• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Idaho Federal Court Grants Motion to Compel Discovery of Reinsurance Information for Employee Benefit ERISA Plan

Idaho Federal Court Grants Motion to Compel Discovery of Reinsurance Information for Employee Benefit ERISA Plan

July 23, 2025 by Kenneth Cesta

In THC–Orange County LLC v. Regence BlueShield of Idaho Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho addressed a motion by plaintiff THC–Orange County LLC, doing business as Kindred Hospital Ontario, to conduct limited discovery from the defendants, including whether defendant WinCo Holdings Employee Benefit Plan “has reinsurance and, if so, who the reinsurer is and whether the reinsurer has any input into benefit decisions.”

The underlying lawsuit involves claims by plaintiff Kindred Hospital under ERISA for the payment of benefits for the care of a patient. The plaintiff’s complaint named several defendants, including the plan, Regence BlueShield of Idaho as contract administrator, and Cambia Health Solution, the parent company of Regence. The plaintiff moved to conduct limited discovery addressing the following topics: Regence’s relationship with the plan and its authority under the plan; whether the plan has reinsurance and, if so, the identity of the reinsurer and whether it has any input into benefit decisions; the identity and qualifications of medical reviewers; and appeal panel minutes.

Rejecting the defendants’ opposition, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion and compelled discovery regarding each topic. The court found that a “structural conflict may exist” regarding the relevant underlying plan documents and other documents and ordered limited discovery. The court also ordered limited discovery regarding the existence of reinsurance for the plan and the identity and authority of any such reinsurer. The court based this ruling on its observation of a “potential structural conflict of interest,” which the court noted “is sufficient to warrant limited discovery about a potential financial conflict of interest.” Finally, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to discovery on the identities and qualifications of medical reviewers, the “Blue Card” program, and the appeal panel’s minutes and notes from meetings occurring during the relevant time period. The court also granted the plaintiff’s motion to take judicial notice of certain plan documents relied upon in filing its motion.

THC-Orange County, LLC v. Regence BlueShield of Idaho, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00154 (D. Idaho June 2, 2025).

Filed Under: Arbitration / Court Decisions, Discovery

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.