No Surprises Act Arbitration Lawsuits: Which Health Insurers Doctors Sue Most
Original analysis of 10,276 records from the Federal Judicial Center, FY2016–FY2025 and FY2026 through June 2026 (federal fiscal years). Published October 16, 2026.
We counted federal arbitration cases filed since fiscal 2016 whose first-named defendant is a health insurer, health plan or plan administrator, by insurer group, district, month and outcome.
What the federal court records show
In fiscal year 2025, health care providers filed 1,000 arbitration cases in U.S. district courts against health insurers, plans and plan administrators, and 385 of them (38.5%) named Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey as the first defendant. Aetna, including its subsidiary Meritain Health, followed with 186 cases and Cigna with 99. In fiscal 2016 through 2023 combined there were 19 such cases.
- 1KArbitration suits against health insurers, FY2025
- 39%Of those naming Horizon BCBS of New Jersey first
- 74%Of those filed in the District of New Jersey
From a handful to hundreds
Arbitration cases against health insurers rose from 46 in fiscal 2024 to 1,000 in fiscal 2025, a 21.7× increase. No fiscal year from 2016 through 2023 had more than 7.
Three insurers account for most cases
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey (385), Aetna (186) and Cigna (99) were the first-named defendant in 67.0% of fiscal 2025 cases. UnitedHealthcare, including UMR and Oxford, followed with 93.
More than half of federal arbitration filings
Cases against health insurers made up 54.3% of the 1,843 arbitration cases filed in federal district courts in fiscal 2025.
New Jersey dominates
The District of New Jersey received 74.1% of fiscal 2025 cases against health insurers. Connecticut ranks second across fiscal 2024 to June 2026 with 96 cases.
Arbitration-coded filings against insurers fell sharply in late 2025
After a peak of 166 cases in September 2025 and 162 in October 2025, only 30 cases against health insurers were filed from December 2025 through June 2026, while other arbitration filings continued. In the same months, providers filed suits against the same insurers under other case codes, mainly other contract and other statutory actions, which this count does not include, so the drop does not mean that providers stopped suing.
Most cases end in dismissal
Of the fiscal 2025 cases, 49.8% had been voluntarily dismissed by June 2026 and 4.5% were closed as settled. Court records do not show whether the award was paid.
Which Health Insurers Are Sued Most Over No Surprises Act Arbitration Awards
The ranking groups the first-named defendant of each federal arbitration case into insurer groups, including subsidiaries and plan administrators that operate under another name.
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey was the first-named defendant in 385 fiscal 2025 cases, 38.5% of all. Aetna followed with 186 (18.6%) and Cigna with 99 (9.9%).
Counted from fiscal 2024 through June 2026, Horizon accounts for 463 cases, 98.9% of them in New Jersey. Cases against Anthem and Elevance Health were mostly filed outside New Jersey; only 7.4% of their 68 cases were. The line for other Blue Cross Blue Shield companies combines separate insurers, among them Independence Blue Cross, Highmark and the Blue Cross Blue Shield plans of Texas and Illinois.
The counts are not adjusted for how many people each insurer covers. A large insurer that loses many arbitration disputes can appear high in this ranking for that reason alone. Each filing record is counted under its first-named defendant; a case that also names a second insurer counts only for the first.
Federal arbitration cases against health insurers by insurer group, fiscal 2025
| Insurer | FY2025 | Share | In NJ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey | 385 | 38.5% | 99% |
| Aetna (incl. Meritain Health) | 186 | 18.6% | 76% |
| Other health plans, benefit funds and administrators | 113 | 11.3% | 44% |
| Cigna (incl. HealthSpring) | 99 | 9.9% | 70% |
| UnitedHealthcare (incl. UMR, Oxford) | 93 | 9.3% | 59% |
| Other Blue Cross Blue Shield companies | 71 | 7.1% | 41% |
| Anthem / Elevance Health (incl. Empire) | 45 | 4.5% | 7% |
| Humana | 8 | 0.8% | 0% |
Fiscal years run October through September. The In NJ column covers fiscal 2024 through June 2026.
