The May 8 order in In re: Insulin Pricing Litigation resolves two major procedural battles in the self-funded payors (SFP) track.
The court denied the SFP plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of its December 30, 2025 rulings that had granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The SFP plaintiffs had argued that the court erred in its earlier analysis of their claims.
In a separate but related order, the court granted a motion for clarification filed by the manufacturer defendants. This clarification led to the dismissal of Albany County’s unjust enrichment claims with prejudice, effectively removing the county from the self-funded payors track.
The court also clarified that its previous rulings regarding the statute of limitations (SOL) disputes do not apply to cases in the State AG track, addressing a specific request from that group.
The decision leaves the self-funded payors’ claims in a position where the court’s earlier dismissal orders remain largely intact. The SFP plaintiffs had sought to overturn those dismissals, arguing that the court’s initial reasoning was flawed.
The order notes that the SFP plaintiffs were not without protection in the defendants’ proposed CMO, as both sides had included identical provisions preserving appellate rights.
The dismissal of Albany County’s claims with prejudice means the county cannot refile those specific unjust enrichment theories in this track. This narrows the scope of the self-funded payors’ case significantly.
The State AG track, which involves state attorneys general pursuing similar claims, remains unaffected of limitations clarifications issued in this order. This distinction is critical for the ongoing litigation in that separate track.
The order highlights the complex procedural landscape of the MDL, where different plaintiff groups navigate distinct legal and procedural paths. The court’s detailed handling of the reconsideration motion and the clarification request underscores the high stakes for all parties involved.
The self-funded payors’ next move will likely involve preparing for potential appeals, given the preservation of appellate rights noted in the order. The dismissal of Albany County’s claims removes a significant plaintiff, potentially altering the dynamics of the remaining litigation.
The manufacturer defendants have secured a victory with the dismissal of Albany County’s claims and the denial of the SFP plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion. This strengthens their position litigation.
The case continues to evolve, with the self-funded payors and state AGs pursuing their respective tracks. The court’s recent orders have clarified the procedural boundaries, setting the stage for the next phase of the litigation.