plans (“Blues”) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield
`
`16
`
`Association (“BCBSA”) alleging violations of federal antitrust laws. One set of cases was filed
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`by “Providers” (physicians and other healthcare providers who render services to persons
`
`insured under Blue Plans), and another set of cases was filed by “Subscribers” (persons and
`
`businesses that have Blue Plan healthcare insurance policies)
`
`8. While brought by different groups of plaintiffs, the lawsuits each allege
`
`generally that the Blues and the BCBSA conspired to leverage their economic power and market
`
`dominance to under-compensate healthcare providers for their services and to increase
`
`healthcare costs to subscribers by coordinating their operations and limiting their activities
`
`through restrictions in their trademark licenses.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`9.
`
`On December 12, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
`
`consolidated both the Provider and Subscriber lawsuits and transferred them to the United States
`
`District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, thus creating the MDL litigation referred to
`
`as In Re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, Master File No 2:13-cv-20000-RDP (the
`
`“MDL Action”). A copy of the December 12, 2012 MDL Transfer Order is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`10.
`
`In consolidating the Providers’ and the Subscribers’ actions, the MDL Panel
`
`found: “Here, the actions involve substantial common questions of fact relating to the state
`
`11
`
`BCBS entities’ relationship with the national association, BCBSA, and the licensing agreements
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`that limit the Blue Plans’ activity to exclusive service areas, among other restrictions.” MDL
`
`Transfer Order at 2.
`
`11.
`
`Pursuant to an Order issued by the MDL Court, two consolidated complaints
`
`16
`
`were filed in the MDL Action on July 1, 2013, one for the “provider track” (the “Provider
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Complaint”) and one for the “subscriber track” (the “Subscriber Complaint”), both of which
`
`have been amended several times. A copy of the Consolidated Fourth Amended Provider
`
`Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 2; a copy of the Subscriber Track Fourth Amended
`
`Consolidated Class Action Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`12. BCBS-AZ was first named as a defendant in each the Provider Complaint and in
`
`the Subscriber Complaint when the consolidated complaints were filed on July 1, 2013.
`
`13.
`
`The Provider Complaint alleges that the Blues have been engaged for many
`
`years in an agreement not to compete against one another, but instead to cooperate and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`coordinate their activities on a nationwide basis in order to maximize their profits. The
`
`Complaint claims that the Blues agreed to cease competing and to impose operational uniformity
`
`on themselves decades ago by carving out exclusive service areas, setting up their national
`
`programs (including Blue Card), and establishing BCBSA’s uniform rules and regulations. The
`
`Blues allegedly formalized their cooperation agreement through restrictions in their trademark
`
`licenses, such as the requirement of mandatory participation in the national programs.
`
`14.
`
`The alleged conspiracy has perpetuated and strengthened the dominant market
`
`position each Blue enjoys in its specifically defined geographic market which, in turn, has
`
`11
`
`enabled the Blues to force healthcare providers to accept anticompetitive rates and terms. The
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Provider Complaint alleges that healthcare providers have been subjected to lower rates and less
`
`favorable terms than would have been the case in the absence of the conspiracy.
`
`15.
`
`The Provider Complaint seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Blues, including
`
`16
`
`BCBS-AZ, from entering into, honoring, or enforcing any agreements that restrict territories or
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`geographic areas, enjoining the Blues from utilizing the Blue Card Program to pay healthcare
`
`providers, and enjoining the Blues from developing any other program or structure that is
`
`intended to fix, or has the effect of fixing, prices paid to healthcare providers. The Provider
`
`Complaint also seeks money damages in the form of treble damages.
`
`16.
`
`The Subscriber Complaint similarly alleges that the Blues have been engaged for
`
`many years in an agreement not to compete against one another, but instead to cooperate and
`
`coordinate their activities on a nationwide basis in order to maximize their profits. The
`
`Subscriber Complaint alleges that the Blues agreed to cease competing and to impose
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`operational uniformity on themselves decades ago by carving out exclusive service areas and
`
`establishing BCBSA’s uniform rules and regulations, including BCBSA’s Membership
`
`Standards and Guidelines. The Blues allegedly formalized their cooperation agreement in their
`
`trademark licenses.
`
`17.
