throbber
Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
`
`David Mordkoff, Esq.
`Sherilyn Pastor, Esq.
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Worldwide Plaza
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 609-6800
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`Magellan Health, Inc., Merit Health Insurance Company,
`and Magellan Rx Management, LLC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. __________________
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`:::::::::
`
`
`:
`
`MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC.,
`MERIT HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY,
`and MAGELLAN RX MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
`COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Magellan Health, Inc. (“Magellan Health”), Merit Health Insurance Company
`
`(“Merit Health”), and Magellan Rx Management, LLC (“Magellan Rx”) (collectively referred to
`
`herein as “Plaintiffs” or “Magellan”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, for their
`
`complaint against Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich” or “Insurer”), allege
`
`as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Magellan seeks damages resulting from Zurich’s breach of its contractual
`
`obligations to provide coverage under the Commercial Crime Policy number FID 9037497-13 (the
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
`
`“Policy”) that Zurich sold to Magellan. Contrary to its obligations and promises, Zurich has failed
`
`and refused to reimburse Plaintiffs’ in excess of $6.6 million in losses resulting from certain New
`
`York pharmacies’ computer fraud. The pharmacies caused the fraudulent transfer of money to
`
`themselves by entering override codes through a computer to bypass various system edits that
`
`would otherwise have caused Magellan’s computer system to reject their false reimbursement
`
`requests (the “Loss”).
`
`2.
`
`Magellan also seeks a declaratory judgment adjudicating the respective rights,
`
`duties and obligations of Magellan and Zurich under the Policy.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court’s jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the parties are of
`
`diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest
`
`and costs.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Zurich is a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 1299 Zurich Way,
`
`Schaumburg, Illinois. Zurich is licensed to do business and is doing business in New York. It is
`
`licensed or authorized to issue insurance policies and it issues policies in this State, including with
`
`Magellan.
`
`5.
`
`Zurich is subject to jurisdiction in New York by having acted for the purpose of
`
`realizing pecuniary benefit in this State, and by contracting to insure persons, property and/or risks
`
`located within New York.
`
`6.
`
`Indeed, the Policy sold to Magellan expressly states:
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
`
`7.
`
`The Policy directs notice, other than notice of loss, be submitted to Zurich’s New
`
`York offices.
`
`8.
`
`The Policy “covers loss sustained by the Insured[s] resulting directly from an
`
`Occurrence taking place anywhere in the world,” including in and throughout New York.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Zurich delivered the Policy to Magellan through Magellan’s broker in New York.
`
`Plaintiff Magellan Health is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 4801 E. Washington Street, Phoenix,
`
`Arizona.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Merit Health is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Arizona with a principal place of business at 4801 E. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona.
`
`Merit Health is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Magellan Health.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Magellan Rx is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 8621 Robert Fulton Drive, Columbia,
`
`Maryland. Magellan Rx is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Magellan Health.
`
`13.
`
` Magellan does business in New York, and the underlying fraudulent pharmacy
`
`scheme that is the subject of this action and cause of Magellan’s losses arose in New York.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial
`
`number of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district, and Zurich,
`
`upon information and belief, does business in this district.
`
`15.
`
`Fraudulent claims resulting in the Loss were submitted to Magellan by pharmacies
`
`located in Queens Village, New York and Jamaica, New York. The owners of those pharmacies,
`
`who are residents of Forest Hills, New York, have been indicted by the United States Attorney for
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
`
`this district for engaging in a multi-million health care fraud and money laundering scheme which
`
`included the conduct that caused the Loss.
`
`THE INSURANCE POLICY
`
`16.
`
`The Policy that Zurich sold Magellan Health provides coverage for the policy
`
`period from April 20, 2020 through April 20, 2021.
`
`Plaintiffs are Insureds under the Policy.
`
`The Policy has a $15,000,000 limit, subject to a $250,000 deductible, for Computer
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Fraud.
`
`19.
`
`The Policy’s “Computer Fraud” Insuring Agreement provides, in pertinent part,
`
`that “[Zurich] will pay for loss of . . . Money . . . resulting directly from the use of any computer
`
`to fraudulently cause a transfer of Money . . . from inside the Premises or Banking Premises to . . .