How Many No Surprises Act Arbitration Lawsuits Are Filed Each Year
The series counts federal arbitration cases against health insurers, plans and administrators in each fiscal year since 2016.
There were 19 such cases in fiscal 2016 through 2023 combined, 46 in fiscal 2024 and 1,000 in fiscal 2025. In the first nine months of fiscal 2026 there were 240.
The No Surprises Act, part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, created an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for many out-of-network bills. Under the statute, the arbitrator's choice is binding and the insurer has to pay within a fixed period. Providers who say an award was not paid on time have asked federal courts to confirm or enforce it, often as an arbitration case and, since early 2026, increasingly as a contract or other statutory case.
Federal question arbitration filings in the federal district courts, which also include labor, commercial and international disputes, rose from 570 federal question cases in fiscal 2024 to 1,577 in fiscal 2025. The cases against health insurers explain most of that growth: they were 54.3% of all 1,843 arbitration filings in fiscal 2025.
Federal arbitration cases against health insurers by fiscal year
- FY201620 in NJ · 894 arbitration cases in all
- FY201700 in NJ · 816 arbitration cases in all
- FY201840 in NJ · 774 arbitration cases in all
- FY201930 in NJ · 803 arbitration cases in all
- FY202020 in NJ · 757 arbitration cases in all
- FY202100 in NJ · 749 arbitration cases in all
- FY202210 in NJ · 1,027 arbitration cases in all
- FY202372 in NJ · 869 arbitration cases in all
- FY20244633 in NJ · 819 arbitration cases in all
- FY20251,000741 in NJ · 1,843 arbitration cases in all
- FY2026 (Oct–Jun, partial)240154 in NJ · 925 arbitration cases in all
Fiscal 2026 covers October 2025 through June 2026 only, the end of the current FJC release, and is not a full year.
When Providers Filed Their Arbitration Lawsuits
Monthly counts show when the wave of cases started and when filings under the arbitration code fell off.
Filings rose from mid-2024, reached 166 in September 2025 and 162 in October 2025, then fell to 30 in December 2025 through June 2026 combined.
From February through September 2025, providers filed 889 arbitration cases against health insurers. From December 2025 through June 2026, federal courts received 575 arbitration cases of all kinds, so the drop is concentrated in cases against health insurers.
This does not mean providers stopped suing: from early 2026, practices that had filed arbitration cases brought suits against Aetna, Cigna, UnitedHealthcare and Horizon under the other contract and other statutory actions codes, which are not counted here. The court records do not show why the case code changed. Federal courts have disagreed on whether the No Surprises Act lets providers sue to enforce an award at all, and the most recent months of any FJC release can still grow as courts report late filings.
Federal arbitration cases against health insurers by month of filing
- 2023-1000 in NJ · 52 arbitration cases in all
- 2023-1110 in NJ · 58 arbitration cases in all
- 2023-1200 in NJ · 65 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-0100 in NJ · 63 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-0221 in NJ · 81 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-0342 in NJ · 75 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-0400 in NJ · 68 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-0521 in NJ · 59 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-0621 in NJ · 81 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-07119 in NJ · 71 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-081813 in NJ · 74 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-0966 in NJ · 72 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-10169 in NJ · 78 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-112118 in NJ · 68 arbitration cases in all
- 2024-122621 in NJ · 111 arbitration cases in all
All months since October 2023
- 2025-014836 in NJ · 110 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-029576 in NJ · 168 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-039265 in NJ · 164 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-0410868 in NJ · 194 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-0512696 in NJ · 191 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-066939 in NJ · 123 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-079771 in NJ · 185 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-08136115 in NJ · 200 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-09166127 in NJ · 251 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-10162117 in NJ · 242 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-114825 in NJ · 108 arbitration cases in all
- 2025-1272 in NJ · 82 arbitration cases in all
- 2026-0152 in NJ · 67 arbitration cases in all
- 2026-0233 in NJ · 81 arbitration cases in all
- 2026-0341 in NJ · 110 arbitration cases in all
- 2026-0400 in NJ · 75 arbitration cases in all
- 2026-0574 in NJ · 75 arbitration cases in all
- 2026-0640 in NJ · 85 arbitration cases in all
Where No Surprises Act Arbitration Lawsuits Are Filed
The district ranking covers all cases against health insurers filed from October 2023 through June 2026.
