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
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