`
`a person . . . or place outside those Premises.”
`
`20.
`
`The Policy defines “Money” as including “currency, coins and bank notes in current
`
`use and having a face value.”
`
`21.
`
`The Policy defines “Premises” as “the interior of that portion of any building
`
`[Magellan] occupies in conducting its business.”
`
`22.
`
`The Policy defines “Banking Premises” as “the interior of that portion of any
`
`building occupied by a banking institution or similar safe depository.”
`
`23.
`
`The Policy therefore affords Computer Fraud coverage when there is:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`A loss of money;
`
`Resulting directly from the use of a computer;
`
`To fraudulently cause a transfer of money from the inside of an insured’s
`
`premises or that of its bank to a place outside those premises or to another.
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
`
`24. Magellan expended substantial premiums to purchase the Policy and has fully
`
`performed and complied with all of the terms and conditions of the Policy.
`
`25.
`
`A true and complete copy of the Policy is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`THE COMPUTER FRAUD
`
`26. Magellan is a leading, diversified specialty health care management organization.
`
`It manages some of the fastest growing, most complex areas of health, including complete
`
`pharmacy benefits.
`
`27.
`
`Prior to January 1, 2021, Merit Health was the sponsor of a Medicare Part D plan
`
`called Magellan Rx Medicare Basic (the “Plan”).
`
`28.
`
`A plan sponsor, such as Merit Health for a Medicare Part D plan or a self-funded
`
`employer, typically contracts with a pharmacy benefit manager (“PBM”), to manage various
`
`aspects of the pharmacy benefit it offers to its plan beneficiaries. Magellan Rx served as the PBM
`
`to the Plan.
`
`29.
`
`PBMs like Magellan Rx provide various services, including managing a network
`
`of pharmacies and point-of-sale claims processing with those pharmacies.
`
`30. When a plan beneficiary presents a prescription to a pharmacy, the pharmacy enters
`
`various information – including, among other things, the individual’s member identification
`
`number, the National Drug Code of the drug prescribed, and the quantity of drug to be dispensed.
`
`The pharmacy then submits that information to the PBM electronically through its computer so
`
`that the PBM can process the claim.
`
`31.
`
`Between approximately April 23, 2020 and May 20, 2020, four New York
`
`pharmacies, including pharmacies located in Queens Village, New York and Jamaica, New York,
`
`(the “NY Pharmacies”) used computer systems to fraudulently cause Magellan to transfer millions
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
`
`of dollars to them from Magellan’s bank by submitting falsely coded claims that triggered
`
`automatic payments.
`
`32.
`
`The NY Pharmacies used computers to electronically submit information to the
`
`PBM, Magellan Rx.
`
`33.
`
`The NY Pharmacies’ computer submissions fraudulently misused override codes
`
`specially implemented in accordance with directives issued by the Centers for Medicare &
`
`Medicaid Services (“CMS”) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to by-pass system edits that
`
`would otherwise have caused the system to reject the claims.
`
`34.
`
`The computerized claim processing system took the fraudulent information
`
`submitted by computer from the NY Pharmacies, directly applied the benefit design information
`
`it had about the involved plan beneficiary and the plan benefit offered, and in real time adjudicated
`
`each claim – approving them -- within seconds.
`
`35.
`
`Based on the claim processing system’s adjudications, the NY Pharmacies were
`
`promptly paid by electronic fund transfers from Magellan’s bank to persons and places outside its
`
`Banking Premises (“EFTs”).
`
`36.
`
`Those EFTs were made consistent with CMS prompt pay requirements.
`
`37. Magellan’s systems are set up to pay weekly on Tuesday, and the NY Pharmacies
`
`intentionally timed their fraudulent computer submissions to take advantage of Magellan’s EFT
`
`payment schedule.
`
`38.
`
`The NY Pharmacies’ computers were used to fraudulently induce Magellan to
`
`cause its bank to transfer money to the pharmacies.
`
`39.
`
`Indeed, Magellan’s loss resulted directly from the use of computers.
