Contingencies and Other Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Contingencies And Other Matters [Abstract]
Contingencies and Other Matters	Note 16 ― Contingencies and Other Matters The Company, through its subsidiaries, is contingently liable for various guarantees provided in the ordinary course of business. A. Financial Guarantees: Retiree and Life Insurance Benefits Separate account assets are contractholder funds maintained in accounts with specific investment objectives. The Company records separate account liabilities equal to separate account assets. In certain cases, the Company guarantees a minimum level of benefits for retirement and insurance contracts written in separate accounts. The Company establishes an additional liability if management believes that the Company will be required to make a payment under these guarantees. The Company guarantees that separate account assets will be sufficient to pay certain life insurance or retiree benefits. The sponsoring employers are primarily responsible for ensuring that assets are sufficient to pay these benefits and are required to maintain assets that exceed a certain percentage of benefit obligations. This percentage varies depending on the asset class within a sponsoring employer's portfolio (for example, a bond fund would require a lower percentage than a riskier equity fund) and thus will vary as the composition of the portfolio changes. If employers do not maintain the required levels of separate account assets, the Company or an affiliate of the buyer of the retirement benefits business (Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company) has the right to redirect the management of the related assets to provide for benefit payments. As of June 30, 2015, employers maintained assets that exceeded the benefit obligations. Benefit obligations under these arrangements were $496 million as of June 30, 2015 and approximately 14% of these are reinsured by an affiliate of the buyer of the retirement benefits business. The remaining guarantees are provided by the Company with minimal reinsurance from third parties. There were no additional liabilities required for these guarantees as of June 30, 2015. Separate account assets supporting these guarantees are classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the GAAP fair value hierarchy. See Note 7 for further information on the fair value hierarchy. The Company does not expect that these financial guarantees will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. B. GMIB Contracts Under these guarantees, the future payment amounts are dependent on underlying mutual fund investment values and interest rate levels prior to and at the date of annuitization election that must occur within 30 days of a policy anniversary after the appropriate waiting period. Therefore, the future payments are not fixed and determinable under the terms of these contracts. Accordingly, the Company calculated exposure, without considering any reinsurance coverage, using the following hypothetical assumptions: no annuitants surrendered their accounts; all annuitants lived to elect their benefit; all annuitants elected to receive their benefit on the next available date (2015 through 2020); and all underlying mutual fund investment values remained at the June 30, 2015 value of $1.0 billion with no future returns. The Company has reinsurance coverage in place that covers the exposures on these contracts. Using these hypothetical assumptions, GMIB exposure is $740 million, which is lower than the recorded liability for GMIB calculated using fair value assumptions. See Notes 5, 7 and 9 for further information on GMIB contracts. C. Certain Other Guarantees The Company had indemnification obligations to lenders of up to $204 million as of June 30, 2015, related to borrowings by certain real estate joint ventures that the Company either records as an investment or consolidates. These borrowings, that are nonrecourse to the Company, are secured by the joint ventures' real estate properties with fair values in excess of the loan amounts and mature at various dates beginning in 2016 through 2021. The Company's indemnification obligations would require payment to lenders for any actual damages resulting from certain acts such as unauthorized ownership transfers, misappropriation of rental payments by others or environmental damages. Based on initial and ongoing reviews of property management and operations, the Company does not expect that payments will be required under these indemnification obligations. Any payments that might be required could be recovered through a refinancing or sale of the assets. In some cases, the Company also has recourse to partners for their proportionate share of amounts paid. There were no liabilities required for these indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2015. As of June 30, 2015, the Company guaranteed that it would compensate the lessors for a shortfall of up to $41 million in the market value of certain leased equipment at the end of the leases. Guarantees of $16 million expire in 2016 and $25 million expire in 2022. The Company had liabilities for these guarantees of $10 million as of June 30, 2015. The Company had indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2015 in connection with acquisition, disposition and reinsurance transactions. These indemnification obligations are triggered by the breach of representations or covenants provided by the Company, such as representations for the presentation of financial statements, actuarial models, the filing of tax returns, compliance with law or the identification of outstanding litigation. These obligations are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential amount due is subject to contractual limitations based on a percentage of the transaction purchase price, while in other cases limitations are not specified or applicable. The Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount due under these obligations, because not all amounts due under these indemnification obligations are subject to limitation. There were no liabilities for these indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2015. The Company does not expect that these guarantees will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. D. Guaranty Fund Assessments The Company operates in a regulatory environment that may require its participation in assessments under state insurance guaranty association laws. The Company's exposure to assessments for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants is based on its share of business written in the relevant jurisdictions. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, charges related to guaranty fund assessments were immaterial to the Company's results of operations. The Company is aware of an insurer that is in rehabilitation. In 2012, the state court denied the regulator's amended petitions for liquidation and set forth specific requirements and a deadline for the regulator to develop a plan of rehabilitation without liquidating the insurer. The regulator has appealed the court's decision. If the actions taken in the rehabilitation plan fail to improve this insurer's financial condition, or if the state court's ruling is overturned on appeal, this insurer may be forced into insolvency. In that event, the Company would be required to pay guaranty fund assessments related to this insurer. Due to the uncertainties surrounding this matter, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of any potential guaranty fund assessments. The Company is monitoring this situation. E. Legal and Regulatory Matters The Company is routinely involved in numerous claims, lawsuits, regulatory audits, investigations and other legal matters arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of managing a health services business. These actions may include benefit