ILNews

Lawsuit claims Indiana’s high-risk insurance pool hoards cash

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Health care providers who’ve been rejected by private malpractice writers turn to a state-run insurer that typically charges two to three times more for coverage. A class-action lawsuit claims the high-risk pool owes its policyholders a $31 million surplus.

More than 1,000 providers from family doctors to specialty practice groups have been covered since the year 2000 by the Indiana Residual Malpractice Insurance Authority, plaintiffs attorneys say. Marion Superior Civil Division 7 Judge Michael Keele in April certified the class-action suit in which plaintiffs argue IRMIA’s own auditors say the fund has more cash on hand than it could possibly spend to pay claims or cover expenses.

“If IRMIA were a private company, that money would be distributed to shareholders. It’s a profit, but IRMIA wasn’t set up to make a profit,” said James K. Wheeler, a partner with Coots Henke & Wheeler P.C., in Carmel. Wheeler’s firm, with Cohen & Malad LLP of Indianapolis, was appointed as class counsel.

Notices to class members began after Keele approved an order May 23 giving potential members 30 days to opt

out of the proposed class. The suit is Larry J. Ley, et al. v. Stephen W. Robertson, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance, and the Indiana Residual Malpractice Insurance Authority, 49D07-1203-PL-9386.

IRMIA was created by statute in 1998 and under I.C. 34-18-17 covers practitioners who have been rejected by two or more private carriers, commonly because of prior malpractice suits. The state argues in its response that IRMIA has done no wrong and that its policyholders aren’t entitled to refunds.

Tina Korty, general counsel for the Department of Insurance, referred requests for comment to the Office of the Indiana Attorney General. The office responded to questions about the IRMIA surplus with a statement from spokesman Bryan Corbin.

“We are not able to comment on financial details of the IRMIA fund but will respond in court to the plaintiffs’ legal assertions at the appropriate time. As the lawyer for state government, the Attorney General’s Office will vigorously defend its state clients: the Department of Insurance, Commissioner Robertson and IRMIA itself,” Corbin said.

“Our office opposed the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification arguing that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden on the elements necessary for class certification. Having represented state government previously in various other unrelated class actions, our office now will move forward into this new phase of the case, and we respect the ruling of the court,” he said.
 

irwin levin Levin

Cohen & Malad managing partner Irwin Levin said the money IRMIA lists on its balance sheets as “undistributed funds” represents “tens of millions of dollars more than they will ever, ever need to pay claims, according to two separate actuaries hired by IRMIA.
“I have no idea why IRMIA insists on holding on to the money,” he said. “It should go back to the people who paid it. … All they’re doing right now is hoarding money, and it should be put back into the economy.”

Levin said the suit doesn’t challenge IRMIA’s premiums or the methodology the authority uses to set them. “They can charge whatever rates they deem reasonable,” he said, but IRMIA doesn’t have a right to hold a “big pot of cash sitting in a cave they keep adding dollars to.”

The suit also alleges that IRMIA has failed to segregate surpluses for investment as required by statute under I.C. 34-18-17-8, and it asks the court to mandate compliance.

Barring a ruling of summary judgment, resolution through court-ordered mediation or other settlement, the matter is set to proceed to trial on Feb. 3, 2014.

Terre Haute lawyer Michael Sacopulos, of the firm Sacopulos Johnson & Sacopulos, has defended IRMIA claims for the state in southwest Indiana. He believes the authority could face a challenge in justifying its balance sheet.

“It seems to me that this is a knowable type of equation that’s used in the amount of money that you hold in reserves,” he said, noting IRMIA’s coverage limits and the often years-long maturity horizon for malpractice claims in process give the authority a good level of claims predictability. “You cannot hold excessive amounts.”

At the same time, Sacopulos said IRMIA may be able to prevail on its posture as a carrier of last resort. “Is it a reasonable amount given their exposure? … Pools of the physicians (IRMIA compared to those privately insured) are not apples-to-apples,” he said. “Higher-risk pools, not just in Indiana, but nationally, if you’ve been sued, statistically you’re more liable to be sued again.”
That’s in line with some of the 22 affirmative defenses proffered by the state in response to the suit. “But for IRMIA, Plaintiffs would have been significantly limited in their ability to practice medicine in Indiana, and, accordingly, Plaintiffs have received significant benefits including, without limitation, all income remuneration that they have earned during the periods of time that they were covered by IRMIA,” the response says.

But Levin and Wheeler said IRMIA has accounted for all known risks and costs of coverage and has built a surplus that climbed from nothing around 2000 to $7 million in 2007 and $16 million in 2009. IRMIA’s most recent balance sheet from Dec. 31, 2011, shows a total of $31,790,424 in undistributed funds. The authority’s total of reserves, liabilities and undistributed funds for 2011 was $64.3 million.

“Indiana is different from almost every other state,” Wheeler said of its malpractice pool. Because IRMIA covers only the first $250,000 of a practitioner’s liability per claim with an annual aggregate limit of $750,000, its worst-case scenarios are known.

“That makes it easier for the actuaries because of the limits of liability in the state of Indiana,” Wheeler said.

Meantime, attorneys are still unraveling the exact number of practitioners covered by IRMIA policies. In 2012, there were 135 policies, the fewest since 2001, but there have been as many as 664 in prior years. Wheeler said because many of the insured were in the pool for five years or more, compiling a complete list of those insured by the fund since 2000 has been difficult.

Wheeler believes that IRMIA may have over collected premiums in the early 2000s during what he described as a national malpractice scare. Fewer claims than expected may have resulted, producing the surplus. “As claims matured into the later 2000s a

 

malpractice

nd went away, that’s what caused this number to grow,” he said.

The richness of the fund also might say something about practitioners who’ve found themselves with no place else to go for coverage, Wheeler hypothesizes. “I think doctors who got put into the fund ended up being a better risk,” he said.

“I think they got the bejeezus scared out of them and probably were more careful.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ads
    Hi, Who can I speak to regarding advertising today? Thanks, Gary

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT