Contingencies and Other Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
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. 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 March 31, 2017, employers maintained assets that exceeded the benefit obligations. Benefit obligations under these arrangements were $488 million as of March 31, 2017 and approximately 13% 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 March 31, 2017. Separate account assets supporting these guarantees are classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the GAAP fair value hierarchy. See Note 9 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. GMIB Contracts See Note 8 for discussion. C. Certain Other Guarantees The Company had financial guarantees and indemnification obligations to lenders of approximately $153 million as of March 31, 2017, related to borrowings by certain real estate joint ventures that the Company either records as an investment or consolidates. These borrowings, that are both recourse and 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 2018 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 financial guarantees or 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 financial guarantees and indemnification obligations as of March 31, 2017. As of March 31, 2017, the Company guaranteed that it would compensate the lessors for a shortfall of up to $32 million in the market value of certain leased equipment at the end of its leases. Guarantees of $25 million expire in 2022 and $7 million expire in 2026. The Company had liabilities for these guarantees of $3 million as of March 31, 2017. 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. The Company had indemnification obligations as of March 31, 2017 in connection with acquisition and disposition 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, 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 required for these indemnification obligations as of March 31, 2017. 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. On March 1, 2017, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania entered an order of liquidation of Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company, together with its subsidiary American Network Insurance Company (collectively “Penn Treaty”, a long-term care insurance carrier), triggering guaranty fund coverage and accrual of a liability. For the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company recorded in operating expenses $129 million pre-tax ($83 million after-tax), representing its estimate of future assessments on a discounted basis. Amounts recorded by segment were: Global Health Care, $106 million pre-tax ($68 million after-tax) and Group Disability and Life, $23 million pre-tax ($15 million after-tax). These estimates include small reductions for premium tax refunds for insurance contracts currently written. This assessment is expected to be updated in future periods for changes in the estimate of the insolvency. In addition, a portion of this assessment is expected to be offset in the future by premium tax credits that will be recognized in the period received. 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 global 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, claims arising from consumer protection laws, 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 Internal Revenue Service (“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 GAAP guidance for uncertain tax positions. Further information on income tax matters can be found in Note 15. 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 Health Care Reform Act, 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, 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. In December 2016, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice relating to our Medicare Part C and D risk adjustment compliance activities and business processes, particularly as they relate to our review of medical records conducted as part of our data and payment accuracy compliance efforts. We believe that this request for information is in connection with a broader review of Medicare Risk Adjustment generally that includes a number of Medicare Advantage plans, providers and vendors. We intend to cooperate with and voluntarily respond to the information request. 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. Such matters are described below. 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 shareholders' 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 our current knowledge and taking into consideration current accruals. The Company had pre-tax reserves as of March 31, 2017 of approximately $190 million ($125 million after-tax) for the matters discussed below under “Litigation Matters.” 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 Plan participants 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. From 2008 through the present, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members. The court order left several aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits open to interpretation. During 2016, the Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the plaintiffs filed various objections. On January 10, 2017, the District Court issued an additional ruling regarding certain aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits. The Company's reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at March 31, 2017 based on calculations consistent with the Company's interpretation of the updated guidance from the Court. However, certain aspects of the ruling will need further clarification from the Court before final plan benefits can be determined. As a result, the timing of the resolution of this matter remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to comply with the final interpretation of the District Court's order and the benefits will begin to be paid. 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 plaintiffs' 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. On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims. However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. Regulatory Matters CMS actions. In January 2016, CMS issued a Notice of Imposition of Immediate Intermediate Sanctions (the “Notice”) to the Company. The Notice required us to suspend certain enrollment and marketing activities for Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug and Medicare Part D Plans. The sanctions do not impact the right of current enrollees to remain covered by our Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug or Medicare Part D Plans. CMS imposed sanctions based on its findings of deficiencies with the Company's operations of its Parts C and D appeals and grievances, Part D formulary and benefit administration and compliance program. Management is working towards having these sanctions lifted in time to participate in the 2018 annual enrollment period. For the three months ended March 31, 2017, Medicare enrollment and consolidated revenues were materially impacted due to our inability to participate in 2017 annual enrollment, and management expects that trend to continue for the remainder of 2017. However, management anticipates that full-year 2017 shareholders' net income will not be materially affected because we expect the margin impact of the revenue loss to be offset by 2017 remediation costs that are significantly lower than the $100 million after-tax amount reported in 2016 