disputes, breach of contract claims, tort claims, provider disputes, disputes regarding reinsurance arrangements, employment and employment discrimination-related suits, employee benefit claims, wage and hour claims, privacy, intellectual property claims and real estate related disputes. There are currently, and may be in the future, attempts to bring class action lawsuits against the industry. The Company also is regularly engaged in IRS audits and may be subject to examinations by various state and foreign taxing authorities. Disputed income tax matters arising from these examinations, including those resulting in litigation, are accounted for under the FASB's guidance for uncertain tax positions. Further information on income tax matters can be found in Note 14. The business of administering and insuring health services programs, particularly health care and group insurance programs, is heavily regulated by federal and state laws and administrative agencies, such as state departments of insurance and the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, Labor and Justice, as well as the courts. Health care regulation and legislation in its various forms, including the implementation of Health Care Reform, other regulatory reform initiatives, such as those relating to Medicare programs, or additional changes in existing laws or regulations or their interpretations, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, there is heightened review by federal and state regulators of the health care, disability and life insurance industry business and related reporting practices. Cigna is frequently the subject of regulatory market conduct reviews and other examinations of its business and reporting practices, audits and investigations by state insurance and health and welfare departments, state attorneys general, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). With respect to Cigna's Medicare Advantage business, the CMS and OIG perform audits to determine a health plan's compliance with federal regulations and contractual obligations, including compliance with proper coding practices (sometimes referred to as Risk Adjustment Data Validation audits or RADV audits), that may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. Regulatory actions can result in assessments, civil or criminal fines or penalties or other sanctions, including loss of licensing or exclusion from participating in government programs. As a global company, Cigna is also subject to the laws, regulations and rules of the foreign jurisdictions in which it conducts business. Foreign laws and rules, and regulatory audit and investigation practices, may differ from or be more stringent than, similar requirements in the U.S. Regulation, legislation and judicial decisions have resulted in changes to industry and the Company's business practices, financial liability or other sanctions and will continue to do so in the future. When the Company (in the course of its regular review of pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters) has determined that a material loss is reasonably possible, the matter is disclosed. In accordance with GAAP, when litigation and regulatory matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to net income. The amount accrued represents the Company's best estimate of the probable loss at the time. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, the Company accrues an amount within the range that, in the Company's judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues the minimum amount of the range. In cases when the Company has accrued an estimated loss, the accrued amount may differ materially from the ultimate amount of the loss. In many proceedings, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount or range of any loss. The Company provides disclosure in the aggregate for material pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters, including accruals, range of loss, or a statement that such information cannot be estimated. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Company monitors the matter for further developments that could affect the amount previously accrued, if any, and updates such amount accrued or disclosures previously provided as appropriate. The outcome of litigation and other legal or regulatory matters is always uncertain, and unfavorable outcomes that are not justified by the evidence or existing law can occur. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the matters pending against it and is defending itself vigorously. Except as otherwise noted, the Company believes that the legal actions, regulatory matters, proceedings and investigations currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity based upon current knowledge and taking into consideration current accruals. The Company had pre-tax reserves as of June 30, 2015 of $189 million ($123 million after-tax) for the litigation matters discussed below. Due to numerous uncertain factors presented in these cases, it is not possible to estimate an aggregate range of loss (if any) for these matters at this time. In light of the uncertainties involved in these matters, there is no assurance that their ultimate resolution will not exceed the amounts currently accrued by the Company. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity for any particular period. Litigation Matters Amara cash balance pension plan litigation. In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the “Plan”) on behalf of herself and other similarly situated participants in the Plan affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), including, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. In 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions in this matter and returned the case to the District Court, which ordered the Company to pay substantially the same benefits as had been ordered in 2008 and denied the Company's motion to decertify the class. The parties again appealed, with the plaintiffs challenging the District Court's denial of their request to return to the prior annuity benefit plan formula, and Cigna and the Plan appealing the District Court's order and the denial of a motion to decertify the class. In December 2014, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court ruling. In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for re-hearing with the Second Circuit that was subsequently denied in March 2015. Neither the Company nor the plaintiffs have chosen to appeal further. The Company has submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members, and plaintiffs are expected to respond by August 3, 2015. Timing of completion of this phase remains uncertain. Ingenix. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation. In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. Regulatory Matters Disability claims regulatory matter. During the second quarter of 2013, the Company finalized an agreement with the Departments of Insurance for Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California (together, the “monitoring states”) related to the Company's long-term disability claims handling practices. Most other jurisdictions have joined the agreement as participating, non-monitoring states. The agreement requires, among other things: (1) enhanced procedures related to documentation and disposition; (2) a two-year monitoring period; and (3) reassessment of claims denied or closed during a two-year prior period, except California which has a three-year reassessment period. As previously disclosed, the Company recorded a charge of $77 million before-tax ($51 million after-tax) in the first quarter of 2013 related to this matter. The Company is actively addressing the requirements of the agreement. If the monitoring states find material non-compliance with the agreement upon re-examination, the Company may be subject to additional costs and penalties.