`
`The Subscriber Complaint seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Blues, including
`
`BCBS-AZ, from entering into, honoring, or enforcing any agreements that restrict territories or
`
`geographic areas, and it also seeks to eliminate restrictions on the Blues’ activities. The
`
`Complaint further seeks money damages in the form of treble damages of the amount by which
`
`11
`
`the plaintiffs allege premiums were artificially inflated above their competitive levels.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`18. On November 30, 2020, the Court in the MDL Action preliminarily approved a
`
`settlement of the Subscribers’ claims, pursuant to which the Blues agreed to pay $2.67 billion. A
`
`copy of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Plan
`
`16
`
`of Distribution, and Notice Plan, and Directing Notice to the Class is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`19.
`
`The Provider Complaint and the Subscriber Complaint are based upon the same
`
`or related conduct of the Blues relating to the Blues’ “relationship with the national association,
`
`BCBSA, and the licensing agreements that limit the Blue Plans’ activity . . . .” MDL Transfer
`
`Order at 2. The Complaints differ only with respect to the alleged harm to the Providers and to
`
`the Subscribers. Both Complaints seek damages in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional limit and
`
`invoke federal question jurisdiction.
`
`Prior Related Litigation – Love
`
`20. BCBS-AZ was also a defendant in a prior class action litigation styled Love v.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`Blue Cross Blue Shield Assoc., No. 03-21296 (S.D. Fla.) (originally titled Thomas v. Blue Cross
`
`Blue Shield Assoc.) (“Love”). Love was part of the MDL proceeding created in April 2000, and
`
`styled In re Managed Care Litigation, No. 1:00-MDL-1334. A copy of Plaintiffs’ Sixth (and
`
`final) Amended Class Action Complaint is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`21.
`
`Like the MDL Action, Love was based on the theory that the Blues for many
`
`years have not competed against one another, but instead have engaged in an agreement to
`
`cooperate and coordinate their activities on a nationwide basis in order to maximize their profits.
`
`22.
`
`The Love plaintiffs alleged that the Blues are not competitors, but instead
`
`11
`
`provide health services only in individual distinct geographic regions, and that the individual
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Blues have market power in their respective regions. The plaintiffs further alleged that the Blues
`
`use their market power to harm providers by forcing them to accept unfavorable
`
`reimbursements.
`
`23.
`
`The Blues allegedly agreed to cease competing and to impose operational
`
`uniformity on themselves decades ago by agreeing to operate in distinct geographic regions,
`
`setting up their national programs (including Blue Card), and establishing BCBSA’s uniform
`
`rules and regulations.
`
`24.
`
`The Blues formalized their alleged cooperation agreement in their trademark
`
`licenses. The Complaint cites the absence of Blue-on-Blue competition – and the resulting
`
`market dominance each Blue has acquired as a result – as well as the operational uniformity
`
`among the Blues required by their trademark licenses (including the requirement of mandatory
`
`participation in the Blue Card Program) as evidence that the Blues have conspired.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`25.
`
`The plaintiffs in Love alleged that the Blues engaged in a common scheme to
`
`systematically deny, delay, and diminish payments to providers. Similar to the Provider and
`
`Subscriber Complaints, the Love litigation was based on the restrictions in the Blues’ trademark
`
`licenses, on the Blues’ relationship with BCBSA, and on the Blues’ long history and practice of
`
`national coordination and cooperation.
`
`26. Many of the Blues settled the Love litigation through three settlement
`
`agreements that became effective on September 26, 2008, October 3, 2008, and June 19, 2009,
`
`respectively.
`
`27. BCBS-AZ did not enter a settlement, and, in 2009, the Love court dismissed the
`
`Plaintiffs’ Sixth Amended Complaint with prejudice, issuing a Final Judgment in favor of
`
`BCBS-AZ and eight other Blues.
`
`Three Federal Courts Have Held the MDL Action is Related to the Love Litigation
`
`The Blues who had settled in the Love were named as defendants in a subsequent
`
`28.
`
`action styled Musselman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ala., et al., no. 13-20050 (S.D. Fla.), in
`
`which Provider plaintiffs in the MDL Action sought a declaration that the claims in the MDL
`
`Action were not released by the settlement agreements with the Blues in the Love litigation.
`
`29.
`
`The Blues in Musselman moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the MDL
`
`Action Provider Complaint (the only complaint at issue in Musselman) “arises out of and relates
`
`to the ‘facts, acts, events … or other matters’ in Love.”
`
`30.
`
`The District Court agreed with the Blues and granted their motion to dismiss,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`holding that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`[The Provider Complaint] arises out of and relates to the “facts, acts, events .
