 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jou v. Medical Insurance Exhcange of California5/30/2003
onding to Dr. Jou's questions regarding MIEC's possible waiver, and conflicts-of-interest with respect to MIEC counsel, in the context of the insurance policy, MIEC, on November 8, 1999 notified the physician that it was not renewing his malpractice coverage under MIEC Policy No. DR 61-007031 effective February 1, 2000. This conduct was malicious, retaliatory and in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Jou's fourth and fifth causes of action, for declaratory and injunctive relief, respectively, sought class action status, alleging that " he class consists of approximately 5000 individuals[,]" being "physicians who purchased renewable medical malpractice insurance policies from Defendant MIEC, for coverage in the State of Hawaii." Jou charged that a "massive violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" in MIEC's policy renewal decisions "endangers public health in Hawaii by fraudulently and maliciously oppressing physicians."
For his sixth cause of action, Jou alleged "interference with economic advantage" (emphatic typesetting omitted):
57. At all times herein, there was a reasonable likelihood of prospective economic advantage or damage to Plaintiff in that there was, and is, a likelihood of his requiring staff privileges, malpractice insurance, and provider agreements to practice his profession at the time of, and after, Defendant's unlawful interference.
58. Defendants were aware of the likelihood of said requirements and/or Defendants were aware that requirements (i.e. hospital privileges) were in place.
59. The conduct of Defendants interfered with the prospective economic advantage and caused a business and personal loss to plaintiff. In particular, as a result of MIEC's communications directly to third parties, said parties failed to consummate or continue contracts with Plaintiff including; Preferred Provider Agreements (HMSA), Staff Privilege Agreements and Malpractice Insurance Contracts. A copy of HMSA's declination is attached hereto as "D" and made a part hereof.
61. Defendants had a duty to avoid interfering with economic advantages of Plaintiff and in breach thereof, interfered, all to his damage as aforesaid.
63. The interference by Defendants was willful, intentional, and done with malice to prevent Plaintiff from obtaining economic advantages at a time when Defendants were aware that Plaintiff would require privileges, insurance agreements, and participating provider agreements. See Exhibit "D".
Exhibit D, the last exhibit to Jou's second amended complaint, was a November 27, 2000 letter from HMSA to Jou informing him that his HMSA Participating Physician Agreement would be terminated for lack of professional malpractice insurance coverage.
Jou's seventh cause of action, in its entirety, averred that, " n doing the acts herein above alleged, Defendant recklessly breached its duty to hire or to contract with competent employees and agents."
Jou's eighth cause of action charged a "civil conspiracy," in which MIEC allegedly conspired with Doe defendants to retaliate against him, "as aforesaid."
Jou's ninth cause of action sought an injunction to enjoin MIEC from continuing its "retaliatory withholding of insurance" and its "misinforming other prospective insurers regarding its alleged cancellation."
Jou's tenth cause of action claimed: "In doing these acts Defendants breached their duty of care owed to Plaintiff. Defendant had a duty to avoid the aforementioned injuries to Plaintiff. By Defendant's failure to conform to the standard of conduct for insurers, Defendant breached its duty to Plain
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|