Contingencies and Other Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2015

Contingencies And Other Matters [Abstract]

Note 16 ― Contingencies and Other Matters

The Company, through its subsidiaries, is contingently liable for various guarantees provided in the ordinary course of business.

A. Financial Guarantees: Retiree and Life Insurance Benefits

Separate account assets are contractholder funds maintained in accounts with specific investment objectives. The Company records separate account liabilities equal to separate account assets. In certain cases, the Company guarantees a minimum level of benefits for retirement and insurance contracts written in separate accounts. The Company establishes an additional liability if management believes that the Company will be required to make a payment under these guarantees.

The Company guarantees that separate account assets will be sufficient to pay certain life insurance or retiree benefits. The sponsoring employers are primarily responsible for ensuring that assets are sufficient to pay these benefits and are required to maintain assets that exceed a certain percentage of benefit obligations. This percentage varies depending on the asset class within a sponsoring employer's portfolio (for example, a bond fund would require a lower percentage than a riskier equity fund) and thus will vary as the composition of the portfolio changes. If employers do not maintain the required levels of separate account assets, the Company or an affiliate of the buyer of the retirement benefits business (Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company) has the right to redirect the management of the related assets to provide for benefit payments. As of June 30, 2015, employers maintained assets that exceeded the benefit obligations. Benefit obligations under these arrangements were $496 million as of June 30, 2015 and approximately 14% of these are reinsured by an affiliate of the buyer of the retirement benefits business. The remaining guarantees are provided by the Company with minimal reinsurance from third parties. There were no additional liabilities required for these guarantees as of June 30, 2015. Separate account assets supporting these guarantees are classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the GAAP fair value hierarchy. See Note 7 for further information on the fair value hierarchy.

The Company does not expect that these financial guarantees will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

B. GMIB Contracts

Under these guarantees, the future payment amounts are dependent on underlying mutual fund investment values and interest rate levels prior to and at the date of annuitization election that must occur within 30 days of a policy anniversary after the appropriate waiting period. Therefore, the future payments are not fixed and determinable under the terms of these contracts. Accordingly, the Company calculated exposure, without considering any reinsurance coverage, using the following hypothetical assumptions:

no annuitants surrendered their accounts;
all annuitants lived to elect their benefit;
all annuitants elected to receive their benefit on the next available date (2015 through 2020); and
all underlying mutual fund investment values remained at the June 30, 2015 value of $1.0 billion with no future returns.