The District of New Jersey received 928 of these cases, 72.2%. Connecticut followed with 96; in all, 48 districts had at least one.
The District of New Jersey is where the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts saw the largest growth in arbitration filings in fiscal 2025. Our count of federal question arbitration cases there, 987, is within 0.10% of the published figure.
Arbitration cases against health insurers by federal district, October 2023–June 2026
| District | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| New Jersey | 928 | 72.2% |
| Connecticut | 96 | 7.5% |
| New York Southern | 72 | 5.6% |
| New York Eastern | 58 | 4.5% |
| Florida Middle | 14 | 1.1% |
| Pennsylvania Eastern | 12 | 0.9% |
| California Northern | 11 | 0.9% |
| Texas Eastern | 10 | 0.8% |
| Kentucky Western | 7 | 0.5% |
| Ohio Northern | 7 | 0.5% |
All districts
| District | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Texas Southern | 7 | 0.5% |
| Michigan Eastern | 5 | 0.4% |
| New York Western | 5 | 0.4% |
| Missouri Eastern | 4 | 0.3% |
| California Central | 3 | 0.2% |
| North Carolina Middle | 3 | 0.2% |
| Texas Western | 3 | 0.2% |
| Alabama Northern | 2 | 0.2% |
| Colorado | 2 | 0.2% |
| Georgia Northern | 2 | 0.2% |
| Illinois Northern | 2 | 0.2% |
| Mississippi Southern | 2 | 0.2% |
| New York Northern | 2 | 0.2% |
| North Carolina Eastern | 2 | 0.2% |
| Pennsylvania Middle | 2 | 0.2% |
| Virginia Eastern | 2 | 0.2% |
| Washington Western | 2 | 0.2% |
| Arkansas Eastern | 1 | 0.1% |
| California Eastern | 1 | 0.1% |
| Delaware | 1 | 0.1% |
| Florida Southern | 1 | 0.1% |
| Georgia Middle | 1 | 0.1% |
| Illinois Central | 1 | 0.1% |
| Louisiana Middle | 1 | 0.1% |
| Maryland | 1 | 0.1% |
| Minnesota | 1 | 0.1% |
| Montana | 1 | 0.1% |
| New Mexico | 1 | 0.1% |
| Ohio Southern | 1 | 0.1% |
| Oklahoma Northern | 1 | 0.1% |
| Oregon | 1 | 0.1% |
| South Carolina | 1 | 0.1% |
| Tennessee Eastern | 1 | 0.1% |
| Texas Northern | 1 | 0.1% |
| Utah | 1 | 0.1% |
| West Virginia Northern | 1 | 0.1% |
| Wisconsin Eastern | 1 | 0.1% |
| Wisconsin Western | 1 | 0.1% |
How No Surprises Act Arbitration Lawsuits End
The outcome is the disposition code the court reported when it closed the case, for cases filed in fiscal 2025.
By June 2026, 962 of the 1,000 fiscal 2025 cases had closed. Of all 1,000 cases, 49.8% were voluntarily dismissed, 33.3% dismissed for other reasons and 4.5% closed as settled.
A voluntary dismissal can follow a payment, a private agreement or a decision to drop the case; the court record does not say which. Judgments on a motion before trial, which include rulings that confirm or reject an award, closed 3.4% of the cases, and 38 cases were still pending.
