The United States Supreme Court in, Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. Nevils, announced that the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act of 1959, 5 U.S.C. §8902 (FEHBA) preempts any State anti-subrogation or anti-reimbursement law. Although most Americans do not have health insurance through FEHBA, this decision will inevitably make most plaintiff personal injury claims more difficult to resolve. This is so because the decision will most likely be interpreted to definitively conclude that—without exception—insurance plans falling under The Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. ch. 18 (ERISA) also preempt State anti-subrogation and anti-reimbursement laws. Accordingly, despite the fact that the injured plaintiff pays premiums for his/her health insurance company to pay for the medical treatment, and although that injured plaintiff retains an attorney and wins his/her case, the health insurer will automatically receive a 100% reimbursement from the plaintiff. This means that a plaintiff may have won a cause of action to recover for their injuries, only to have an insurance company take all the money. Illinois law contemplates that under these scenarios, the insurance company usually must reduce the amount they are owed because it was the plaintiff that spent the time, money and effort to recover the money. This is known as the common fund doctrine. After this decision, health insurance companies may argue that they can lawfully refuse to reduce the amount they are owed because no state law requirement to reduce has any force. The following is a link to the United States Supreme Court decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-149_6jfm.pdf
— Ryan M. Griffin