The U.S. Supreme Court was asked on Thursday to strike down $667 million in legal fees and costs won by the plaintiffs’ lawyers in a $2.7 billion class-action settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield accusing it of nationwide insurance overcharges.
The petition at the Supreme Court was filed by a member of the class who had argued in the lower court that the fee amount was too high.
A U.S. appeals court last year upheld the settlement, rejecting challenges over legal fees and other provisions that were part of the insurer's landmark 2020 accord.
Health subscribers in the long-running litigation in Alabama federal court accused Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and related entities of unlawfully agreeing with each other not to compete, in violation of U.S. antitrust law.
Millions of class members allegedly paid higher insurance costs as part of the alleged conspiracy.
Attorneys for the subscriber plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Blue Cross denied the claims in agreeing to settle.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and a lawyer for objector David Behenna, who filed the Supreme Court challenge, declined to comment.
Behenna’s petition argued that the fee should be no more than $194 million, which was the “lodestar” amount, or the number of hours the lawyers said they worked multiplied by a prevailing hourly rate.
The award instead was based on a “percentage of the fund” calculation. The fee was 23.47% of the settlement fund, and it fell within a “range of reasonableness” of 20% to 25%, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found.
The petition said U.S. appeals courts are divided over whether trial judges are allowed to use the lodestar approach to determine fees in cases where lawyer or litigant secures a "common fund" to be shared.
“Federal courts are entirely failing to seriously scrutinize fee applications in common-fund cases,” Behenna’s petition said.
Behenna’s challenge to the fee award is related to another pending case at the Supreme Court over the terms of the Blue Cross settlement.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers and Blue Cross have not yet responded to Home Depot’s petition.
The case is David G. Behenna v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association et al, U.S. Supreme Court, unassigned.
For petitioner: Daniel Woofter of Goldstein, Russell & Woofter
For respondents: No appearance yet
Read more:
Lawyers in Google browsing data case ask for $218 million fee award
Blue Cross Blue Shield must face Ford Motor antitrust claims, US judge rules
$2.7 bln Blue Cross antitrust settlement upheld by US appeals court
Class lawyers defend $667 mln fee award in insurance antitrust case
