Posted On: October 5, 2006 by Theodoros & Rooth

Indiana medical malpractice insurer seeks to avoid coverage for large verdict

ProAssurance, also known as ProNational, is a national medical malpractice insurer that provides insurance coverage to a significant amount of Indiana physicians. In Indiana, they have apparently adopted the strategy of taking almost every case to trial, even if the claim clearly has merit and even if the Medical Review Panel unanimously finds against their insured doctors. I believe this is part of an overall strategy to discourage attorneys from handling medical malpractice cases against ProAssurance insureds because of the large costs and time involved in taking cases to trial. Sometimes, however, the strategy can backfire.

Recently, plaintiffs in a Florida medical negligence claim received a jury verdict or $217,000,000 against ProAssurance insureds. The Tampa Tribune wrote about ProAssurance's response:

"ProNational Insurance Co., that represents the doctors, has filed court documents that say it is not responsible for paying because the doctors gave conflicting testimony in court. Yerrid [the plaintiffs' attorney] said he will go after anyone necessary to collect, starting with ProNational. The Insurance Company offered $300 Before trial, Yerrid said, he tried to get the insurance company to settle for the maximum allowed under the policy - $1 million for doctor Austin and $1 million for the physicians' group. Instead, the insurance company wanted to settle for $300. Yerrid said it offered $100 for Navarro, $100 for his wife and $100 for his 10-year-old son."

So here, ProAssurance refused to settle an obviously indefensible claim in good faith, and when a jury told them that they clearly should have settled the case, the company tries to wiggle out of their obligation. And the reason they use to attempt to avoid responsibility is because their insured doctors testified differently. I can't imagine any ProAssurance doctors would be too happy to learn that their insurance coverage could be dependent upon the way they testify at trial.

Barry Rooth

Bookmark: Bookmark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at Google.com Bookmark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at del.icio.us Digg Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at Digg.com Bookmark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at Spurl.net Bookmark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at Simpy.com Bookmark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at NewsVine Blink this Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at blinklist.com Bookmark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at Furl.net Bookmark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at reddit.com Fark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at Fark.com Bookmark Indiana%20medical%20malpractice%20insurer%20seeks%20to%20avoid%20coverage%20for%20large%20verdict at Yahoo! MyWeb