Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Insolvent Malpractice Insurers Leave Everyone Holding the Bag
Whether you represent the patient or physician in a medical malpractice case, there are always significant repercussions when the physician's malpractice carrier becomes insolvent. Naturally, plaintiffs in such cases are concerned as to whether and how a judgment will be paid. Physicians are just as concerned that they may be personally responsible for some portion of a judgment. With a growing number of medical malpractice insurance carriers facing difficult financial times nationwide, parties are experiencing those concerns with increasing frequency.
Recently, state courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Minnesota have addressed some of these issues. The Pennsylvania case was a medical malpractice case, while the others were not. Nevertheless, the lessons learned from each of those cases apply to the medical malpractice context.
In each case, the tortfeasors' insurers became insolvent. Each state had a guaranty fund that covered policyholders up to a maximum amount in the event that an insurer became insolvent. The plaintiffs pursued the tortfeasors individually for judgments that exceeded or were not otherwise covered by the state's guaranty fund, while the tortfeasors argued that their liability should be capped by the amount provided by the guaranty fund. The courts in each case disagreed with the tortfeasers and instead held them personally liable for any uncovered amount. While the reasoning in each case is sound, the decisions expose the obvious consequences to both plaintiffs and tortfeasors when carriers become insolvent.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.