CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings In the normal course of business, the Company has been named as a defendant in various legal actions such as actions seeking payments for claims denied by the Company, medical malpractice actions, employment related claims and other various claims seeking monetary damages. The claims are in various stages of proceedings and some may ultimately be brought to trial. The Company maintains general liability, professional liability and employment practices liability insurances in amounts that it believes are appropriate, with varying deductibles for which it maintains reserves. The professional errors and omissions liability and employment practices liability insurances are carried through its captive subsidiary. Although the results of pending litigation are always uncertain, the Company does not believe the results of such actions currently threatened or pending, including those described below, will individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income. As described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, requesting information regarding the operational process for confirming Medicare eligibility for its Workers’ Compensation set-aside product. The Company is fully cooperating and is providing the requested information. The Company cannot predict what, if any, actions may be taken by the U.S. Attorney. However, based on the information known to date, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this investigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income. On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and three of its current and former officers in the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with the court for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel. By agreement, the four shareholders submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel. In December 2009, the court approved the stipulation and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint. The purported class period is February 9, 2007 to October 22, 2008. The consolidated and amended complaint alleges that the Company’s public statements contained false, misleading and incomplete information regarding the Company’s profitability, particularly with respect to the profit margins for its Medicare Private-Fee-For-Service products. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to that part of the court’s March 31, 2011 Order which denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion for reconsideration was denied, but the court did rule that the class period was further restricted to April 25, 2008 to June 18, 2008. The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuit. Although it cannot predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income. On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative ERISA class action lawsuit against the Company and several of its current and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering and maintaining Company stock in the Plan after it allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly failing to provide complete and accurate information about the Company’s financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings and public statements. Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in the same court and were consolidated on December 9, 2009. An amended consolidated complaint has been filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 31, 2011 Order and filed an Alternative Motion to Certify the Court’s March 31, 2011 Order For Interlocutory Appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Both of those motions were denied. The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in the consolidated lawsuit. Although it cannot predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income. Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Company accrues a liability of an estimated amount. In many proceedings, however, it is difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible. In addition, even where a loss is reasonably possible or an exposure to a loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously identified loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss. There is significant judgment required in both the probability determination and as to whether an exposure to a loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss, or range of loss, in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described above due to the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings. These matters can be affected by various factors; including, but not limited to, the procedural status of the dispute, the novel legal issues presented (including the legal basis for the majority of the alleged violations), the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory judgments, fines and penalties, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event a judgment, fine or penalty is assessed. Therefore, although the Company considers the likelihood to be remote, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts in excess of the Company’s expectations, the Company’s financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income could be materially adversely affected. Guaranty Fund Assessments The Company operates in a regulatory environment that may require the Company to participate in assessments under state insurance guaranty association laws. The Company’s exposure to guaranty fund assessments is based on its share of business it writes in the relevant jurisdictions for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants. An assessment could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations and comprehensive income. The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (“PID”) has placed Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary (collectively, “Penn Treaty”), neither of which is affiliated with the Company, in rehabilitation (an intermediate action before insolvency) and had petitioned the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (the “Court”) for liquidation. On May 9, 2012, the Court disallowed efforts by the PID to liquidate Penn Treaty. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the PID “shall develop a plan of rehabilitation of the Companies [Penn Treaty], in consultation with the Intervenors, and shall submit a plan no later than ninety (90) days following the date of this Order.” If Penn Treaty were to be liquidated, in future periods, the Company’s health plans and other insurers may be required to pay a portion of Penn Treaty’s policyholder claims through guaranty association assessments from various states in which Penn Treaty policyholders reside and in which the Company’s health plans and insurance subsidiaries write premiums. Such an assessment could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations and comprehensive income.

CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

In the normal course of business, the Company has been named as a defendant in various legal actions such as actions seeking payments for claims denied by the Company, medical malpractice actions, employment related claims and other various claims seeking monetary damages. The claims are in various stages of proceedings and some may ultimately be brought to trial. The Company maintains general liability, professional liability and employment practices liability insurances in amounts that it believes are appropriate, with varying deductibles for which it maintains reserves. The professional errors and omissions liability and employment practices liability insurances are carried through its captive subsidiary. Although the results of pending litigation are always uncertain, the Company does not believe the results of such actions currently threatened or pending, including those described below, will individually or in the aggregate have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income.

As described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, requesting information regarding the operational process for confirming Medicare eligibility for its Workers’ Compensation set-aside product. The Company is fully cooperating and is providing the requested information. The Company cannot predict what, if any, actions may be taken by the U.S. Attorney. However, based on the information known to date, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this investigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income.

On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and three of its current and former officers in the U.S District Court for the District of Maryland. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, three other shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with the court for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel. By agreement, the four shareholders submitted a stipulation to the court regarding appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel. In December 2009, the court approved the stipulation and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated and amended complaint. The purported class period is February 9, 2007 to October 22, 2008. The consolidated and amended complaint alleges that the Company’s public statements contained false, misleading and incomplete information regarding the Company’s profitability, particularly with respect to the profit margins for its Medicare Private-Fee-For-Service products. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to that part of the court’s March 31, 2011 Order which denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion for reconsideration was denied, but the court did rule that the class period was further restricted to April 25, 2008 to June 18, 2008. The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuit. Although it cannot predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income.

On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative ERISA class action lawsuit against the Company and several of its current and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering and maintaining Company stock in the Plan after it allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly failing to provide complete and accurate information about the Company’s financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings and public statements. Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in the same court and were consolidated on December 9, 2009. An amended consolidated complaint has been filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 31, 2011 Order and filed an Alternative Motion to Certify the Court’s March 31, 2011 Order For Interlocutory Appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Both of those motions were denied. The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in the consolidated lawsuit. Although it cannot predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income.

Where available information indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Company accrues a liability of an estimated amount. In many proceedings, however, it is difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible. In addition, even where a loss is reasonably possible or an exposure to a loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously identified loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss.

There is significant judgment required in both the probability determination and as to whether an exposure to a loss can be reasonably estimated. No estimate of the possible loss, or range of loss, in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described above due to the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings. These matters can be affected by various factors; including, but not limited to, the procedural status of the dispute, the novel legal issues presented (including the legal basis for the majority of the alleged violations), the inherent difficulty in predicting regulatory judgments, fines and penalties, and the various remedies and levels of judicial review available to the Company in the event a judgment, fine or penalty is assessed. Therefore, although the Company considers the likelihood to be remote, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts in excess of the Company’s expectations, the Company’s financial position or results of operations and comprehensive income could be materially adversely affected.

Guaranty Fund Assessments

The Company operates in a regulatory environment that may require the Company to participate in assessments under state insurance guaranty association laws. The Company’s exposure to guaranty fund assessments is based on its share of business it writes in the relevant jurisdictions for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants. An assessment could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations and comprehensive income.

The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Insurance Department (“PID”) has placed Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and its subsidiary (collectively, “Penn Treaty”), neither of which is affiliated with the Company, in rehabilitation (an intermediate action before insolvency) and had petitioned the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (the “Court”) for liquidation. On May 9, 2012, the Court disallowed efforts by the PID to liquidate Penn Treaty. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the PID “shall develop a plan of rehabilitation of the Companies [Penn Treaty], in consultation with the Intervenors, and shall submit a plan no later than ninety (90) days following the date of this Order.”

If Penn Treaty were to be liquidated, in future periods, the Company’s health plans and other insurers may be required to pay a portion of Penn Treaty’s policyholder claims through guaranty association assessments from various states in which Penn Treaty policyholders reside and in which the Company’s health plans and insurance subsidiaries write premiums. Such an assessment could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations and comprehensive income.