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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT