Recently, the Court in Husel v. Trinity Health Corp., 2020 WL 95797 (E.D. Mich. 1/8/20), unpublished Case No. 19-CV-12478 *Affirmed by Sixth Circuit, 832 Fed. Appx. 996 (Jan. 6, 2021) held that a medical malpractice policy did not require the insurer to provide a paid for defense. The Court held that the medical practice policy covered liability for civil damages arising from a medical incident. A criminal prosecution was not a “claim” under the policy that would result in a “sum” that the doctor would be obligated to pay as damages. Therefore, the policy did not provide coverage for criminal prosecutions arising out of a medical incident. The Court’s decision was bolstered by the fact that the policy did not cover defense costs in a criminal proceeding because the policy excluded coverage for (1) any claim seeking non-pecuniary relief; (2) the knowing and willful violation of a penal statute; and (3) for physical abuse. The criminal indictment against the doctor sought imprisonment, which was not damages.
A Respected Expert Witness And Authority On Insurance Law In The U.S.
- TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSURANCE POLICY’S APPRAISAL CLAUSE ALLOWS CAUSATION DETERMINATIONS by Jordan R. Plitt
- THE SPLIT LANDSCAPE REGARDING DEPRECIATION OF LABOR COSTS WHEN CALCULATING ACTUAL CASH VALUE by Jordan R. Plitt
- CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS REFUSES TO EXPAND THE TRIGGER FOR WHEN “CUMIS” COUNSEL IS REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2860 by Jordan R. Plitt
- DOES A WATER-BACKUP EXCLUSION INCLUDE SEWAGE? by Jordan R. Plitt