The Company has reinsurance coverage in place that covers the exposures on these contracts. Using these hypothetical assumptions, GMIB exposure is $740 million, which is lower than the recorded liability for GMIB calculated using fair value assumptions. See Notes 5, 7 and 9 for further information on GMIB contracts.

C. Certain Other Guarantees

The Company had indemnification obligations to lenders of up to $204 million as of June 30, 2015, related to borrowings by certain real estate joint ventures that the Company either records as an investment or consolidates. These borrowings, that are nonrecourse to the Company, are secured by the joint ventures' real estate properties with fair values in excess of the loan amounts and mature at various dates beginning in 2016 through 2021. The Company's indemnification obligations would require payment to lenders for any actual damages resulting from certain acts such as unauthorized ownership transfers, misappropriation of rental payments by others or environmental damages. Based on initial and ongoing reviews of property management and operations, the Company does not expect that payments will be required under these indemnification obligations. Any payments that might be required could be recovered through a refinancing or sale of the assets. In some cases, the Company also has recourse to partners for their proportionate share of amounts paid. There were no liabilities required for these indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2015.

As of June 30, 2015, the Company guaranteed that it would compensate the lessors for a shortfall of up to $41 million in the market value of certain leased equipment at the end of the leases. Guarantees of $16 million expire in 2016 and $25 million expire in 2022. The Company had liabilities for these guarantees of $10 million as of June 30, 2015.

The Company had indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2015 in connection with acquisition, disposition and reinsurance transactions. These indemnification obligations are triggered by the breach of representations or covenants provided by the Company, such as representations for the presentation of financial statements, actuarial models, the filing of tax returns, compliance with law or the identification of outstanding litigation. These obligations are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential amount due is subject to contractual limitations based on a percentage of the transaction purchase price, while in other cases limitations are not specified or applicable. The Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount due under these obligations, because not all amounts due under these indemnification obligations are subject to limitation. There were no liabilities for these indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2015.

The Company does not expect that these guarantees will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

D. Guaranty Fund Assessments

The Company operates in a regulatory environment that may require its participation in assessments under state insurance guaranty association laws. The Company's exposure to assessments for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants is based on its share of business written in the relevant jurisdictions. For the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, charges related to guaranty fund assessments were immaterial to the Company's results of operations.

The Company is aware of an insurer that is in rehabilitation. In 2012, the state court denied the regulator's amended petitions for liquidation and set forth specific requirements and a deadline for the regulator to develop a plan of rehabilitation without liquidating the insurer. The regulator has appealed the court's decision. If the actions taken in the rehabilitation plan fail to improve this insurer's financial condition, or if the state court's ruling is overturned on appeal, this insurer may be forced into insolvency. In that event, the Company would be required to pay guaranty fund assessments related to this insurer. Due to the uncertainties surrounding this matter, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of any potential guaranty fund assessments. The Company is monitoring this situation.

E. Legal and Regulatory Matters

The Company is routinely involved in numerous claims, lawsuits, regulatory audits, investigations and other legal matters arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of managing a health services business. These actions may include benefit disputes, breach of contract claims, tort claims, provider disputes, disputes regarding reinsurance arrangements, employment and employment discrimination-related suits, employee benefit claims, wage and hour claims, privacy, intellectual property claims and real estate related disputes. There are currently, and may be in the future, attempts to bring class action lawsuits against the industry. The Company also is regularly engaged in IRS audits and may be subject to examinations by various state and foreign taxing authorities. Disputed income tax matters arising from these examinations, including those resulting in litigation, are accounted for under the FASB's guidance for uncertain tax positions. Further information on income tax matters can be found in Note 14.

