Standing to sue? Please help 10 points?

Question

Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance companies provide 68 million Americans with health care financing. The blues paid billions of dollars for care attributable to illness related to tobacco use. In attempt to recover some of this amount, the Blues filed suit in a federal district court against tobacco companies and other tabacco products. The conspiracy involved misrepresentation about the safety of nicotine and its addictives properties, marketing efforts target children, and agreements not to produce or market safer ciggaerettes. As a result of the defendants' efforts, many tobacco users developed 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 plaintiff did not have standing to sue. Do the Blues have standing in this case? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Without reviewing this particular case -- if I were arguing on behalf of the Blues, I would base my argument both on a third-party standing claims and association standing claims.

The Blues are suing on behalf of individuals who were directly harmed. The Blues were also specifically harmed, by paying out on those medical claims. The Blue are seeking to recover their third-party losses, based on the special relationship to the insured, and given that the class action lawsuits by the insured did not address their losses as the insurers.

The Blues can also assert association standing, based on the membership of the individuals in their health care plans, given the intent of the membership is to be healthy, a goal thwarted by the actions of Big Tobacco.

Of course, the association standing rests entirely on there not having been a class action by the members directly. And even the third-party standing is weakened because the Blues should have intervened into the class action to recover under a corallary to the collateral source doctrine.

Answer 2

I'd say they probably do based on the little I know. But I do know that an insurance company can sue someone who harms a person they insure Indiana Consolidated Insurance Co v. Mathew, 402 N.E.2d 1000 (Ind. App. 1980). But in that case, the person was not found negligent. I think that it is implied that if he was negligent (in this case Big Tobacco), then he would be liable to the person harmed and, perhaps, so the insurance co. wouldn't have to pay. But I'm not an expert here. You can probably check it out in a Civil Procedure book or on wikipedia.

Answer 3

Oh brother the old cigarette ruse again. Hey if they can make a buck they would convince everyone their own mother was a bull dyke; as long ans they didn't have to pay a income tax on it.

I can conclusively prove to the world that the majority of people that drink water get all the illnesses you describe above, so lets stop all that mess. Switch to wine, studies prove that alcohol prevents all of them !

Answer 4

I dont think so....tobacco products clearly state that their products may cause cancer..people who use tobacco products know that their is that risk..its common sense...kinda like those people wanting to sue mcdonalds...if you eat it alot you should know that it will make you gain weight

Answer 5

sit down and relax, take a deep breath and slowly exhale.

Answer 6

very interesting question