Status of fiscal 2025 arbitration cases against health insurers, June 2026
| Outcome | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Dismissed voluntarily | 498 | 49.8% |
| Dismissed for other reasons | 333 | 33.3% |
| Dismissed as settled | 45 | 4.5% |
| Pending | 38 | 3.8% |
| Dismissed for want of prosecution | 35 | 3.5% |
| Judgment on motion before trial | 34 | 3.4% |
| Other or not coded | 8 | 0.8% |
| Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | 5 | 0.5% |
| Default judgment | 3 | 0.3% |
| Transferred to another district | 1 | 0.1% |
Download the Data and Cite This Study
Every table as a CSV file and in one Excel workbook, a short PDF summary and every chart as an image, free to reuse with attribution (CC BY 4.0).
- Federal arbitration cases and cases against health insurers by fiscal year, FY2016–FY2026 (Oct–Jun)All arbitration filings in U.S. district courts per federal fiscal year, the federal-question subset, and the filings whose first-named defendant is a health insurer, plan or administrator. · 11 rows · CSV, 1 KB
- Status of fiscal 2025 arbitration cases against health insurers as of June 30, 2026How the federal arbitration cases against health insurers filed in fiscal 2025 had ended, or whether they were still pending, in the FJC release covering filings through June 30, 2026. · 10 rows · CSV, 1 KB
- Federal arbitration cases against health insurers by district, FY2024–FY2026 (Oct–Jun)Federal arbitration filings against health insurers, plans or administrators per federal district court, October 2023 through June 2026. · 48 rows · CSV, 1 KB
- Monthly federal arbitration filings against health insurers, October 2023–June 2026Federal arbitration filings per calendar month, in total, against health insurers, plans or administrators, and against them in the District of New Jersey. · 33 rows · CSV, 1 KB
- Federal arbitration cases against health insurers by insurer group, FY2024–FY2026 (Oct–Jun)Federal arbitration cases whose first-named defendant is a health insurer, plan or administrator, by insurer group and federal fiscal year, with each group's share of fiscal 2025 cases and the share filed in the District of New Jersey. · 8 rows · CSV, 1 KB
- All tables in one Excel workbookOne sheet per table plus an About sheet with sources, method and citation · Excel (.xlsx), 16 KB
- Summary to print or forward (3 pages)Short answer, key figures, main chart, findings, method and citation · PDF, 226 KB
Charts for your story

Federal arbitration cases against health insurers by insurer group, fiscal 2025
Embed this chart

Federal arbitration cases against health insurers by fiscal year
Embed this chart

Federal arbitration cases against health insurers by month of filing
Embed this chart

Arbitration cases against health insurers by federal district, October 2023–June 2026
Embed this chart
How to cite
Goldberg, L. (2026). No Surprises Act Arbitration Lawsuits — Federal Arbitration Cases Against Health Insurers by Insurer, District, Month and Outcome (FY2016–FY2026) [Data set]. Settlement Insight. https://settlementinsight.com/research/no-surprises-act-arbitration-award-lawsuits
BibTeX
@dataset{goldberg_2026_no_surprises_act_arbitration_award_lawsuits,
author = {Goldberg, Leonard},
title = {No Surprises Act Arbitration Lawsuits --- Federal Arbitration Cases Against Health Insurers by Insurer, District, Month and Outcome (FY2016--FY2026)},
year = {2026},
publisher = {Settlement Insight},
url = {https://settlementinsight.com/research/no-surprises-act-arbitration-award-lawsuits}
}How We Measured
Checked against published figures
- Arbitration cases among federal question civil filings, U.S. district courts, fiscal year 2025: published 1,577, our count 1,577 (exact match).Judicial Business 2025: U.S. District Courts
- Arbitration cases filed in the District of New Jersey, fiscal year 2025: published 986, our count 987 (0.10% apart).Judicial Business 2025: U.S. District Courts
Full method and limits of the data