and other operational efficiencies to improve 2017 results. On October 12, 2016, CMS announced Medicare Star Quality Ratings (“Star Ratings”) for 2017. While Star Ratings are based on a number of plan performance measures that are evaluated each year, the projected Star Ratings for our plans included certain reductions that are primarily attributable to our CMS audit discussed above. Under these revised Star Ratings, approximately 20% of our Medicare Advantage customers are expected to be in a 4 Stars or greater plan. The Company does not believe that these Star Ratings reflect the quality offerings Cigna-HealthSpring provides to beneficiaries. The Company filed a Reconsideration request with CMS, which was denied, and will work fully with CMS through their process as well as consider additional alternatives with the objective that the final Star Ratings more accurately reflect our performance under the Star Ratings measures. The Company remains committed to our partnership with CMS and to delivering quality products and services to seniors, while working to mitigate the impact these Star Ratings could have on our offerings in 2018. If we are unsuccessful in restoring at least some of the Star Ratings, modifying our product offerings or implementing operational efficiencies in the Government business, the effect in 2018 could be material to shareholders' net income. There is no financial impact in 2017 because these ratings apply to plans for the 2018 payment year. 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. The agreement requires primarily: (1) enhanced procedures related to documentation and disposition and (2) a two-year monitoring period followed by a re-examination that began in the second quarter of 2016. Management believes the Company has addressed 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 or requests to change its business practices that could negatively impact future earnings for this business. Other Legal Matters Antitrust Litigation. On July 21, 2016, the DOJ and certain state attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “District Court”) seeking to block the merger and, on January 4, 2017, the parties concluded the District Court trial. On February 8, 2017, the District Court issued an order enjoining the proposed merger. Anthem filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) and requested an expedited appeal. On February 17, 2017, the Appeals Court granted Anthem's motion for an expedited appeal. That same day, the Company filed its notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the Appeals Court. Oral arguments were heard on March 24, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. On May 5, 2017, Anthem filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision affirming the District Court's order enjoining the merger. Litigation with Anthem. On February 14, 2017, the Company delivered a notice to Anthem terminating the merger agreement, and notifying Anthem that it must pay the Company the $1.85 billion reverse termination fee pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement. Also on February 14, 2017, the Company filed suit against Anthem in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Court”). The complaint sought declaratory judgments that the Company's termination of the merger agreement was valid and that Anthem was not permitted to extend the termination date. The complaint also sought payment of the reverse termination fee and additional damages in an amount exceeding $13 billion, which includes the lost premium value to the Company's shareholders caused by Anthem's willful breaches of the merger agreement. Also on February 14, 2017, Anthem filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court against the Company seeking (i) a temporary restraining order to enjoin Cigna from terminating and taking any action contrary to the terms of the merger agreement, (ii) specific performance compelling Cigna to comply with the merger agreement and (iii) damages. On February 15, 2017, the Chancery Court granted Anthem's motion for a temporary restraining order and issued an order temporarily enjoining the Company from terminating the merger agreement. This is not a decision on the merits of the case, but rather an order to ensure irrevocable actions do not take place before the Chancery Court's substantive review of the issues. The Company will continue to abide by terms of the merger agreement until the expiration or lifting of the Chancery Court's order and any further review of the case by the Chancery Court. This order will be subject to review by the Chancery Court at a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for May 8, 2017. We believe in the merits of our claims and dispute Anthem's claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and pursue our claims. The outcomes of lawsuits are inherently unpredictable, and we may be unsuccessful in the ongoing litigation or any future claims or litigation. Shareholder Litigation. Following announcement of the Company's merger agreement with Anthem as discussed in Note 3, putative class action complaints (collectively the “complaints” or “Cigna Merger Litigation”) were filed by purported Cigna shareholders on behalf of a purported class of Cigna shareholders. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future. Cigna, members of the Cigna board of directors, Anthem and Anthem Merger Sub Corp (“Merger Sub”) have been named as defendants. The plaintiffs generally assert that the members of the Cigna board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Cigna shareholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger, and that Cigna, Anthem and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The allegations include, among other things, that (1) the merger consideration undervalues Cigna, (2) the sales process leading up to the merger was flawed due to purported conflicts of interest of members of the Cigna board of directors and (3) certain provisions of the merger agreement inappropriately favor Anthem and inhibit competing bids. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger agreement to the extent already implemented, and costs and damages. Effective November 24, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company, the Company's directors, Anthem and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to settle the Cigna Merger Litigation. Subject to approval by the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford and further definitive documentation in a settlement agreement that will be subject to customary conditions, the MOU resolved the Cigna Merger Litigation and provided that the Company would make certain additional disclosures related to the merger. If the Court approves the settlement, the Cigna Merger Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice and all claims that were or could have been brought in any actions challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement and any related disclosures will be released. In connection with the settlement, subject to the ultimate determination of the Court, plaintiffs' counsel may receive an award of reasonable fees. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a settlement agreement, or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such agreement. The MOU may terminate, if, among other reasons, the Court does not approve the settlement or the merger is not consummated for any reason.

