|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
|
Case ID: 2934 | Insurance | 07/27/2004
A national class action has been filed against prescription drug plan operator Express Scripts, Inc. on behalf of all U.S. citizens who were or are participants in or beneficiaries of any employer-provided prescription benefit plan (1) that required participants or beneficiaries to pay a percentage co-pay for prescription drugs and (2) for which Express Scripts, Inc. or one of its predecessors-in-interest or subsidiaries serves or has served as the plan's provider of prescription drugs at any time from October 1, 1997, through the present. The action is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and claims that Express Scripts breached its fiduciary duty to plan participants and beneficiaries in several ways. The participants are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a court order requiring Express Scripts to make an accounting of and reimburse consumers and benefit plans for all monies earned through allegedly unlawful activities.
This action arises from what the participants allege is a breach of Express Scripts' fiduciary duty to plan members and the plans themselves. According to the participants, Express Scripts engages in fraudulent and willful misconduct, the goal of which is to unjustly enrich itself. It is claimed that this activity takes many forms--all of which utilize Express Scripts' fiduciary status as the prescription drug provider to various plans. The participants allege that: (1) Express Scripts uses its position to create "pricing spreads" through which Express Scripts enriches itself at the expenses of the various plans to which it provides drugs. (2) Express Scripts contracts with various manufacturers to provide prescription drugs to plan participants as well as offer medications for sale through its mail order catalog. (3) Express Scripts does not disclose at what rate it purchased these drugs to plan administrators and therefore can set a price "spread" between the cost of the drugs and the amount that Express Scripts contracts to be reimbursed by the plan. (4) The profit created by the spread is pocketed by Express Scripts and not disclosed. This profit, in fact, belongs to the various benefit plans and not Express Scripts. The participants also allege that Express Scripts uses its relationship with manufacturers to manipulate the drug offerings available in a plan as a means to unjustly enrich itself. According to the participants, Express Scripts has relationships with drug manufacturers and wields a large amount of power because it can determine which drugs to purchase. Frequently, there are several similar drugs available in the marketplace, often from the same manufacturer. These drugs, participants claim, have different prices--despite similar or identical medicinal value. The participants claim that Express Scripts has a duty to provide them with the most cost-effective drugs. However, the participants claim that Express Scripts often determines which drug to offer based on how much "soft money" it can pocket in terms of rebates, mail-order discounts, kickbacks from manufacturers and other incentives offered by manufacturers. The participants claim that Express Scripts will often purchase the more expensive drugs from manufacturers. Participants also claim that these "soft dollars" are not passed on to the plan, but are retained by Express Scripts. The participants further allege that Express Scripts conspires with drug manufacturers to artificially inflate the cost of drugs. Because many drugs are purchased by the federal government, drug companies desire their drugs to have a high dollar value. The federal government requires that manufacturers certify to them the "best price" for prescription drugs. This price is based on the average wholesale price of the drugs plus any rebates or incentives the company may offer to third-party purchasers, such as Express Scripts. The participants allege that manufacturers will conspire with companies such as Express Scripts to purchase certain drugs based on other factors than certain discounts and rebates it must offer to the government. This may include kickbacks, sales information fees and other "soft money." According to participants, this artificially inflates the cost of certain drugs to the detriment of the various plans serviced by Express Scripts. According to the participants, these actions represent a breach of Express Scripts' duty to the various plans it services and to the participants and beneficiaries of these plans. The participants allege that Express Scripts is obligated to discharge its duties according to the sole interest of its customers, not its own. Under this obligation, the participants claim that Express Scripts must act with scrupulous good faith and candor, a standard more strict than the requirements of the marketplace. However, the participants allege that Express Scripts frequently, through the actions described above, acts on its own behalf and to the detriment of those it has a duty to serve. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Insurance Cases of Interest The parties have reached a tentative $3.25 million settlement in several actions filed against John Alden Financial Corporation and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 20, 1994, and May 3, 1995. Persons eligible to participate in the settlement must file a proof of claim postmarked no later than May 16, 2004. The parties have reached a tentative nationwide $5 million settlement in an action filed against major cellular phone services and three insurance companies on behalf of all persons who purchased wireless equipment insurance between January 1, 1986, and February 20, 2004, through a wireless equipment insurance program administered by Asurion Insurance Services, Inc., Lockton Companies, Inc., or Lock\Line, LLC. The action alleged that the insurance programs failed to comply with applicable state insurance statutes and were marketed in a manner that failed to comply with Pennsylvania's consumer protection statutes. Proof of claim forms must be postmarked on or before August 9, 2004, to be considered valid. A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District Court of Indiana against Beazer Homes Investment Corporation, Inc. Hanover Insurance Company seeks a declaration that the it is not obligated or required to defend and indemnify Beazer Homes as an insurer because of Beazer's alleged fraudulent activity. Asbestos-related work injuries can be devastating. The parties have reached a tentative $375 million settlement in several class actions filed against Travelers Property Casualty Corporation on behalf of persons exposed to asbestos and their families, who allege that the insurer engaged in unfair trade practices by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. 1.5 million persons of all ages died in the Armenian Genocide of 1915. The parties have reached a tentative $20 million settlement in an action filed against New York Life Insurance Company on behalf of descendants of victims massacred in the Armenian Genocide of 1915, who allege that the company failed to pay life insurance policy proceeds to them. Persons eligible to participate in the settlement should contact the class attorneys. Oregon’s State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation May Have Hid Money That Belonged to Policyholders A class action has been filed against Oregon’s State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation (SAIF) on behalf of Oregon businesses that paid the company workers’ compensation premiums, which allege that the agency has repeatedly broken state workers’ comp law in its attempts to dominate Oregon's workers’ compensation insurance market. The action also alleges that SAIF is holding as much as $700 million that it should have rebated to policyholders. |
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.