The business of administering and insuring health services programs, particularly health care and group insurance programs, is heavily regulated by federal and state laws and administrative agencies, such as state departments of insurance and the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, Labor and Justice, as well as the courts. Health care regulation and legislation in its various forms, including the implementation of Health Care Reform, other regulatory reform initiatives, such as those relating to Medicare programs, or additional changes in existing laws or regulations or their interpretations, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, there is heightened review by federal and state regulators of the health care, disability and life insurance industry business and related reporting practices. Cigna is frequently the subject of regulatory market conduct reviews and other examinations of its business and reporting practices, audits and investigations by state insurance and health and welfare departments, state attorneys general, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). With respect to Cigna's Medicare Advantage business, the CMS and OIG perform audits to determine a health plan's compliance with federal regulations and contractual obligations, including compliance with proper coding practices (sometimes referred to as Risk Adjustment Data Validation audits or RADV audits), that may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. Regulatory actions can result in assessments, civil or criminal fines or penalties or other sanctions, including loss of licensing or exclusion from participating in government programs.

As a global company, Cigna is also subject to the laws, regulations and rules of the foreign jurisdictions in which it conducts business. Foreign laws and rules, and regulatory audit and investigation practices, may differ from or be more stringent than, similar requirements in the U.S.

Regulation, legislation and judicial decisions have resulted in changes to industry and the Company's business practices, financial liability or other sanctions and will continue to do so in the future.

When the Company (in the course of its regular review of pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters) has determined that a material loss is reasonably possible, the matter is disclosed. In accordance with GAAP, when litigation and regulatory matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to net income. The amount accrued represents the Company's best estimate of the probable loss at the time. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, the Company accrues an amount within the range that, in the Company's judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues the minimum amount of the range. In cases when the Company has accrued an estimated loss, the accrued amount may differ materially from the ultimate amount of the loss. In many proceedings, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount or range of any loss. The Company provides disclosure in the aggregate for material pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters, including accruals, range of loss, or a statement that such information cannot be estimated. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Company monitors the matter for further developments that could affect the amount previously accrued, if any, and updates such amount accrued or disclosures previously provided as appropriate.

The outcome of litigation and other legal or regulatory matters is always uncertain, and unfavorable outcomes that are not justified by the evidence or existing law can occur. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the matters pending against it and is defending itself vigorously. Except as otherwise noted, the Company believes that the legal actions, regulatory matters, proceedings and investigations currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity based upon current knowledge and taking into consideration current accruals. The Company had pre-tax reserves as of June 30, 2015 of $189 million ($123 million after-tax) for the litigation matters discussed below. Due to numerous uncertain factors presented in these cases, it is not possible to estimate an aggregate range of loss (if any) for these matters at this time. In light of the uncertainties involved in these matters, there is no assurance that their ultimate resolution will not exceed the amounts currently accrued by the Company. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity for any particular period.

Litigation Matters

Amara cash balance pension plan litigation. In December, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the “Plan”) on behalf of herself and other similarly situated participants in the Plan affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), including, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. In 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions in this matter and returned the case to the District Court, which ordered the Company to pay substantially the same benefits as had been ordered in 2008 and denied the Company's motion to decertify the class. The parties again appealed, with the plaintiffs challenging the District Court's denial of their request to return to the prior annuity benefit plan formula, and Cigna and the Plan appealing the District Court's order and the denial of a motion to decertify the class. In December 2014, the Second Circuit upheld the District Court ruling. In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for re-hearing with the Second Circuit that was subsequently denied in March 2015. Neither the Company nor the plaintiffs have chosen to appeal further. The Company has submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members, and plaintiffs are expected to respond by August 3, 2015. Timing of completion of this phase remains uncertain.

Ingenix. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiff's request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position.

Regulatory Matters

Disability claims regulatory matter. During the second quarter of 2013, the Company finalized an agreement with the Departments of Insurance for Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California (together, the “monitoring states”) related to the Company's long-term disability claims handling practices. Most other jurisdictions have joined the agreement as participating, non-monitoring states. The agreement requires, among other things: (1) enhanced procedures related to documentation and disposition; (2) a two-year monitoring period; and (3) reassessment of claims denied or closed during a two-year prior period, except California which has a three-year reassessment period. As previously disclosed, the Company recorded a charge of $77 million before-tax ($51 million after-tax) in the first quarter of 2013 related to this matter. The Company is actively addressing the requirements of the agreement. If the monitoring states find material non-compliance with the agreement upon re-examination, the Company may be subject to additional costs and penalties.