`. . or other matters” in Love. [The Provider Complaint] is based on Plaintiffs’
`allegation that Defendants conspired to “suppress competition and to increase
`their profits . . . by decreasing the rates paid to healthcare providers . . . .”
`Love was based on the similar allegation that the defendants had engaged in a
`common scheme to systematically deny, delay, and diminish the payments due
`to doctors. In short, both complaints are based on allegations that Defendants,
`acting through [the BCBS Association], conspired to reduce provider
`reimbursement.
`
`Musselman v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, No. 13-20050-CV-MORENO, 2013 WL
`
`4496509, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2013), aff'd, 684 F. App’x 824 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations
`
`omitted).
`
`31.
`
`The Musselman plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and the Eleventh
`
`Circuit “affirm[ed] the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff-appellants’ complaint under
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of the District Court’s thorough and well-
`
`reasoned order.” Musselman v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 684 F. App’x 824, 825
`
`16
`
`(11th Cir. 2017).
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`32.
`
`In the MDL Action, the Provider plaintiffs sought a partial summary judgment
`
`ruling barring Blue defendants, like BCBS-AZ, that were not signatories to the Love settlement
`
`agreements, from asserting any affirmative defenses related to the Love settlement agreements,
`
`such as res judicata, collateral estoppel, release and waiver.
`
`33. BCBS-AZ and other Blues that did not settle in the Love litigation have argued
`
`that they can benefit from the Musselman ruling that the claims in the Antitrust Litigation were
`
`“Released Claims” within the meaning of the Love settlement agreement.
`
`34.
`
`Judge Proctor in the MDL Action agreed, citing Musselman and holding that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`“Providers’ claims in this MDL fall squarely within the scope of the Love releases because they
`
`arise from, or are based on, conduct by the Released Parties,” and stating that “The court agrees
`
`with [the Musselman court] ‘that the [Provider] claims are Released Claims’ under the Love
`
`Settlement Agreement.” In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2406), No.
`
`2:13-CV-20000-RDP, 2018 WL 6333563, at * 7-8 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 17, 2018).
`
`The Excess Policy
`
`35. Allied World issued Excess Insurance Policy No. 0307-1532 to BCBS-AZ for
`
`the policy period January 1, 2013 through January 1, 2014, that provided certain coverage to the
`
`11
`
`insured in excess of this Court’s jurisdictional threshold pursuant to the policy’s terms,
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`conditions, and exclusions (the “Excess Policy”). A copy of the Excess Policy is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit 6.
`
`36.
`
`The Insuring Agreement in the Excess Policy provides:
`
`The Insurer will provide the Insured with insurance excess of
`the Underlying Insurance specified in ITEM 4 of the
`Declarations for claims first made against the Insured during
`the Policy Period. Except as otherwise provided in this Policy,
`coverage under this Policy will apply in conformance with the
`terms and conditions of, and endorsements to, the Primary
`Policy and any other Underlying Insurance. In no event will
`the coverage under this Policy be broader than the coverage
`under any Underlying Insurance. Coverage under this Policy
`will attach only after all Underlying Insurance has been
`exhausted by the actual payment of loss by the Underlying
`Insurers and/or the Insured.
`
`
`(Excess Policy, § I.)
`
`37.
`
`Policy Number 1055376365 issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company
`
`of America is listed as the Primary Policy in Item 4 of the Excess Policy’s Declarations. A copy
`
`26
`
`of the Primary Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`38.
`
`The Private Company Directors and Officers Liability Coverage Section
`
`Insuring Agreement (“D&O Coverage Section”) in the Primary Policy provides insurance as
`
`follows:
`
`The Company will pay on behalf of:
`
`
`***
`C. the Insured Organization, Loss for Wrongful Acts,
`
`resulting from any Claim first made during the Policy Period,
`or if exercised, during the Extended Reporting Period or Run-
`Off Extended Reporting Period.
`
`
`(Primary Policy, D&O Coverage Section § I, Insuring Agreement (C).)
`
`39.
`
`The Primary Policy defines the term “Claim,” in relevant part, as “any civil
`
`proceeding commenced by service of a complaint or similar pleading . . . against an Insured for
`
`a Wrongful Act, provided that Claim does not include any labor or grievance arbitration or
`
`other proceeding pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.” (Primary Policy, D&O
`
`Coverage Section § III, Definition (A).)
`
`40.
`
`The term “Wrongful Act” is defined, in relevant part, as “any actual or alleged
`
`18
`
`act, error, omission, misstatement, misleading statement or breach of duty or neglect by, or any
`
`matter asserted against, the Insured Organization.” (Primary Policy, § III, Definition (M).)