Contingencies and Other Matters

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2017

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.

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 March 31, 2017, employers maintained assets that exceeded the benefit obligations. Benefit obligations under these arrangements were $488 million as of March 31, 2017 and approximately 13% 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 March 31, 2017. Separate account assets supporting these guarantees are classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the GAAP fair value hierarchy. See Note 9 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.

GMIB Contracts

See Note 8 for discussion.

C. Certain Other Guarantees

The Company had financial guarantees and indemnification obligations to lenders of approximately $153 million as of March 31, 2017, related to borrowings by certain real estate joint ventures that the Company either records as an investment or consolidates. These borrowings, that are both recourse and 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 2018 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 financial guarantees or 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 financial guarantees and indemnification obligations as of March 31, 2017.

As of March 31, 2017, the Company guaranteed that it would compensate the lessors for a shortfall of up to $32 million in the market value of certain leased equipment at the end of its leases. Guarantees of $25 million expire in 2022 and $7 million expire in 2026. The Company had liabilities for these guarantees of $3 million as of March 31, 2017.

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.

The Company had indemnification obligations as of March 31, 2017 in connection with acquisition and disposition 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, 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 required for these indemnification obligations as of March 31, 2017.

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.

On March 1, 2017, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania entered an order of liquidation of Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company, together with its subsidiary American Network Insurance Company (collectively “Penn Treaty”, a long-term care insurance carrier), triggering guaranty fund coverage and accrual of a liability. For the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company recorded in operating expenses $129 million pre-tax ($83 million after-tax), representing its estimate of future assessments on a discounted basis. Amounts recorded by segment were: Global Health Care, $106 million pre-tax ($68 million after-tax) and Group Disability and Life, $23 million pre-tax ($15 million after-tax). These estimates include small reductions for premium tax refunds for insurance contracts currently written. This assessment is expected to be updated in future periods for changes in the estimate of the insolvency. In addition, a portion of this assessment is expected to be offset in the future by premium tax credits that will be recognized in the period received.

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 global 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, claims arising from consumer protection laws, 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 Internal Revenue Service (“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 GAAP guidance for uncertain tax positions. Further information on income tax matters can be found in Note 15.

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 Health Care Reform Act, 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, 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.

In December 2016, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice relating to our Medicare Part C and D risk adjustment compliance activities and business processes, particularly as they relate to our review of medical records conducted as part of our data and payment accuracy compliance efforts. We believe that this request for information is in connection with a broader review of Medicare Risk Adjustment generally that includes a number of Medicare Advantage plans, providers and vendors. We intend to cooperate with and voluntarily respond to the information request.

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. Such matters are described below. 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 shareholders' 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 our current knowledge and taking into consideration current accruals. The Company had pre-tax reserves as of March 31, 2017 of approximately $190 million ($125 million after-tax) for the matters discussed below under “Litigation Matters.” 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 Plan participants 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. From 2008 through the present, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members. The court order left several aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits open to interpretation. During 2016, the Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the plaintiffs filed various objections. On January 10, 2017, the District Court issued an additional ruling regarding certain aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits. The Company's reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at March 31, 2017 based on calculations consistent with the Company's interpretation of the updated guidance from the Court. However, certain aspects of the ruling will need further clarification from the Court before final plan benefits can be determined. As a result, the timing of the resolution of this matter remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to comply with the final interpretation of the District Court's order and the benefits will begin to be paid.

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 plaintiffs' 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. On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims. However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position.

Regulatory Matters

CMS actions. In January 2016, CMS issued a Notice of Imposition of Immediate Intermediate Sanctions (the “Notice”) to the Company. The Notice required us to suspend certain enrollment and marketing activities for Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug and Medicare Part D Plans. The sanctions do not impact the right of current enrollees to remain covered by our Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug or Medicare Part D Plans.

CMS imposed sanctions based on its findings of deficiencies with the Company's operations of its Parts C and D appeals and grievances, Part D formulary and benefit administration and compliance program. Management is working towards having these sanctions lifted in time to participate in the 2018 annual enrollment period. For the three months ended March 31, 2017, Medicare enrollment and consolidated revenues were materially impacted due to our inability to participate in 2017 annual enrollment, and management expects that trend to continue for the remainder of 2017. However, management anticipates that full-year 2017 shareholders' net income will not be materially affected because we expect the margin impact of the revenue loss to be offset by 2017 remediation costs that are significantly lower than the $100 million after-tax amount reported in 2016 and other operational efficiencies to improve 2017 results.

On October 12, 2016, CMS announced Medicare Star Quality Ratings (“Star Ratings”) for 2017. While Star Ratings are based on a number of plan performance measures that are evaluated each year, the projected Star Ratings for our plans included certain reductions that are primarily attributable to our CMS audit discussed above. Under these revised Star Ratings, approximately 20% of our Medicare Advantage customers are expected to be in a 4 Stars or greater plan. The Company does not believe that these Star Ratings reflect the quality offerings Cigna-HealthSpring provides to beneficiaries.

