Case Problem #3: Standing: Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution?

Case Problem #3: Standing: Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution?
Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance companies ( the Blues) provide 68 million Americans with health-care financing. The Blues have paid billions of dollars for care attributable to illnesses related to tobacco use. In an attempt to recover some of this amount, the Blues filed a suit in a federal district court against tobacco companies and others, alleging fraud, among other things. The Blues claimed that beginning in 1953, the defendants conspired to addict millions of Americans, including members of Blue Cross plans, to cigarettes and other tobacco products. The conspiracy involved misrepresentation about the safety of nicotine and its addictive properties, marketing efforts targeting children, and agreements not to produce or market safer cigarettes. As a result of the defendants' efforts, many tobacco users developed lung, throat, and other cancers, as well as heart disease, stroke, emphysema, and other illnesses. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case on the ground that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. Do the Blues have standing in this case? Why or why not? Please let me know more detail. Thanks

A person has standing only if they have been directly harmed by the defendant. I believe BCBS does NOT have standing to sue because they have not been harmed. If their insureds have been hurt and submitted claims then BCBS has to cover them. If BCBS had standing then they could sue fast food companies for making their insureds fat or could sue God for their insured's looking at the sun---see how absurd that is? BCBS takes money from people to cover their health problems. BCBS does not do business with the tobacco industries. Good luck