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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT