Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a renowned law firm, has insured approximately 90% of a legal fee amounting to $185 million, which is currently under dispute with some of its clients, as revealed by court documents filed recently.
The firm’s insurance policy covers nearly $167 million of the fee, resulting from lawsuits by major health insurers against the U.S. government. This substantial fee, awarded following a victory for the health insurers worth almost $4 billion, is facing challenges from some of the companies in appeal.
These policies offer detailed insights into what Quinn Emanuel stands to lose or gain in this intense fee dispute, while also throwing light on the implications for the relatively new judgment preservation insurance market. It is noteworthy that such insurance markets generally function entirely privately. As industry experts have noted, substantial early losses on these kinds of policies could potentially drive up their prices.
Quinn Emanuel’s insurance policy came to public notice during the ongoing fee dispute. Some of the firm’s clients have contended that the law firm should accept a significant reduction on the nine-figure award, returning the remainder to the companies involved.
Investigative documents disclosed earlier revealed that Quinn Emanuel had secured a $25 million primary insurance policy following the win of the fee. These documents made reference to other “excess” policies and sparked conjecture that only a minor portion of the award had been insured.
However, the filing on Monday clarified that the primary and excess policies together contribute to a total of $166.85 million. Certain policy details remain confidential, such as the premium the firm paid for the policy and the insurance provider.
In essence, these policies indicate that Quinn Emanuel will retain the significant majority of the fee, irrespective of the court’s final ruling in this matter. The health insurers opposing the fee have maintained that the existence of these policies prevents the firm from seeking “a reasonable fee” from the court without risking a violation of the policies.
This case is listed as Health Republic Insurance Co. v. The United States, Ct. Cl., 16 259, 3/18/24.