A Delaware court recently ruled on a significant case involving Albertsons LLC and Express Scripts, Inc., impacting how pharmacies are reimbursed for prescription drugs. The Superior Court of Delaware decided on August 5, 2026, that some of Albertsons' claims against Express Scripts would proceed, while others were dismissed. This ruling could affect how pharmacy benefit managers operate and how pharmacies negotiate contracts with them.
The case, filed under docket number N25C-12-001 KMM CCLD, centers on a contractual dispute between the two parties. Albertsons, which operates over 1,700 pharmacies, claims that Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefit manager, misclassified certain drugs, leading to significant financial losses for Albertsons. The decision is crucial for pharmacies that rely on accurate drug classification for reimbursement.
Background
Albertsons LLC, New Albertsons L.P., Safeway Inc., and United Supermarkets, LLC, collectively referred to as Albertsons, entered into contracts with Express Scripts for reimbursement of prescription drugs filled for customers. The contracts stipulate that reimbursement for brand-name drugs is higher than for generic drugs. Albertsons alleges that Express Scripts initially classified certain drugs as brand-name at the point of sale but later reclassified them as generic during annual reconciliations, resulting in millions of dollars in unpaid reimbursements.
This dispute arose after Albertsons received year-end reports from Express Scripts indicating that they were owed an additional $3.6 million. However, upon review, Albertsons found that many drugs classified as brand at the point of sale were listed as generic in the reconciliation reports. This discrepancy prompted Albertsons to file a lawsuit against Express Scripts, claiming breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
The Ruling
The court ruled on Express Scripts' motion to dismiss the case, granting it in part and denying it in part. Specifically, the court dismissed Albertsons' claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment, stating that the contract's terms governed the relationship between the parties. The court noted, "The contract does not require that the classification at the point-of-sale control the classification for the reconciliation payment." This indicates that Express Scripts acted within its rights under the contract.
However, the court allowed Albertsons' breach of contract claim to proceed, stating that the issue of whether Express Scripts had forfeited its right to dispute the claims required further fact-finding. The judge emphasized that the resolution of this argument could not be determined at the dismissal stage, allowing Albertsons to continue pursuing its claims.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for both parties and the broader pharmacy industry. For Albertsons, the decision allows them to pursue their claims for breach of contract, which could potentially lead to a substantial financial recovery if they succeed. For Express Scripts, the ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to contract terms and the need for clear communication during the reconciliation process.
The outcome of this case may also set a precedent for how pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies negotiate their contracts and handle disputes in the future. It highlights the necessity for pharmacies to thoroughly understand the terms of their agreements and the implications of drug classification on reimbursement.
What's Next
Albertsons can continue to pursue its breach of contract claim against Express Scripts. The case may involve further legal proceedings to resolve the factual disputes surrounding the claims. It remains to be seen whether Express Scripts will appeal the court's decision regarding the breach of contract claim or if there are related cases pending that could influence this matter.