Contingencies and Other Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
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 and 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. If employers fail to do so, the Company or an affiliate of the buyer of the retirement benefits business (Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company or “Prudential”) has the right to redirect the management of the related assets to provide for benefit payments. As of June 30, 2018 employers maintained assets that exceeded the benefit obligations under these arrangements of approximately $460 million. Approximately 12% of these are reinsured by Prudential. 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, 2018. Separate account assets supporting these guarantees are classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the GAAP fair value hierarchy (see Note 9). 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 indemnification obligations to a lender of approximately $90 million as of June 30, 2018, related to a borrowing by a certain real estate joint venture that the Company records as an investment. This borrowing (a nonrecourse obligation of the Company) matures in 2021 and is secured by the joint venture’s real estate property with a fair value in excess of the loan amount. The Company’s indemnification obligation would require payment to the lender 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 this indemnification obligation. Any payment that might be required could be recovered through a refinancing or sale of the assets. The Company also has recourse to the partner for their proportionate share of amounts paid. There were no liabilities required for this indemnification obligation as of June 30, 2018. 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. In first quarter 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 a charge of approximately $130 million before-tax ($85 million after-tax). As of June 30, 2018, the recorded liability for this assessment was approximately $42 million. Updates to the amount of the Penn Treaty assessment were not material in 2018. 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. Except for the specific matters noted below, 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. Disputed tax matters arising from audits by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or other state and foreign jurisdictions, 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. Pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters that the Company has identified with a reasonably possible material loss are described below. 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 estimated loss is the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss at the time or an amount within a range of estimated losses reflecting the most likely outcome or the minimum amount of the range (if no amount is better than any other estimated amount in the range). For material pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters discussed below, the Company provides disclosure in the aggregate of accruals and range of loss, or a statement that such information cannot be estimated. The Company had pre-tax accruals as of June 30, 2018 of $195 million ($155 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. From 2008 through 2015, 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. From that time through July 25, 2018, both parties have disputed various aspects of the Court’s interpretation and the Court has attempted to clarify. On July 14, 2017, the Court issued a ruling clarifying certain aspects of the January 2016 order. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2017 ruling that was denied by the Court on November 7, 2017. On July 25, 2018, the Court issued an oral ruling. It is anticipated that the Plan will be amended promptly to comply with the District Court’s orders and the remedy benefits will begin to be paid as soon as practicable thereafter. The Company’s reserve for this litigation is adequate at June 30, 2018, based on calculations consistent with the latest guidance from the Court. 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 Civil Investigative Demand. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is conducting an industry review of Medicare Advantage organizations’ risk adjustment practices under Medicare Parts C and D, including medical chart reviews and health exams. The Company is currently responding to information requests (civil investigative demands) received from the DOJ (U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of New York). We will continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation. 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. 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 Litigation related to the Merger. Following announcement of the Company’s Merger Agreement with Express Scripts as discussed in Note 3, putative class action complaints (collectively the “complaints”) have been filed against Express Scripts and the Express Scripts board of directors. Certain of these complaints also include Cigna, New Cigna, Cigna Merger Sub and Express Scripts Merger Sub as defendants. The complaints allege that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger (and certain amendments thereto) omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, rendering the registration statement false and misleading. Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the Express Scripts special meeting and the closing of the Merger, as well as damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The defendants believe that the lawsuits are without merit. Litigation with Anthem. In February 2017, the Company delivered a notice to Anthem terminating the 2015 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 in February 2017, the Company filed suit against Anthem in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Court”) seeking 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, including the lost premium value to the Company’s shareholders caused by Anthem’s willful breaches of the merger agreement. Also in February 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 temporarily enjoined the Company from terminating the merger agreement. In May 2017, the Chancery Court denied Anthem's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Cigna from terminating the merger agreement but stayed its ruling pending Anthem's determination as to whether to seek an appeal. Anthem subsequently notified Cigna and the Chancery Court that it did not intend to appeal the Chancery Court's decision. As a result, the merger agreement was terminated. The litigation between the parties remains pending. Trial is scheduled for February 2019. 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.

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. Except for the specific matters noted below, 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. Disputed tax matters arising from audits by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or other state and foreign jurisdictions, 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.

Pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters that the Company has identified with a reasonably possible material loss are described below. 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 estimated loss is the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss at the time or an amount within a range of estimated losses reflecting the most likely outcome or the minimum amount of the range (if no amount is better than any other estimated amount in the range). For material pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters discussed below, the Company provides disclosure in the aggregate of accruals and range of loss, or a statement that such information cannot be estimated. The Company had pre-tax accruals as of June 30, 2018 of $195 million ($155 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. From 2008 through 2015, 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. From that time through July 25, 2018, both parties have disputed various aspects of the Court’s interpretation and the Court has attempted to clarify. On July 14, 2017, the Court issued a ruling clarifying certain aspects of the January 2016 order. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2017 ruling that was denied by the Court on November 7, 2017. On July 25, 2018, the Court issued an oral ruling. It is anticipated that the Plan will be amended promptly to comply with the District Court’s orders and the remedy benefits will begin to be paid as soon as practicable thereafter. The Company’s reserve for this litigation is adequate at June 30, 2018, based on calculations consistent with the latest guidance from the Court.

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

Civil Investigative Demand. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is conducting an industry review of Medicare Advantage organizations’ risk adjustment practices under Medicare Parts C and D, including medical chart reviews and health exams. The Company is currently responding to information requests (civil investigative demands) received from the DOJ (U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of New York). We will continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation.

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. 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

Litigation related to the Merger. Following announcement of the Company’s Merger Agreement with Express Scripts as discussed in Note 3, putative class action complaints (collectively the “complaints”) have been filed against Express Scripts and the Express Scripts board of directors. Certain of these complaints also include Cigna, New Cigna, Cigna Merger Sub and Express Scripts Merger Sub as defendants. The complaints allege that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger (and certain amendments thereto) omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, rendering the registration statement false and misleading. Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the Express Scripts special meeting and the closing of the Merger, as well as damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The defendants believe that the lawsuits are without merit.

Litigation with Anthem. In February 2017, the Company delivered a notice to Anthem terminating the 2015 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 in February 2017, the Company filed suit against Anthem in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Court”) seeking 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, including the lost premium value to the Company’s shareholders caused by Anthem’s willful breaches of the merger agreement.

Also in February 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 temporarily enjoined the Company from terminating the merger agreement. In May 2017, the Chancery Court denied Anthem's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Cigna from terminating the merger agreement but stayed its ruling pending Anthem's determination as to whether to seek an appeal. Anthem subsequently notified Cigna and the Chancery Court that it did not intend to appeal the Chancery Court's decision. As a result, the merger agreement was terminated.

The litigation between the parties remains pending. Trial is scheduled for February 2019. 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.