 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
St. Paul Fire And Marine Insurance Co. v. Eusea9/22/2000
s was qualified under the Act in Louisiana as a self-insured health care provider. St. Paul is an excess carrier, providing coverage over Broadlawns $250,000.00 limit of liability.
Holding the Medical Malpractice Act is not applicable to St. Paul under the extraordinary facts of this case is not barred by Descant v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 93-3098 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 246, which is factually distinguishable. In Descant, the Louisiana Supreme Court held an excess liability carrier could not be held liable for more than the liability of the health care provider it insured because that insurer's liability was co-extensive with the liability of its insured. In that case, there was no gap in the medical malpractice insurance coverage as there is in the instant case. Apparently, in Descant, there was full compliance with the Act as it related to the coverage provided by the primary carrier.
Relative to the contention of St. Paul that the Medical Protective policy should be reformed to provide coverage, I believe the Medical Protective exclusions are unambiguous, easily understood, and obviously specifically negotiated. Dr. Blanchard purchased insurance for a specific, limited purpose--to cover his moonlighting activities at Lady of the Sea Hospital. I would feel differently if the Medical Protective policy contained exclusions which were ambiguous, and difficult to understand, and buried in fine print, and not specifically negotiated.
In sum, I believe St. Paul is contractually bound to provide coverage to the full extent of its insurance policy and does not benefit from the limited liability provisions of the Medical Malpractice Act.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|