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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair. The defendant denied negligence and alleged comparative negligence. After a two-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury returned a defense verdict.
The trial court denied Ojekwe’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, and he appealed.
LAW
A trial court’s refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of ...
Inadequately Briefed Issues Defeats Appeal
Post 4852
Issues on Appeal Must be Adequately Briefed
Posted on September 25, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Emy Ojekwe v. Connecticut Transit District Consortium, No. AC 47389, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 22, 2026) Emy Ojekwe alleged that he was injured on September 24, 2020, while leaving a bus operated by Connecticut Transit District Consortium, doing business as Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.
According to his complaint, the wheelchair ramp began to rise before he had fully exited, causing his wheelchair to fall backward and allegedly injuring several parts of his body and damaging the wheelchair.
LAW
Refusal to set aside a verdict because of counsel’s improper remarks is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Appellate claims receiving only cursory treatment, without record citations, supporting authority, or legal analysis, are inadequately briefed.
DISCUSSION
Improper opening remarks.
Defense counsel referred to Ojekwe’s national origin,...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