`
`41.
`
`Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions of the Primary Policy:
`
`All Claims . . . for Related Wrongful Acts will be considered
`as a single Claim . . . for purposes of this Liability Policy. All
`Claims . . . will be deemed to have been made at the time the
`first of such Claims . . . for Related Wrongful Acts was made
`whether prior to or during the Policy Period . . .
`
`
`(Primary Policy, Terms and Conditions § III, Condition (H).)
`
`42.
`
`The Primary Policy defines a “Related Wrongful Act” as “all Wrongful Acts
`
`10
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`that have as a common nexus, or are causally connected by reason of, any fact, circumstance,
`
`situation, event or decision.” (Primary Policy, Terms and Conditions § II, Definition (X).)
`
`43.
`
`The D&O Policy defines “Loss” as:
`
`Defense Expenses and money which an Insured is legally
`obligated to pay as a result of a Claim, including settlements,
`judgments, back and front pay, compensatory damages, punitive
`or exemplary damages or the multiple portion of any multiplied
`damage award if insurable under the applicable law most
`favorable to the insurability of punitive, exemplary, or
`multiplied damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest,
`and legal fees and expenses awarded pursuant to a court order
`or judgment. Loss does not include:
`
`1. civil or criminal fines, sanctions, liquidated damages other
`than
`liquidated damages awarded under
`the Age
`Discrimination in Employment Act or the Equal Pay Act,
`payroll or other taxes, or damages, penalties or types of relief
`deemed uninsurable under applicable law; or
`2. any amount allocated to non-covered loss pursuant to
`Section III. CONDITIONS. P. ALLOCATION of the
`Liability Coverage Terms and Conditions.
`
`
`(Primary Policy, D&O Coverage Section § II, Definition (G).)
`
`44.
`
`Insurance afforded by the D&O Coverage Section of the Primary Policy is
`
`subject to the following exclusion: “The Company will not be liable for Loss for any Claim
`
`19
`
`based upon or arising out of the performance of or failure to perform any Managed Care
`
`Activity” (the “Managed Care Activity Exclusion.”) (Primary Policy, Endorsement No. PDO-
`
`19008 Ed. 06-12.)
`
`45.
`
`The term “Managed Care Activity,” is defined in the Primary Policy as:
`
`[A]ny of the following services or activities performed by or on
`behalf of the Insured for or under any . . . health care plan:
`
`1. Provider Selection;
`
`11
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`2. Utilization Review;
`3. advertising, marketing, selling, enrollment, administration
`or management;
`4. Claims Services;
`5. establishing or maintaining health care provider networks;
`6. reviewing, profiling or tiering quality or costs of, or
`providing quality assurance of, any provider of Medical
`Services;
`7. design or implementation of benefit plans or financial
`incentive plans, including pay for performance programs,
`that compensate providers of Medical Services;
`8. Disease Management;
`9. Health Care Plan Consulting;
`10. risk management services to any provider of Medical
`Services;
`11. Wellness Services;
`12. development or implementation of clinical guidelines,
`practice parameters or protocols; or
`13. triage for payment of Medical Services.
`
`
`(Primary Policy, Endorsement No. PDO-19008 Ed. 06-12.)
`
`46.
`
`Further, Exclusion (B)(1) of the D&O Coverage Section provides that the
`
`16
`
`Primary Policy shall not cover any Loss, other than Defense Expenses, for any Claim based on
`
`or arising out of any Insured:
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a. committing any intentionally dishonest or fraudulent act or
`omission;
`b. committing any willful violation of any statute, rule, or law;
`or
`c. gaining any profit, remuneration or advantage to which such
`Insured was not legally entitled;
`
`
`provided that this exclusion will not apply unless a judgment or
`other final adjudication in the underlying action establishes that
`such Insured committed such intentionally dishonest or
`fraudulent act or omission, or willful violation of any statute,
`rule or law, or gained such profit, remuneration or advantage to
`which such Insured was not legally entitled.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`(Primary Policy, D&O Coverage Section § III, Exclusion (B)(1), as amended by Endorsement
`
`LIA-7335.)
`
`
`
`The Parties’ Dispute
`
`47.
`
`In July 2013, when the consolidated complaints in the MDL Action were filed,
`
`BCBS-AZ provided notice to its insurers, including Allied World, requesting coverage under
`
`managed care errors and omissions liability policies, as well as under the D&O policies issued
`
`by Travelers and Allied World.
`
`48. By letter dated April 14, 2014, Allied World noted that all claims submitted for
`
`11
`
`Subscriber and Provider lawsuits consolidated in the MDL Action were being handled as a
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`single claim, and reserved its rights given that coverage under the Excess Policy only attaches if
`
`all of the underlying insurance is exhausted by payment of covered losses. A copy of Allied
`
`World’s April 14, 2014 letter, is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
`
`49.
`
`In a letter dated August 27, 2019, after three Federal courts held that the MDL
`
`Action is related to the Love litigation, Allied World denied coverage for the MDL Action under
`
`the Excess Policy due to the applicability of the Managed Care Activity Exclusion. A copy of
`
`Allied World’s August 27, 2019 letter, is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
`
`50. Upon information and belief, the managed care activities alleged in the MDL
`
`Action are covered under the terms and conditions of the managed care errors and omissions
`
`liability policies issued by other insurers.
`
`51.
`
`In addition, in its August 27, 2019 correspondence, Allied World notified BCBS-
`
`AZ that the Love litigation and the MDL Action constitute Claims for Related Wrongful Acts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`and, as such, would be deemed a single Claim made prior to the Policy Period. Allied World
`
`specifically reserved its rights with respect to all exclusions, conditions and terms of the Excess
`
`Policy.
`
`52.
`
`There is a bona fide present dispute between Allied World and BCBS-AZ
`
`regarding whether Allied World’s Excess Policy provides coverage to BCBS-AZ for the MDL
`
`Action.
`
`53. Allied World is entitled to a declaratory judgment construing the Excess Policy
`
`issued to BCBS-AZ, resolving the dispute between the parties, and declaring that Allied World
`
`11
`
`has no liability to BCBS-AZ for any claims, losses, or other damages or liabilities asserted by
`
`claimants in the MDL Action under the Excess Policy.
`
`COUNT I
`
`Declaration of No Coverage under Excess Policy
`
`54. Allied World hereby incorporates by reference and re-alleges, as if fully stated
`
`herein, each and every allegation of Paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint.
`
`55.
`
`There is no coverage for the MDL Action and the cases consolidated therein
`
`under the Excess Policy for the following reasons:
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`The MDL Action alleges acts done by BCBS-AZ in the performance
`
`of Managed Care Activities. (Primary Policy, Endorsement No.
`
`PDO-19008 Ed. 06-12);
`
`(b)
`
`The MDL Action and the Love litigation are Claims for Related
`
`Wrongful Acts, which are considered a single Claim deemed made
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`prior to the Policy Period. (Primary Policy, Terms and Conditions §
`
`III, Condition (H));
`
`(c)
`
`plaintiffs in the MDL Action seek relief, and any settlement or
`
`judgment in the MDL Action would grant relief, that does not
`
`constitute Loss and/or is uninsurable as a matter of law. (Primary
`
`Policy, D&O Coverage Section § II, Definition (G)); and
`
`(d)
`
`the Claim is not covered under the Policy and Allied World has no
`
`obligation to pay any amount under the Policy.
`
`56. Allied World is entitled to a declaratory judgment in its favor, stating that it has
`
`no liability under the Excess Policy issued to BCBS-AZ for any loss or other damage of any
`
`kind as alleged in the MDL Action (or the separate actions consolidated therein) because the
`
`MDL Action alleges acts done by BCBS-AZ in the performance of Managed Care Activities,
`
`16
`
`the Claim alleges Related Wrongful Acts to the Love litigation, first made prior to the
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`inception of the Excess Policy, and because the Claim is excluded under Exclusion (B)(1).
`
`Moreover, Allied World has no obligation to pay any amounts under the Excess Policy because
`
`the relief sought by the plaintiffs in the MDL Action does not constitute Loss, is uninsurable as a
`
`matter of law, or is otherwise not covered under the Excess Policy.
`
`WHEREFORE, Allied World prays that the Court declare the rights of the parties and
`
`declare that Allied World has no liability to BCBS-AZ under the Excess Policy for any Loss,
`
`including Defense Expenses, that are the subject of the MDL Action (or the separate actions
`
`consolidated therein) and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00938-SMB Document 1 Filed 05/28/21 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`proper.
`
`DATED this 28th day of May, 2021.
`
`TYSON & MENDES, LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Lynn M. Allen
`Lynn M. Allen
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`16
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`