The Company filed a Reconsideration request with CMS, which was denied, and will work fully with CMS through their process as well as consider additional alternatives with the objective that the final Star Ratings more accurately reflect our performance under the Star Ratings measures. The Company remains committed to our partnership with CMS and to delivering quality products and services to seniors, while working to mitigate the impact these Star Ratings could have on our offerings in 2018. If we are unsuccessful in restoring at least some of the Star Ratings, modifying our product offerings or implementing operational efficiencies in the Government business, the effect in 2018 could be material to shareholders' net income. There is no financial impact in 2017 because these ratings apply to plans for the 2018 payment year.

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. The agreement requires primarily: (1) enhanced procedures related to documentation and disposition and (2) a two-year monitoring period followed by a re-examination that began in the second quarter of 2016. Management believes the Company has addressed 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 or requests to change its business practices that could negatively impact future earnings for this business.

Other Legal Matters

Antitrust Litigation. On July 21, 2016, the DOJ and certain state attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “District Court”) seeking to block the merger and, on January 4, 2017, the parties concluded the District Court trial. On February 8, 2017, the District Court issued an order enjoining the proposed merger. Anthem filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) and requested an expedited appeal. On February 17, 2017, the Appeals Court granted Anthem's motion for an expedited appeal. That same day, the Company filed its notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the Appeals Court. Oral arguments were heard on March 24, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. On May 5, 2017, Anthem filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision affirming the District Court's order enjoining the merger.

Litigation with Anthem. On February 14, 2017, the Company delivered a notice to Anthem terminating the merger agreement, and notifying Anthem that it must pay the Company the $1.85 billion reverse termination fee pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement. Also on February 14, 2017, the Company filed suit against Anthem in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Court”). The complaint sought declaratory judgments that the Company's termination of the merger agreement was valid and that Anthem was not permitted to extend the termination date. The complaint also sought payment of the reverse termination fee and additional damages in an amount exceeding $13 billion, which includes the lost premium value to the Company's shareholders caused by Anthem's willful breaches of the merger agreement.

Also on February 14, 2017, Anthem filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court against the Company seeking (i) a temporary restraining order to enjoin Cigna from terminating and taking any action contrary to the terms of the merger agreement, (ii) specific performance compelling Cigna to comply with the merger agreement and (iii) damages. On February 15, 2017, the Chancery Court granted Anthem's motion for a temporary restraining order and issued an order temporarily enjoining the Company from terminating the merger agreement. This is not a decision on the merits of the case, but rather an order to ensure irrevocable actions do not take place before the Chancery Court's substantive review of the issues. The Company will continue to abide by terms of the merger agreement until the expiration or lifting of the Chancery Court's order and any further review of the case by the Chancery Court. This order will be subject to review by the Chancery Court at a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for May 8, 2017.

We believe in the merits of our claims and dispute Anthem's claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and pursue our claims. The outcomes of lawsuits are inherently unpredictable, and we may be unsuccessful in the ongoing litigation or any future claims or litigation.

Shareholder Litigation. Following announcement of the Company's merger agreement with Anthem as discussed in Note 3, putative class action complaints (collectively the “complaints” or “Cigna Merger Litigation”) were filed by purported Cigna shareholders on behalf of a purported class of Cigna shareholders. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future.

Cigna, members of the Cigna board of directors, Anthem and Anthem Merger Sub Corp (“Merger Sub”) have been named as defendants. The plaintiffs generally assert that the members of the Cigna board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Cigna shareholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger, and that Cigna, Anthem and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The allegations include, among other things, that (1) the merger consideration undervalues Cigna, (2) the sales process leading up to the merger was flawed due to purported conflicts of interest of members of the Cigna board of directors and (3) certain provisions of the merger agreement inappropriately favor Anthem and inhibit competing bids. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger agreement to the extent already implemented, and costs and damages.

Effective November 24, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company, the Company's directors, Anthem and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to settle the Cigna Merger Litigation. Subject to approval by the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford and further definitive documentation in a settlement agreement that will be subject to customary conditions, the MOU resolved the Cigna Merger Litigation and provided that the Company would make certain additional disclosures related to the merger. If the Court approves the settlement, the Cigna Merger Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice and all claims that were or could have been brought in any actions challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement and any related disclosures will be released. In connection with the settlement, subject to the ultimate determination of the Court, plaintiffs' counsel may receive an award of reasonable fees. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a settlement agreement, or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such agreement. The MOU may terminate, if, among other reasons, the Court does not approve the settlement or the merger is not consummated for any reason.