 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Physicians' Reciprocal Insurers v. Giugliano10/31/2005
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
The action before the Court is an insurance dispute wherein an insurer is seeking summary judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212 and a declaratory judgment declaring that Physicians' Reciprocal Insurers (PRI) has no duty to defend or indemnify defendant James E. Giugliano, D.O. in the underlying action Dupree v. Giugliano, Index No. 19557/04, pending in Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
PRI had issued a professional liability policy to defendant Giugliano, a physician, that was in effect at the time period in question. PRI asserts, however, that the action in Suffolk County involves an alleged sexual relationship that defendant had with a patient, Kristin Dupree, and that the policy does not cover sexual misconduct. Ms. Dupree's first complaint maintained that her marriage failed as result of the negligent actions of defendant and sued him for medical malpractice based on their ongoing sexual relationship.
That first complaint was dismissed, whereupon Ms. Dupree served an amended complaint pursuant to CPLR §205(a) claiming that defendant's sexual contact with her while providing therapeutic counseling and prescribing antidepressants was negligent and below the standard of care established for physicians.
In the second cause of action seeking exemplary and punitive damage, Ms. Dupree added the claim of willful disregard fo the unreasonable risk of harm to his patient's care beyond mere negligence. She asserts that the Wellbutrin she was taking pursuant to defendant's direction caused a major increase in her libido, that defendant failed to advise her that her increased sex drive was attributable to the drug and that because of the counseling sessions, she mistakenly attributed her increased libido to an "overwhelming and irresistible attraction" to the defendant.
The Suffolk County Supreme Court found that the amended complaint stated a cause of action (Pitts, J., July 25, 2005). Thereafter, PRI for the second time disclaimed its obligation to both defend and indemnify Dr. Giugliano based upon specific exclusions from coverage for sexual acts or intimacy, molestation, harassment, exploitation, or assault, as well as willful, fraudulent or malicious and criminal acts and for punitive or exemplary damages.
Plaintiff's argument in the instant application is that even when a court finds a cause of action sounding in malpractice, a determination that is not on the merits (see, Storch v. Gorden, 37 Misc 2d 731), plaintiff is not bound by that decision in its coverage of an insured and the contract language prevails.
The first issue the Court must consider is PRI's duty to defend which is broader than the duty to indemnify (Villa Charlotte Bronte, Inc. v. Commercial Union, 64 NY2d 846). A plaintiff insurer must establish as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify a defendant (Id). Indeed, the duty to defend is the gravamen of defendant Giugliano's cross-motion in which his affidavit states simply that he does not acknowledge any of the malpractice alleged by Ms. Dupree.
There are several scenarios before this Court derived from the facts as pleaded in the amended malpractice complaint ranging from failure to properly treat Ms. Dupree's underlying anxiety disorder by exacerbating Mrs. Dupree's stress through sexual conduct, to failing to advise her regarding the possible libido enhancing effects of the drugs prescribed.
In Chung v. PRI, 221 AD2d 907, app
Page 1 2 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|