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
`
`40. Magellan, on or about May 18, 2020, discovered the computer fraud and
`
`immediately undertook steps to mitigate its losses as required by the Policy.
`
`41. Magellan nonetheless suffered a loss in excess of $6.6 million.
`
`42.
`
`Owners of three of the NY Pharmacies were charged with federal health care fraud
`
`and money laundering based in part on allegations that they engaged in the computer fraud scheme
`
`perpetrated against Magellan that caused the Loss in an indictment unsealed by the United States
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of New York on December 21, 2020.
`
`ZURICH’S DENIAL OF COVERAGE
`
`43. Magellan gave prompt and timely notice of its losses and insurance claim to Zurich.
`
`44.
`
`By letter dated November 20, 2020, Zurich denied Magellan’s claim on the basis
`
`that Magellan’s loss did not result directly from computer fraud.
`
`45.
`
`A true and accurate copy of Zurich’s November 20, 2020 letter is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`46.
`
`Although Zurich admitted that the NY Pharmacies’ claims came to Magellan “via
`
`computer”, Zurich’s denial was predicated on Zurich’s assertion that the loss did not result
`
`directly from the computer fraud because of Zurich’s erroneous contention that Magellan
`
`employees reviewed submitted claims on a daily basis and approved them for payment by other
`
`Magellan employees.
`
`47.
`
`By letter dated February 25, 2021, Magellan requested that Zurich reconsider its
`
`denial, and corrected Zurich’s misunderstanding of the process by which Magellan’s Loss
`
`resulted directly from the computer fraud with no intervening action by Magellan employees.
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
`
`48.
`
`Zurich, by letter dated March 17, 2021, persisted in its denial of the claim, now on
`
`different but still erroneous grounds, including that the losses supposedly resulted from
`
`Magellan’s “voluntary” payments.
`
`49.
`
`A true and accurate copy of Zurich’s March 17, 2021 letter is attached as Exhibit
`
`C.
`
`50.
`
`Zurich’s March 17, 2021 letter admits that the NY Pharmacies “submitted
`
`fraudulent information to induce payment” and that payment was caused by those fraudulent
`
`submissions yet still denied Magellan’s claim on the basis of terms that are not found anywhere
`
`in the Policy, including a purported requirement that there be hacking or unauthorized access
`
`to Magellan’s computer system for a claim to be covered by the Policy.
`
`51. Magellan suffered losses resulting from computer fraud.
`
`52. Magellan’s losses resulted directly from the use of a computer to fraudulently cause
`
`the transfer of money from “[Magellan’s and/or its Bank’s] Premises” to a “Person” or “Place”
`
`“outside of [Magellan’s and its Bank’s] Premises.”
`
`53.
`
`No exclusion, condition, or other term in the Policy bars or negates coverage for
`
`Magellan’s loss and Plaintiffs have complied in all material respects with the terms and
`
`conditions of the Policy.
`
`54. Magellan’s losses, therefore, fall within the coverage provided by the Policy.
`
`55.
`
`In breach of its contract and other duties, Zurich failed and refused to reimburse
`
`Magellan for its covered losses.
`
`56.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Magellan has been, and will
`
`continue to be, deprived of benefits to which it is entitled, and has incurred substantial actual
`
`damages.
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`57. Magellan repeats and realleges all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`Zurich has refused, rejected and/or failed to honor its obligations to Magellan, and
`
`to provide Magellan with the full measure of benefits to which it is entitled under the Policy.
`
`59.
`
` Zurich is obligated to (among other things) reimburse Magellan’s computer fraud
`
`losses.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`Zurich has failed to do so, breaching its obligations to Magellan under the Policy.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Zurich’s contract breaches, Magellan has
`
`incurred and will continue to incur substantial damages and costs, and reasonably foreseeable
`
`consequential damages, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and other costs and
`
`expenses of prosecuting this action.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`62. Magellan repeats and realleges all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`63. Magellan has demanded that Zurich reimburse and indemnify it as required by the
`
`Policy, including for the covered losses resulting from the pharmacies’ computer fraud.
`
`64.
`
`Zurich has failed and refused to honor its duties and obligations to Magellan under
`
`the Policy, at law and otherwise.
