Contingencies and Other Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Contingencies And Other Matters [Abstract]
Contingencies and Other Matters	Note 22 – Contingencies and Other Matters The Company, through its subsidiaries, is contingently liable for various guarantees provided in the ordinary course of business. A.Financial Guarantees: Retiree and Life Insurance Benefits The Company guarantees that separate account assets will be sufficient to pay certain life insurance or retiree benefits. For the majority of these 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 December 31, 2019, employers maintained assets that exceeded the benefit obligations under these arrangements of approximately $450 million. These guarantees are generally provided by the Company with minimal reinsurance from third parties. An additional liability is established if management believes that the Company will be required to make payments under the guarantees; there were no additional liabilities required for these guarantees, net of reinsurance, as of December 31, 2019. Separate account assets supporting these guarantees are classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the GAAP fair value hierarchy (see Note 12). The Company does not expect that these financial guarantees will have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. B.Certain Other Guarantees The Company had indemnification obligations as of December 31, 2019 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 for these indemnification obligations as of December 31, 2019. C.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. There were no material impacts related to existing or new guaranty fund assessments in 2019. D. Legal and Regulatory Matters The Company is routinely involved in numerous claims, lawsuits, regulatory inquiries and audits, government investigations, including under the federal False Claims Act and state false claims acts initiated by a government investigating body or by a qui tam relator’s filing of a complaint under court seal and other legal matters arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of managing a global health service business. Additionally, the Company has received and is cooperating with subpoenas or similar processes from various governmental agencies requesting information, all arising in the normal course of its business. Disputed tax matters arising from audits by the Internal Revenue Service 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 21. Pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters that the Company has identified with a reasonable possibility of material loss are described below. 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’s accruals for the matters discussed below under “Litigation Matters” and “Regulatory Matters” are immaterial. 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. The outcomes of lawsuits are inherently unpredictable, and we may be unsuccessful in these ongoing litigation matters or any future claims or litigation. 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 (now Old Cigna) and 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. Since then, there has been continued litigation regarding the calculation of benefits and attorneys’ fees and administration of the remedy payments. On November 29, 2018, the Court ordered the Pension Plan to pay attorneys’ and incentive fees of $32 million, and to pay any past due lump sums and back benefits within 90 days of the Order. The attorneys’ fees were paid as ordered in December 2018. In the first quarter of 2019, the Company amended the Plan, notified class participants of their increased benefits and commenced remedy benefit payments out of the Plan, including the past due lump sums and back benefits. See Note 16 for additional information. In April 2019, plaintiffs challenged certain aspects of the methodology used to calculate and pay benefits. In August 2019, the Court denied plaintiffs’ challenge in all but one minor respect that did not result in a material change to the pension obligation. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration that the Court denied on January 10, 2020. On January 15, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for an equitable accounting and a notice of appeal. Cigna 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. Anthem countersued, alleging its own claims for 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. A trial was held during the first quarter of 2019. Oral arguments on post-trial briefs were held on November 26, 2019. In February 2020, the Chancery Court issued a letter requesting certain supplemental briefing. The supplemental briefs are due March 6, 2020. We believe in the merits of our claims and dispute Anthem’s claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and pursue our claims. Express Scripts Litigation with Anthem. In March 2016, Anthem filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging various breach of contract claims against Express Scripts relating to the parties’ rights and obligations under the periodic pricing review section of the pharmacy benefit management agreement between the parties including allegations that Express Scripts failed to negotiate new pricing concessions in good faith, as well as various alleged service issues. Anthem also requested that the court enter declaratory judgment that Express Scripts is required to provide Anthem competitive benchmark pricing, that Anthem can terminate the agreement, and that Express Scripts is required to provide Anthem with post-termination services at competitive benchmark pricing for one year following any termination by Anthem. Anthem claims it is entitled to $13 billion in additional pricing concessions over the remaining term of the agreement, as well as $1.8 billion for one year following any contract termination by Anthem and $150 million in damages for service issues (“Anthem’s Allegations”). On April 19, 2016, in response to Anthem’s complaint, Express Scripts filed its answer denying Anthem’s Allegations in their entirety and asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims against Anthem. The court subsequently granted Anthem’s motion to dismiss two of six counts of Express Scripts’ amended counterclaims. The current scheduling order runs through the completion of summary judgment briefing in October 2020. There is no tentative trial date. We believe in the merits of our claims and dispute Anthem’s claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and pursue our claims. Regulatory Matters Civil Investigative Demand. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is conducting an industry-wide investigation 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. The Company is subject to an agreement with the Departments of Insurance for Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California (together, the “Lead States”), originally entered into in 2013, that relates to the Company’s long-term disability claims handling practices. The agreement provides for enhanced procedures related to documentation and disposition. Cigna has cooperated fully with the Lead States and we believe we have addressed the requirements of the agreement. The Lead States initiated a re-examination of our practices. Accordingly, the Company may be subject to additional costs, penalties and requests to change its business practices that could negatively impact future earnings for this business.

Contingencies and Other Matters

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Contingencies And Other Matters [Abstract]

Note 22 – Contingencies and Other Matters

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

A.Financial Guarantees: Retiree and Life Insurance Benefits

The Company guarantees that separate account assets will be sufficient to pay certain life insurance or retiree benefits. For the majority of these 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 December 31, 2019, employers maintained assets that exceeded the benefit obligations under these arrangements of approximately $450 million. These guarantees are generally provided by the Company with minimal reinsurance from third parties. An additional liability is established if management believes that the Company will be required to make payments under the guarantees; there were no additional liabilities required for these guarantees, net of reinsurance, as of December 31, 2019. Separate account assets supporting these guarantees are classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the GAAP fair value hierarchy (see Note 12).

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

B.Certain Other Guarantees

The Company had indemnification obligations as of December 31, 2019 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 for these indemnification obligations as of December 31, 2019.

C.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.

There were no material impacts related to existing or new guaranty fund assessments in 2019.

D. Legal and Regulatory Matters

The Company is routinely involved in numerous claims, lawsuits, regulatory inquiries and audits, government investigations, including under the federal False Claims Act and state false claims acts initiated by a government investigating body or by a qui tam relator’s filing of a complaint under court seal and other legal matters arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of managing a global health service business. Additionally, the Company has received and is cooperating with subpoenas or similar processes from various governmental agencies requesting information, all arising in the normal course of its business. Disputed tax matters arising from audits by the Internal Revenue Service 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 21.

Pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters that the Company has identified with a reasonable possibility of material loss are described below. 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’s accruals for the matters discussed below under “Litigation Matters” and “Regulatory Matters” are immaterial. 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. The outcomes of lawsuits are inherently unpredictable, and we may be unsuccessful in these ongoing litigation matters or any future claims or litigation.

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 (now Old Cigna) and 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.

Since then, there has been continued litigation regarding the calculation of benefits and attorneys’ fees and administration of the remedy payments. On November 29, 2018, the Court ordered the Pension Plan to pay attorneys’ and incentive fees of $32 million, and to pay any past due lump sums and back benefits within 90 days of the Order. The attorneys’ fees were paid as ordered in December 2018. In the first quarter of 2019, the Company amended the Plan, notified class participants of their increased benefits and commenced remedy benefit payments out of the Plan, including the past due lump sums and back benefits. See Note 16 for additional information.

In April 2019, plaintiffs challenged certain aspects of the methodology used to calculate and pay benefits. In August 2019, the Court denied plaintiffs’ challenge in all but one minor respect that did not result in a material change to the pension obligation. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration that the Court denied on January 10, 2020. On January 15, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for an equitable accounting and a notice of appeal.

Cigna 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. Anthem countersued, alleging its own claims for 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. A trial was held during the first quarter of 2019. Oral arguments on post-trial briefs were held on November 26, 2019. In February 2020, the Chancery Court issued a letter requesting certain supplemental briefing. The supplemental briefs are due March 6, 2020. We believe in the merits of our claims and dispute Anthem’s claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and pursue our claims.

Express Scripts Litigation with Anthem. In March 2016, Anthem filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging various breach of contract claims against Express Scripts relating to the parties’ rights and obligations under the periodic pricing review section of the pharmacy benefit management agreement between the parties including allegations that Express Scripts failed to negotiate new pricing concessions in good faith, as well as various alleged service issues. Anthem also requested that the court enter declaratory judgment that Express Scripts is required to provide Anthem competitive benchmark pricing, that Anthem can terminate the agreement, and that Express Scripts is required to provide Anthem with post-termination services at competitive benchmark pricing for one year following any termination by Anthem. Anthem claims it is entitled to $13 billion in additional pricing concessions over the remaining term of the agreement, as well as $1.8 billion for one year following any contract termination by Anthem and $150 million in damages for service issues (“Anthem’s Allegations”). On April 19, 2016, in response to Anthem’s complaint, Express Scripts filed its answer denying Anthem’s Allegations in their entirety and asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims against Anthem. The court subsequently granted Anthem’s motion to dismiss two of six counts of Express Scripts’ amended counterclaims. The current scheduling order runs through the completion of summary judgment briefing in October 2020. There is no tentative trial date. We believe in the merits of our claims and dispute Anthem’s claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and pursue our claims.

Regulatory Matters

Civil Investigative Demand. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is conducting an industry-wide investigation 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. The Company is subject to an agreement with the Departments of Insurance for Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California (together, the “Lead States”), originally entered into in 2013, that relates to the Company’s long-term disability claims handling practices. The agreement provides for enhanced procedures related to documentation and disposition. Cigna has cooperated fully with the Lead States and we believe we have addressed the requirements of the agreement. The Lead States initiated a re-examination of our practices. Accordingly, the Company may be subject to additional costs, penalties and requests to change its business practices that could negatively impact future earnings for this business.