D & O Policy Professional Services Exclusion - Post 4830
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g-Srqy6m, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvhVhEnY and at https://lnkd.in/gGMGepXT, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
The California Court of Appeals was asked to resolve a dispute over the applicability of professional services coverage exclusions in directors and officers liability insurance policies. The policies were issued to Practice Fusion, Inc., a company that develops and licenses electronic health record software for use by healthcare providers.
In Practice Fusion, Inc. v. Freedom Specialty Insurance Company et al., A167130, A167886, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (June 21, 2024) it responded.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
An electronic health record is an electronic version of a patient’s medical history as maintained by a healthcare provider.
Following investigations by the United States Department of Justice, Practice Fusion entered into a civil settlement with the United States that resolved two distinct sets of claims that alleged that Practice Fusion violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Further, although the alerts appeared to healthcare providers as unbiased medical information, in some instances they were designed to encourage healthcare providers to prescribe a specific product or class of products to the benefit of the sponsoring pharmaceutical company.
Practice Fusion sought insurance coverage for the civil settlement under its directors and officers liability insurance policies. The insurers denied coverage on the ground that the policies’ professional services exclusions applied to the losses. Practice Fusion then sued the insurers for breach of contract.
The trial court granted the insurers’ motion for summary adjudication because the claims arose from Practice Fusion providing professional services to the pharmaceutical companies and its claim was barred by the professional services exclusion in the policies.
The Settlement Between the United States Department of Justice and Practice Fusion
In January 2020, Practice Fusion agreed to pay $118,642,000 plus interest to the United States and participating states to resolve claims arising from investigations relating to Practice Fusion’s electronic health record software.
Practice Fusion’s Insurance Coverage
Several insurers relevant to the CDS claims insured Practice Fusion under primary or excess directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance policies. The policies in an “insurance tower” provided a total of $50 million in coverage. All policies contained an exclusion that applies to all “Insureds” and bars coverage for “Loss in connection with any Claim made against any Insured . . . alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to an Insured’s performance of or failure to perform professional services for others, or any act(s), error(s) or omission(s) relating thereto; ….”
DISCUSSION
At issue in this case are exclusions that apply to losses connected to claims arising from “professional services for others.” The loss claimed by Practice Fusion as a result of its settlement with the United States as to the CDS alerts falls within the provisions in Practice Fusion’s D&O policies exclude coverage for claims arising out of, based upon or attributable to an Insured’s performance of professional services for others, or any act(s), error(s) or omission(s) relating thereto.
Practice Fusion conceded it agreed to modify its software to include the CDS alerts, which were targeted for particular patients with particular conditions based on selected guidelines. The contracts between Practice Fusion and the pharmaceutical companies are premised upon Practice Fusion providing the companies with professional services. The Court of Appeals concluded that the CDS claims, which Practice Fusion settled, are claims that meet the terms of the exclusion.
Accordingly, the loss connected to the settlement of the DOJ’s claims regarding the CDS alerts was barred by the professional services exclusion. The contracts included as a major objective for Practice Fusion to provide the companies with services by deploying CDS alerts in its software and by “arranging for or recommending” that healthcare providers prescribe their products.
ZALMA OPINION
Health insurance fraud is rampant. If you read Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter you will see dozens of convictions for fraud on government funded health care programs and multiple civil settlements like that reached with Practice Fusion. It would be ridiculous to allow a person or entity to insure for its fraudulent conduct and payment to avoid criminal prosecution. To do so would avoid the purpose of the kickback statutes and the crime that Practice Fusion avoided by agreeing to pay the Government and eliminate the fact that D&O insurance was designed to protect against fortuitous losses not intentional criminal conduct.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