`
`65. Magellan seeks a judicial determination of the parties’ rights and obligations with
`
`regard to an actual controversy arising out of the Policy.
`
`66. An actual, present and justiciable controversy exists between Magellan and Zurich
`
`with respect to Zurich’s respective duties and obligations to Magellan under the Policy.
`
`67.
`
`The issuance of relief by this Court will resolve the existing controversy between
`
`the parties.
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
`
`68. Magellan is entitled to a declaration that Magellan is entitled to insurance coverage
`
`under the Policy for, among other things, the loss Magellan sustained as a result of the
`
`pharmacies’ computer fraud, and such further and additional relief as appropriate given that
`
`declaration in its favor.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
` Magellan repeats and realleges all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Zurich owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing to Magellan and must refrain from
`
`acting in bad faith.
`
`71. Magellan timely submitted a claim to Zurich on or about July 24, 2020.
`
`72.
`
`Less than two weeks later, on August 3, 2020, Magellan promptly submitted its
`
`Proof of Loss in excess of $6.6 million.
`
`73. Over three months later, on November 20, 2020, Zurich denied the claim.
`
`74.
`
`In doing so, Zurich offered two erroneous grounds for its denial: (1) that there
`
`allegedly was no direct loss, and (2) that the Fraudulent Impersonation exclusion in
`
`endorsement 14 supposedly applied.
`
`75. Magellan asked Zurich to reconsider its erroneous coverage position, but Zurich
`
`wrongfully denied coverage again, by letter dated March 17, 2021, this time on a different
`
`basis.
`
`76. Despite admitting that the NY Pharmacies submitted fraudulent information to
`
`Magellan by computer to induce payment from Magellan’s bank, Zurich now (albeit
`
`erroneously) claimed, for the first time, that Magellan’s payments to the pharmacy were
`
`“voluntary.”
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
`
`77.
`
`Zurich has repeatedly misstated its coverage and the circumstances, and it has
`
`attempted to mislead Magellan by urging that its policy’s Computer Fraud coverage only
`
`applies to hacking or unauthorized access to Magellan’s computer system.
`
`78.
`
`Zurich further takes the position that Magellan’s adherence to CMS directive in
`
`connection with the public health emergency declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic in
`
`adjudicating and paying the false claims submitted to it by computer was “voluntary” and
`
`therefore not covered.
`
`79.
`
`Zurich, by its conduct, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealings and acted
`
`in bad faith by (among other things):
`
`a. knowingly misrepresenting pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to
`
`coverages at issue;
`
`b.
`
`failing to acknowledge with reasonable promptness pertinent communications
`
`as to claims arising under its policies;
`
`c.
`
`failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards and procedures for the
`
`prompt investigation of claims arising under its policies;
`
`d. not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable resolution
`
`of Magellan’s covered claim; and,
`
`e. compelling Magellan to institute suit to recover amounts due under its policies.
`
`80. As a result of Zurich’s bad faith and breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair
`
`dealing, Magellan has suffered damages and is entitled to recover money damages (actual,
`
`consequential and punitive), the costs and disbursements of this action, reasonable attorneys’
`
`fees, and interest.
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Magellan Health, Merit Health, and Magellan Rx demand
`
`judgment finding and declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to coverage for, and Zurich is obligated
`
`to pay, all losses that Magellan incurred as a result of the pharmacies’ computer fraud; and,
`
`awarding Magellan damages (compensatory, consequential, and punitive), costs and attorneys’
`
`fees incurred in this action, prejudgment interest, and such other interest as may be allowed by law
`
`on all sums awarded, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-03044 Document 1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
`
`DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
`
`Plaintiffs hereby designate Sherilyn Pastor as Trial Counsel.
`
`BY:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`s/ David Mordkoff
`David Mordkoff, Esq.
`Sherilyn Pastor, Esq.
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Worldwide Plaza
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`spastor@mccarter.com
`(212) 609-6800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`Magellan Health, Inc.,
`Merit Health Insurance Company, and
`Magellan Rx Management, LLC.
`
`DATED:
`
`May 27, 2021
`
`ME1 36617349v.1
`
`13
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket