Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Following the death of his mother, Jeffery McCabe asserted a medical malpractice claim against his mother's medical care providers, who agreed to a settlement sufficient to allow McCabe to petition Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund for additional compensation. McCabe then filed an action pursuant to the Adult Wrongful Death Statute (AWDS), seeking additional recovery from the Fund for, inter alia, medical expenses and attorney fees. The trial granted granted partial summary judgment to the Fund, finding that the AWDS does not allow recovery of attorney fees. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the entry of partial summary judgment, holding that reasonable attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of an action under the AWDS are within the damages permitted by the statute. Remanded.

This case involved the construction and application of a combined professional and general liability insurance policy issued by appellant to appellee where appellee requested a defense from appellant under the policy for a civil lawsuit. In that underlying suit, plaintiff alleged that while her mother was terminally ill, she consented to appellee's harvesting of some of her mother's organs and tissues after her mother's death and consented to the harvesting because appellee was a non-profit corporation. Appellee, instead, transferred the tissues to a for-profit company, which sold the tissues to hospitals at a profit. Appellee subsequently sought coverage under its general liability insurance with appellant and appellant denied coverage because the conduct alleged was outside the scope of the insurance policy's coverage. The court certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: (1) "Does the insurance policy provision for coverage of 'personal injury,' defined therein as 'bodily injury, sickness, or disease including death resulting therefrom sustained by any person,' include coverage for mental anguish, unrelated to physical damage to or disease of the plaintiff's body?" (2) "Does the insurance policy provision for coverage of 'property damage,' defined therein as 'physical injury to or destruction of tangible property, including consequential loss of use thereof, or loss of use of tangible property which has not been physically injured or destroyed,' include coverage for the underlying plaintiff's loss of use of her deceased mother's tissues, organs, bones, and body parts?"

Plaintiff Scott Hackett aggravated a pre-existing low back injury while working as a long distance truck driver for Western Express. After Hackett was terminated for reasons unconnected to his injury, Hackett filed a petition for award to the Workers' Compensation Board and was awarded ongoing partial incapacity benefits for a gradual injury to his lower back. When calculating Hackett's weekly wage, the hearing officer (1) excluded the nine cents per mile Hackett received as per diem pay, concluding that it was paid to cover special expenses, and (2) concluded that the per diem payments were not a fringe benefit that could be included to a limited extent in average weekly wage. Hackett appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the hearing officer's decision but remanded for a recalculation of Hackett's fringe benefits pursuant to Me. W.C.B. R. ch. 1, 5(1).

This case involved a coverage dispute between St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul") and its insured where the insured wrote a recommendation letter for a former employee who later injured a patient. St. Paul appealed the district court's judgment, in which the court concluded that the commercial general liability policy issued by St. Paul covered the insured's claim for the damages he was required to pay in a misrepresentation lawsuit. The court held that there was no coverage under the policy for the amounts at issue and therefore, reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of St. Paul.

Appellant Robert Petty is sole owner of Co-Appellant R.G. Petty Masonry. Appellants contracted with Respondent Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania (Blue Cross), a nonprofit hospital corporation that provides health insurance coverage for its employees. Appellants are covered under the group policy as subscribers. Appellants filed a four-count class action suit against Blue Cross, alleging that it violated the state Nonprofit Law by accumulating excessive profits and surplus well beyond the "incidental profit" permitted by statute. The second count alleged Blue Cross breached its contract with Appellants by violating the Nonprofit Law. The third count alleged Blue Cross owed appellants a fiduciary duty by virtue of their status as subscribers, and that duty was breached when it accrued the excess surplus. The fourth count requested an inspection of Blue Cross' business records. The trial court found Appellants lacked standing to challenge Blue Cross' alleged violations of the Nonprofit Law and dismissed the suit. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court. Upon careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties in addition to the applicable legal authorities, the Supreme Court found that Appellants indeed lacked standing under the Nonprofit Law to challenge Blue Cross by their four-count complaint. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions and dismissed Appellants' case.

Defendant appealed from a final judgment that was entered in favor of plaintiffs, as subrogees of Harbor Health Care and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (collectively, "Harbor Health"). At issue was whether the superior court erred as a matter of law in denying his motion for summary judgment and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, both based upon the statute of limitations. Also at issue was whether the superior court erred as a matter of law in denying defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law following the conclusion of plaintiffs' case-in-chief because plaintiffs failed to establish the element of causation in their claim against him. The court held that Harbor Health's claim for contribution was timely filed where a three-year statute of limitations separately governed contribution claims. The court also held that there was sufficient record evidence to support the jury's determination that the failure to have corrective surgery performed for the patient at issue was proximately caused by defendant's negligent conduct. Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court was affirmed.

Appellant Jane Henry, as the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband Ernest, sued multiple parties, including Continental Casualty Company (Continental), Washington Regional Medical Center (Washington), Irma De La Cruz R.N., and Amber Hefner R.N. Among other things, Mrs. Henry asserted that Washington was vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees, including nurses De La Cruz and Hefner. Mrs. Henry proceeded against the hospital's insurer, Continental, under the state's "direct-action" statute. All Defendants moved to dismiss, because Mrs. Henry failed to obtain service of process on the nurses before the statute of limitations expired. Because Washington's alleged negligence arose from its vicarious liability based on the actions of the nurses, Defendants argued that claims against Washington and Continental must also be dismissed. The circuit court granted Defendants' motion, and Mrs. Henry appealed. The Supreme Court held that "because direct-action statutes are remedial in nature, we liberally construe them for the benefit of the injured parties and to effectuate the intended purposes." On review of the applicable case law, the Court found that failing include the nurses in this case was not fatal. Appellant could still pursue the hospital and its insurance carrier for the alleged negligence of its employees. The Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This appeal challenged the small employer group health coverage act (Act), which establishes requirements for insurance carriers to offer health insurance benefit plans to small employers in Michigan. Priority Health sought a declaratory judgment from the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) so that it could allocate a small portion of insurance premiumsâ costs to employers, lessening the financial burden on employees. Priority Health would not renew contracts with employers who did not agree to pay a portion of the premiums. Both the Court of Appeals and the Commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) concluded that âminimum employer contribution provisionsâ are inconsistent with the Act. They reasoned that an employerâs failure to pay a minimum percentage of its employeesâ premiums is not among the reasons in the Act that a carrier can use to refuse to renew an insurance plan. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court and OFISâ interpretation of the Act. The Court found that just because the Michigan Legislature did not include an employerâs refusal to pay according to a minimum contribution provision as among the reasons for not renewing a contract for benefits, the [Priority Health] provision was unreasonable or inconsistent with the Act. In general, âunless a provision directly conflicts with the enumerated reasons [of the Act], it may be included in a plan so long as it is reasonable and not inconsistent.â The Court remanded the case to the OFIS for further proceedings.

A non-profit hospital ("plaintiff") that provided medical services to beneficiaries of Local 272 Welfare Fund ("Fund"), an employee benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1101, filed a complaint against defendants seeking payment for over $1 million in medical services provided to beneficiaries that the Fund had allegedly failed to reimburse. At issue was whether a healthcare provider's breach of contract and quasi-contract claims against an ERISA benefit plan were completely preempted by federal law under the two-pronged test for ERISA preemption established in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila. The court held that an "in-network" healthcare provider may receive a valid assignment of rights from an ERISA plan beneficiary pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B); where a provider's claims involved the right to payment and not simply the amount or execution of payment when the claim implicated coverage and benefit determinations as set forth by the terms of the ERISA benefit plan, that claim constituted a colorable claim for benefits pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B); and in the instant case, at least some of plaintiff's claims for reimbursement were completely preempted by federal law. The court also held that the remaining state law claims were properly subject to the district court's supplemental jurisdiction.

A podiatrist, primarily serving elderly patients, was convicted of healthcare fraud counts that resulted in a loss of $120. The podiatrist was sentenced to 18 months in prison followed by three years of supervision and ordered to pay more than $244,000, based on acquittal counts. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, but vacated and remanded the sentence. There was sufficient evidence that the podiatrist mailed bills for patients who were not actually treated and for work done by staff no longer employed at the office. Sentencing based on acquittal counts is not unconstitutional if those counts have been established by a preponderance of evidence, but the sentence was unreasonable. Although a court need only make a reasonable estimate of loss, the court relied solely on statistical evidence about loss from up-coding without a sound representative sample. The acquittal counts were part of a broad scheme to defraud and an award of restitution, based on those counts, was proper.