 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Washington Casualty Co. v. Doctors' Co.2/19/2002
authority for the proposition that a letter appointing counsel can serve as evidence of notice that triggers claims-made coverage. And there is nothing in the letter or the rest of the record suggesting that counsel considered Dr. McKenna to be a client during the Doctors' Company policy period, except as in his capacity as an owner of the clinic.
Finally, the Migliuris' original complaint, filed during The Doctors' Company policy period, does not constitute notice of a potential claim against Dr. McKenna. The lawsuit named as defendants Drs. Bachhuber and Fruen, the clinic, and other 'John Doe' defendants -- 'persons or legal entities having responsibility for the negligence, injuries and damages as hereinafter alleged, whose present identity is not known'. The complaint generally alleged negligence as the cause of the baby's injuries without identifying any act or omission as the specific cause. We see no way to interpret the complaint's reference to 'John Doe' physicians as anything more than prudent boilerplate pleading. Certainly the Migliuris knew Dr. McKenna's identity and knew that he performed the mid-vacuum extraction and the delivery, yet neither fact is mentioned. The complaint does not refer to Dr. McKenna at all. Thus, we conclude that the complaint provides no indication of a potential claim based on Dr. McKenna's professional services.
Nor did the complaint, an actual claim, provide The Doctors' Company with knowledge from which it could have reasonably inferred a potential claim against Dr. McKenna. Washington Casualty's assertion that such an inference was reasonable is not supported by KPFF, Inc. v. California Union Ins. Co., 56 Cal. App. 4th 963, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 36 (1997). That case does hold that pleadings 'can serve the dual purpose of both reporting a claim and giving written notice of circumstances which may subsequently give rise to other claims.' KPFF, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 42. But the court also held that information provided in the pleadings must be sufficient to alert the insurer to the need to establish necessary reserves. Pleadings in the underlying suit in KPFF mentioned cracked floor slabs and negligently designed slab support cables as the cause of structural damage to the hotel. The court concluded that while the pleadings contained allegations presenting 'a speculative possibility' of seismic claims, they did not give the insurer a reasonable basis to infer the likelihood of a seismic claim. KPFF, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 44.
The Migliuris' original complaint was similarly uninformative. The general references to negligent prenatal care occurring 'on or before' the date of the birth presented a speculative possibility of a claim that the delivery was negligent. But the complaint was insufficiently specific about the conduct alleged to be negligent to put the insurer on notice that it was reasonable to anticipate a claim against Dr. McKenna, when he was not a named defendant.
The delivery performed by Dr. McKenna was, so far as the record shows, a medical procedure completely independent of Dr. Bachhuber's earlier decision to perform the external version. The record demonstrates that the Migliuris made no demand on Dr. McKenna until December 18, 1998, well after The Doctors' Company policy period. Reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion - that the information possessed by The Doctors' Company did not constitute notice of a potential claim against Dr. McKenna during its policy period, nor could the insurer have reasonably inferred a potential claim arising from Dr. McKenna's professional services. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to The Doctors' Company. Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|