June 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday

declined to hear a challenge to a $2.7 billion nationwide class

action settlement with Blue Cross Blue Shield over allegations

that the insurance giant overcharged commercial and individual

subscribers for years.

The justices without comment denied a petition from home

improvement retailer Home Depot ( HD ) objecting to the landmark

antitrust settlement. The court also declined to hear a related

challenge to a $667 million fee award for the class attorneys

who negotiated the deal.

The fee amount, which a lower court judge approved, would be

among the largest-ever class action attorney awards.

Health insurance subscribers in the decade-long case accused

Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and others of unlawfully

agreeing not to compete with one another, leading to higher

insurance costs. Blue Cross denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to

settle the case in 2020.

Home Depot ( HD ) did not immediately respond to a request for

comment. Blue Cross in a statement on Monday said it welcomed

the justices' rulings "and the opportunity to begin to implement

this settlement."

Boies, Schiller & Flexner chairman David Boies, one of

the lead class attorneys, in a statement on Monday called the

Supreme Court's orders "a great result for consumers and the

entire health insurance system."

Boies said "consumers will now receive the billions of

dollars of refunds they are due and injunctive relief that will

bring increased competition throughout the United States."

Attorneys from law firms Hausfeld and Cooper & Kirk also

represent the subscriber class.

Both Supreme Court petitions challenged an order last year

by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that

upheld the settlement.

Home Depot ( HD ) objected to the accord on the grounds that it

would restrict future antitrust claims against Blue Cross. The

fee objection claimed the amount should be no more than $194

million, based on multiplying the number of hours the lawyers

said they worked by a prevailing hourly rate.

Attorneys for a class of 100 million Blue Cross subscribers

had urged the justices to turn down both challenges. They argued

there was nothing improper about a settlement barring future

claims "arising out of the same nucleus of operative fact."

They also told the justices the appeals court did not

"rubber-stamp" the fee award, and that their "colossal

litigation effort" justified the amount.

The cases are Home Depot ( HD ) v. Blue Cross Blue Shield

Association, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 23-1063, and David G.

Behenna v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, same court, No.

23-1163.