ILNews

7th Circuit: Insurer can challenge its duty to defend

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted a stay imposed by the District Court in Hammond on an insurer’s declaratory judgment action regarding coverage of a physician who skipped town instead of facing criminal charges and civil suits.

The Circuit Court Monday addressed the case Medical Assurance Co., Inc. v. Amy Hellman, et al., No. 08-2887. The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, granted a stay request by the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance, administrator of the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund, which has an interest in the case.

While on vacation in Greece in 2004, Dr. Mark Weinberger, a Merrillville ear, nose, and throat doctor, “went for a run” and never returned. He was facing $5.7 million in creditor claims and 22 criminal counts of billing fraud once he returned to the United States. The U.S. government issued an international arrest warrant for Weinberger, among other things to locate him. He was arrested in Italy in December 2009 and has been extradited to the U.S.

While only a few medical malpractice cases had been filed before Weinberger’s disappearance, more than 350 medical malpractice claims have been filed since then and are proceeding through Indiana’s medical malpractice process.

Weinberger’s medical malpractice insurance carrier, Medical Assurance Company Inc., has been conducting his defense, but his disappearance prompted this suit. In the contract between the doctor and insurer there was a typical cooperation clause that requires Weinberger to participate in his defense. Because the doctor was not, Medical Assurance brought an action asking the court to declare that Weinberger breached his responsibilities under the contract and that Medical Assurance no longer has a duty to defend or indemnify him.

The District Court was concerned that such an action would “severely” intrude on state medical malpractice actions. So as not to interfere with the state cases, the District Court issued the stay of the federal proceedings. The state cases are proceeding under the familiar framework for medical-malpractice claims.

In Indiana, an insurer must show that the breach of duty resulted in actual prejudice in order to prevail. Emplrs. Mut. Cas. Co. v.Skoutaris, 453 F.3d 915, 924 (7th Cir. 2006); Ky. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 919 N.E.2d 565, 585-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

“The insured’s absence alone is not enough to establish prejudice in this state; to prove actual prejudice, the insurer must show somehow that the outcome of the underlying case would have been altered by the insured’s cooperation. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Irvin, 19 F. Supp. 2d 906, 916 (S.D. Ind. 1998),” the court wrote.

Medical Assurance noted that the scope of Weinberger’s insurance coverage is not at issue in the state court actions. The insurer contended it is prepared, if it gets its day in the District Court, to meet its burden of showing actual prejudice from the doctor’s actions. Without such, the company noted it will be left without a practical remedy.

The Circuit Court noted the stay was not clear as to whether the District Court meant to allow the insurer to proceed after a small number of test cases or if it meant that Medical Assurance couldn’t proceed in its federal litigation until every state case was disposed.

The Circuit Court agreed with the insurer that it should have been allowed to resolve the merits of the declaratory judgment action focusing on Medical Assurance’s duty-to-defend claim.

“And on remand, a summary judgment motion could test Medical Assurance’s legal theories, based on all the evidence that has been collected thus far. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56. Indeed, summary judgment is a good tool to examine not only whether Medical Assurance can succeed as a matter of law but also whether this case is a suitable candidate for declaratory relief,” wrote Judge Diane Wood.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT