Standing to Sue. Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance companies (the Blues) provide 68 million Americans with health-care financing. The Blues have paid billions of dollars for care attributable to illnesses related to tobacco use. In an attempt to

Question

recover some of this amount, the Blues filed a suit in a federal district court against tobacco companies and others, alleging fraud, among other things. The Blues claimed that beginning in 1953, the defendants conspired to addict millions of Americans, including members of Blue Cross plans, to cigarettes and other tobacco products. The conspiracy involved misrepresentation about the safety of nicotine and its addictive properties, marketing efforts targeting children, and agreements not to produce or market safer cigarettes. The defendants' success caused lung, throat, and other cancers, as well as heart disease, stroke, emphysema, and other illnesses. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case on the ground that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. Do the Blues have standing in this case? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Standing to sue
The court held that the Blues had standing and denied the tobacco companies' motion to dismiss the case. The defendants argued in part that any injury to the plaintiffs was indirect and too remote to permit them to recover, and that it would be too difficult to determine whether the plaintiffs' injuries were due to the defendants' conduct or to intervening third causes. The court reasoned that the damages claimed in this case were separate from the damages suffered by smokers. The plaintiffs "seek recovery only for the economic burden of those medical claims and procedures which they directly paid as a result of tobacco use." The Blues had paid for the smokers' health care, and thus only the Blues could recover those amounts. As to whether the injuries were too remote, the court said that if "as alleged, the defendants conducted a decades long scheme to deceive the American public and its health providers concerning the addictive characteristics and health hazards of their tobacco products, and if they conspired to deprive smokers of safer or less addictive tobacco products, then their actions can properly be characterized as illegal and deliberate criminal fraud." If so, the plaintiffs' injuries would have been foreseeable and direct. The court also noted that the plaintiffs might have reliable statistical and expert evidence to show the percentage of damage caused by the defendants' actions.
Note: The Blues filed suits in three federal district courts. Two of the courts refused to dismiss the suits, applying the reasoning set out above. The third court agreed with the defendants, however. See Regence Blueshield v. Philip Morris, Inc., 40 F.Supp.2d 1179 (W.D.Wash.1999). In that case, the court concluded that the Blues' injuries were "derivative" of personal injuries to smokers because it would be impossible to separate the smokers' injuries from those of the insurers and there would thus be a possibility of "duplicative recovery."