Scope: a record counts as a suit against a health insurer when its first-named defendant (the IDB defendant field, cut off at 30 characters) begins with one of the following name stems, matched in this order. Horizon: HORIZON or the misspelling HORZION followed by BLUE, CROSS, SHIELD, BCBS or HEALTH (not Horizon Pharma, not Blue Horizon). Anthem/Elevance: ANTHEM, ELEVANCE, EMPIRE BLUE, EMPIRE HEALTH. Aetna: AETNA, MERITAIN. Cigna: CIGNA, HEALTHSPRING. UnitedHealthcare: UNITED HEALTH or UNITEDHEALTH, UMR, UNITED MEDICAL RESOURCES, OXFORD HEALTH, GOLDEN RULE INS (not OptumRx, a pharmacy benefit manager, and not OptumCare, a physician group). Other Blue Cross Blue Shield companies: BLUE CROSS or BLUE SHIELD anywhere in the name, or a name beginning with BCBS, HIGHMARK, PREMERA, REGENCE, CAREFIRST, WELLMARK, HEALTH CARE SERVICE CO, CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS or LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVIC. Humana: HUMANA. Other health plans, benefit funds and administrators: HEALTH PLAN, WELFARE FUN, BENEFIT FUN or BENEFIT PLA anywhere in the name (stems shortened because names are cut off) (this includes union and employer health funds such as the National Benefit Fund of the SEIU health care workers' union in New York, but not pension funds), or a name beginning with EMBLEM, OSCAR HEALTH, AMBETTER, CENTENE, WELLCARE, MOLINA HEALTH, KAISER FOUNDATION, KAISER PERMANENTE, HEALTHFIRST, AMERIHEALTH, HEALTH NET, SUPERIOR HEALTH, SELECTHEALTH, UNIVERA, AULTCARE, PARAMOUNT INSURANCE, SENTARA HEALTH, ASCENSION PERSONALIZED CARE, EMPOWER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, FREEDOM LIFE, NIPPON LIFE, AVMED, GEISINGER, SUMMACARE, EMI HEALTH, MCLAREN HEALTH ADVANTAGE, MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO, CDPHP, ALLIANCE HEALTH AND LIFE, or one of the plan administrators ALLIED BENEFIT, MEDCOST, INSURANCE DESIGN ADMIN, ALLEGIANCE BENEFIT, WEBTPA, AMERICAN PLAN ADMIN, (THE) LOOMIS COMPANY, LEADING EDGE ADMIN, INTEGRA ADMINISTRATIVE, ASR HEALTH BENEFITS, MAESTRO HEALTH, CONSOCIATE HEALTH, ELCO ADMINISTRATIVE, MAGNACARE, ASC BENEFIT, ASSURED BENEFIT, BENEFIT PLAN ADMIN, FCE BENEFIT, WH ADMINISTRATORS, HEALTHCOMP, HEALTHSMART, INDEPENDENCE ADMINISTRATORS, INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, MARPAI, OPTIMED HEALTH, PHOENIX ADMINISTRATORS, S&S HEALTHCARE, TOTAL PLAN CONCEPTS, TRUSTMARK HEALTH. Not counted: claims repricing and payment vendors such as Zelis and MultiPlan, that union itself (its name contains UNITED HEALTHCARE but does not begin with it), people or law firms whose names merely contain an insurer's name, property, casualty, reinsurance and other life insurers, and government agencies. Matching is case-insensitive; the space inside BLUE CROSS, BLUE SHIELD, UNITED HEALTH, EMPIRE BLUE and HEALTH PLAN is optional, and repeated spaces count as one. Subsidiaries are grouped with their parent as listed above; each record counts once, in the first group it matches.
Calculation: cases are assigned to the federal fiscal year (October through September) of their filing date. To check the data against the judiciary's own statistics, we counted federal question arbitration cases in fiscal 2025: 1,577 nationwide and 987 in the District of New Jersey, which matches the published nationwide figure of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and is within 0.10% of its New Jersey figure. Shares by insurer use all cases against health insurers in that fiscal year as the denominator.
What this data cannot tell you
- The IDB does not record which law a case is based on. We count arbitration cases against health insurers; nearly all of them were filed after the No Surprises Act's dispute process began, but a case can concern another arbitration, and providers who sued under a different nature-of-suit code, such as ERISA or contract, are not included. The count is therefore an approximation, most likely a lower bound.
