Healthamerica Corp. of Kentucky v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., s. 85-SC-14-T

Citation697 S.W.2d 946
Decision Date03 July 1985
Docket Number85-SC-15-TC,Nos. 85-SC-14-T,s. 85-SC-14-T
PartiesHEALTHAMERICA CORPORATION OF KENTUCKY, Appellant, v. HUMANA HEALTH PLAN, INC., Independence Health Plan of Kentucky, Lester M. Thompson, Secretary Finance and Administration Cabinet, Thomas C. Greenwell, Commissioner Department of Personnel Finance and Administration Cabinet, Frances Jones Mills, Treasurer Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)

Phillip J. Shepherd, Shepherd & Childers, Frankfort, for appellant.

Marvin J. Hirn, James E. Milliman, Barbara Reid Hartung, Greenbaum Doll & McDonald, Louisville, for Humana Health Plan, Inc.

Janet A. Craig, Lexington, William P. Curlin, Jr., Hazelrigg & Cox, Frankfort, for Independent Health Plan of Kentucky.

Charles D. Wickliffe, Frankfort, for Finance and Administration Cabinet.

Henry Watson III, for Frances Jones Mills.

Anne Keating, Frankfort, for Dept. of Personnel.

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice.

This appeal is from a summary judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court which dismissed the complaint of HealthAmerica Corporation for a declaration of rights because of a lack of standing.

In early 1984, the Secretary of Finance and Administration solicited proposals and bids for basic health insurance coverage for state employees. This contract was awarded to Blue Cross. The Secretary also allowed health maintenance organization coverage as an alternative to the basic health insurance coverage. HealthAmerica, Humana and Independence Health were permitted to offer HMO coverage. State employees could elect to have HMO coverage as an alternative to the basic insurance contract. Approximately 87,000 state employees, teachers and retirees are covered by the insurance package.

Under the system the state provides a program of health insurance under which it pays a portion of the premium and the employee, or other covered person, pays the balance. Pursuant to KRS 18A.225(3), the state pays the cost of the lower of the premium for standard insurance for single coverage, or the actual cost of insurance, and the employee pays the balance. An analysis of the various rate programs presented indicates that the rates provided by Blue Cross are lower than those offered by HealthAmerica but higher than those charged by Humana.

Humana and Independence Health Plan are not federally qualified HMO organizations, but are licensed by the Kentucky authorities to provide medical care to all residents of the state in their capacities as private citizens. After the Secretary allowed the others to provide health maintenance as an alternative to basic insurance, HealthAmerica and Blue Cross protested by letter.

On November 19, 1984, the Secretary determined that both protests were without merit and that it was in the best interests of the Commonwealth and within the authority of the statute to offer state employees the choice between standard insurance coverage and HMO coverage. Two days later, HealthAmerica filed suit in circuit court seeking to restrain the offering of the optional programs to state employees by any organization other than HealthAmerica. The circuit court dismissed the complaint of HealthAmerica and ultimately this case was transferred to the Supreme Court.

This Court affirms the judgment of the circuit court insofar as it dismissed the complaint of HealthAmerica for a lack of standing to sue.

It is fundamental that in order to have standing in a lawsuit a party must have a judicially recognizable interest in the subject matter of the suit. Lexington Retail Beverage Dealers Assn. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Ky., 303 S.W.2d 268 (1957). HealthAmerica as a disappointed competitor, has no standing to judicially contest the award of a public contract to another entity.

HealthAmerica does not have legal standing to maintain this action because it does not have a present and substantial interest in the provision of the HMO healthcare alternative for state employees but only an expectancy. See Winn v. First Bank of Irvington, Ky.App., 581 S.W.2d 21 (1978).

HealthAmerica made no showing of how any legal right would be affected by the decision of the state except that it was placed at a competitive disadvantage in regard to the other HMOs that might be able to provide coverage. The only right or claim of standing by HealthAmerica arises from its fear of competition which is a normal business risk. This is not only remote and speculative, but they have no right to be free of competition. See Lexington Retail Beverage Dealers Assn., supra. HealthAmerica has no property right in the provision of health care benefits for state employees and it is not entitled to be free of competition in providing such benefits. HealthAmerica has only a right to try to sell its product.

It has long been Kentucky law that absent a showing of fraud, collusion or dishonesty, a disappointed bidder has no standing to judicially challenge the award of a public contract to another bidder. See Trapp v. City of Newport, 115 Ky. 840, 74 S.W. 1109 (1903); Campbell v. Southern Bitulithic, 32 Ky.Law Rptr. 799, 106 S.W. 1189 (1909); Louisville Steam Forge Co. v. Gast, Ky., 115 S.W. 761 (1909); Bancamerica-Blair Corp. v. State Highway Com'n, 265 Ky. 100, 95 S.W.2d 1068 (1936).

A disappointed bidder has no interest in a contract entered into in good faith with his competitor. Relief could be granted only at the instance of a taxpayer or the state agency. See Bancamerica, supra.

Here there is no allegation of fraud, bad faith or collusion. HealthAmerica has not shown a legal or beneficial interest in the subject matter of the controversy and it has no standing to bring this action.

HealthAmerica's arguments in connection with KRS 418.040 and 418.045 and CR 57, are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • June 8, 1989
    ...a party must have a judicially recognizable interest in the subject matter of the suit." HealthAmerica Corporation of Kentucky v. Humana Health Plan Inc., Ky., 697 S.W.2d 946, 947 (1985). The issue of standing is one which is to be decided on the facts of each The Council and the local scho......
  • Expert Masonry, Inc. v. Boone County, Ky.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 8, 2006
    ...Kentucky law expressly restricts standing in public procurement cases to local taxpayers and citizens. HealthAmerica Corp. of Ky. v. Humana Health Plan, 697 S.W.2d 946, 948 (Ky.1985). Such standing was left undisturbed by the Kentucky Supreme Court's ruling in Pendleton Bros. in jurisdictio......
  • Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • November 19, 1998
    ...in a lawsuit "a party must have a judicially recognizable interest in the subject matter of the suit." Healthamerica Corp. v. Humana Health Plan, Ky., 697 S.W.2d 946 (1985). The interest of a plaintiff must be a present or substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy. Winn v......
  • Yeoman v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • November 19, 1998
    ...in a lawsuit "a party must have a judicially recognizable interest in the subject matter of the suit." Healthamerica Corp. v. Humana Health Plan, Ky., 697 S.W.2d 946 (1985). The interest of a plaintiff must be a present or substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy. Winn v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT