Court of Federal Claims Grants Summary Judgment in Affordable Care Act "Reinsurance" Litigation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.08.19
In Conway v. United States (October 3, 2019), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of C&M client Colorado HealthOp, in a case of first impression relating to Reinsurance payments owed pursuant to §1341 of the ACA, which HHS had offset against other ACA payments it claimed Colorado HealthOp owed to HHS. The Court decided on the merits that: (i) Section 1341 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Colorado insurance liquidation law applies to prohibit HHS’ unilateral offset of Reinsurance payments to Colorado HealthOp; and (iii) HHS’ “Netting Rule” does not preempt Colorado law. Importantly, the Court held that HHS’s Netting Rule, which explains the method by which HHS would aggregate and offset monies owed by or to different insures under various ACA payment programs, lacks statutory authority and therefore does not preempt state law, and as a result, HHS does not have an offset right in an insurance liquidation proceeding. Analyzing the ACA, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Colorado insurance liquidation statute, and Colorado Supreme Court case law, the Court agreed with Colorado HealthOp that HHS cannot leap-frog claimants with higher priority under the liquidation priority scheme by effectuating an offset. The Court noted that the federal policy expressed by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and its application to priority schemes that protect policyholders’ commercial expectations weigh against displacing Colorado’s policyholder-protecting priority scheme with a uniform federal rule of administrative efficiency. The Colorado HealthOp decision is a significant decision regarding the ACA’s Reinsurance program, and the most recent in a string of ACA-related decisions involving C&M (previously discussed here and here).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25