- Only the first-named defendant is recorded, cut off at 30 characters. A case against several insurers counts once, for the first one listed, and an insurer listed second is not counted.
- The counts are not adjusted for the number of people each insurer covers or for how many arbitration awards it lost, so a high rank does not by itself mean an insurer pays awards less often than others.
- Fiscal 2026 covers only October 2025 through June 2026. Courts report some filings late, so the most recent months may still rise in the next FJC release and the size of the drop after November 2025 may change. Arbitration filings against other defendants did not fall in the same months. From early 2026, many suits by providers against the same insurers were filed under other nature-of-suit codes, such as other contract and other statutory actions, and are not counted here.
- A disposition code describes how a case was closed, not whether an award was paid. Voluntary dismissals can follow payment or other outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many No Surprises Act arbitration lawsuits have been filed?
In fiscal year 2025, providers filed 1,000 arbitration cases in federal district courts against health insurers, plans and plan administrators, up from 46 in fiscal 2024. From October 2023 through June 2026 the total was 1,286.
Which insurer is sued most over No Surprises Act arbitration awards?
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey was the first-named defendant in 385 fiscal 2025 cases, 38.5% of the total. Aetna followed with 186 and Cigna with 99. The ranking is not adjusted for the number of members each insurer covers.
Why are so many No Surprises Act lawsuits filed in New Jersey?
The District of New Jersey received 74.1% of fiscal 2025 cases against health insurers, and most of the New Jersey cases name Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey first. The court records do not explain why providers there sue more often than elsewhere.
Can doctors sue an insurer to enforce an IDR award?
Federal courts have disagreed. In May 2025 the District of Connecticut held that the No Surprises Act implies a private right of action to enforce awards, while the Northern District of Texas concluded in 2024 that providers had no way to enforce them under the act. Arbitration-coded filings against insurers fell to 30 from December 2025 through June 2026, while similar suits continued under contract and other statutory case codes; the court records do not show whether these rulings played a role.
Is the No Surprises Act arbitration decision binding?
Yes. Under 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-111, the arbitrator's determination is binding on the parties absent fraud or misrepresentation and is not subject to judicial review except on the grounds of the Federal Arbitration Act. Payment is due within 30 days of the determination.
How do No Surprises Act arbitration lawsuits end?
Of the fiscal 2025 cases, 49.8% had been voluntarily dismissed by June 2026, 33.3% dismissed for other reasons and 4.5% closed as settled. The court record does not show whether the award was paid.
Sources
- Integrated Database (IDB) — Federal Judicial Center
- U.S. District Courts — Judicial Business 2025 — Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
- 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-111 — Preventing surprise medical bills — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- Surprise Billing: Independent Dispute Resolution Process (IF12073) — Congressional Research Service
- No Surprises Act: Federal court recognizes private right of action to enforce IDR awards — Norton Rose Fulbright
- Independent analysis. Settlement Insight is not a law firm and not affiliated with any agency named here. Analysis by Leonard Goldberg, Editor. How we work: methodology, our data.
More Research and Data
Other studies from our database of public legal records — each with free CSV downloads.
Related research
- Federal Lawsuit OutcomesHow federal civil cases end, by case type, from the same court records.
- Pro Se Litigants in Federal CourtHow many federal lawsuits are filed without a lawyer, by year, case type and district.
- Medical Malpractice SettlementsWhat medical malpractice payments look like across the country.
Latest studies
- Credit Bureau Lawsuits38.7% of FY2025 federal consumer credit suits named a big-three credit bureau first
- Federal foreclosure suits by servicerLakeview Loan Servicing was the plaintiff in 187 of 2,120 federal foreclosure cases in FY2025
- How Long MDLs LastFederal MDLs closed since 2023 lasted a median of 5.9 years
- Immigration mandamus lawsuit outcomes71.7% of Other Immigration Actions suits closed in FY2025 were voluntarily dismissed
