 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
PRIOR v. S.C. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LIAB. INS.2/25/1991
Heard Jan. 21, 1991.
Decided Feb. 25, 1991.
William F. Prior (Prior), a medical doctor, brings this action for declaratory judgment against his professional liability insurance carrier, South Carolina Medical Malpractice Liability Insurance Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), to determine if JUA owed a duty to defend Prior in a medical malpractice action and to pay the judgment. The trial judge granted summary judgment to JUA. Prior appeals. We affirm.
The facts of this case are undisputed. One of Prior's patients, Patty Honea (Patient), alleged that in November 1984, during an examination for birth control pills, Prior sexually assaulted her. That same month, the Patient filed a complaint against Prior with the sheriff's department, and the sheriff's department took Prior's statement. Prior did not notify JUA of the criminal complaint. Ultimately, the solicitor dismissed the Patient's complaint.
On May 1, 1986, the Patient sued Prior for battery, assault, negligence and outrage. Prior did not advise JUA; instead, he hired his own attorney. In August 1986, Prior's attorney withdrew because of a conflict of interest, and on August 21, 1986, Prior forwarded the summons and complaint to JUA.
JUA undertook representation of Prior under strict reservation of rights to later disclaim coverage. JUA took Prior's deposition and then, based on that deposition and the allegations in the Patient's complaint, withdrew its defense and denied coverage. JUA withdrew its defense on the grounds that the Patient's claim did not arise out of the performance of professional services and that Prior breached his duty to notify JUA in a prompt fashion and to forward suit papers immediately to JUA.
In October 1986, the case was tried, and the trial judge submitted all four causes of action to the jury. The jury returned a general verdict against Prior, awarding $15,000 actual damages and $80,000 punitive damages. The case was affirmed on appeal. Honea v. Prior, 295 S.C. 526, 369 S.E.2d 846 (Ct. App. 1988). Prior then brought this action seeking indemnification from JUA.
The issues of merit are (1) whether the Patient's claim arose out of the performance of professional services and, therefore, JUA had a duty to defend and (2) whether JUA had a duty to defend despite Prior's failure to notify JUA in a timely fashion.
We hold that the trial judge correctly found that the Patient's claim did not arise from the performance of professional services. Under JUA's contract with Prior, JUA is only obligated to pay claims "arising out of the performance of professional services."
If the facts alleged in the Patient's complaint fail to bring a claim within policy coverage, JUA has no duty to defend. See R.A. Earnhardt Textile Mach. Div., Inc. v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 277 S.C. 88, 282 S.E.2d 856 (1981). To determine, therefore, if JUA has a duty to defend, we must look to the allegations of the complaint. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co. v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 252 S.C. 428, 166 S.E.2d 762 (1969). In examining the complaint, we must look beyond the labels describing the acts, to the acts themselves which form the basis of the claim against the insurer. See South Carolina
In the case before us, despite the label of negligence, the act the Patient complained of was sexual assault, an intentional tort. Intentional torts are not covered in Prior's
Even if the Patient's claim had arisen from professional services, JUA had no duty to defend because Prior failed to timely notify JUA. "No rule of law is more firmly established in this jurisdiction than that one suing on a policy of insurance, where the notice requ
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|