Ordinary Negligence is What Medical Professi0nal Liability Insures
Post number 5319
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gxKjDztW and at https://lnkd.in/gnxkxS42, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Sexual Conduct Exclusion Doesn’t Apply When Doctor Negligently Uses His Own Sperm
In Integris Insurance Company v. Narendra B. Tohan, No. AC 47222, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (April 7, 2026) Integris Insurance Company, a medical professional liability insurer, initiated a declaratory action to determine its duty to defend and indemnify Narendra B. Tohan, a physician licensed in Connecticut, in a separate negligence action alleging medical misconduct.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2019, Kayla Suprynowicz and Reilly Flaherty (civil action plaintiffs), who were strangers for most of their lives, discovered through a genetic testing company that they are half siblings.
INSURANCE POLICY
The policy defines “Professional Services” in relevant part as “any professional medical services within the customary scope of the insured’s practice specialty or classification ….” The policy further obligates the plaintiff, among other things, to “defend the insured against any claim or suit which includes . . . allegations of professional negligence for which coverage is provided under this policy.” It excluded sexual conduct.
The plaintiff claimed that the sexual conduct exclusion applies because “procreation is quintessentially sexual.” That contention overlooked the fact that procreation was the purpose of the professional services rendered in this case. As the underlying complaint makes clear, the civil action concerns the defendant’s provision of fertility services to the civil action plaintiffs’ parents through IVF procedures, which undoubtedly are medical procedures.
The professional service at issue is not the defendant’s production of sperm. It is, instead, the fraudulent use of his sperm to inseminate his patients. Although that suit alleged that the defendant negligently mixed his own sperm with that of Gary Suprynowicz to impregnate Kayla’s mother, it also alleges that he negligently failed to offer her parents “the choice of sperm donor” and negligently utilized sperm that contained a genetic disease. The Court of Appeal was unable to see how either of the latter two negligence allegations implicate the sexual conduct exclusion in any way.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Integris Insurance Company, finding that the policy exclusions applied and that there was no coverage for the alleged misconduct. Tohan appealed this decision to the Connecticut Court of Appeals.
LEGAL ISSUES
The dispute centers on the interpretation of the medical professional liability insurance policy and whether the underlying complaint alleged facts potentially within the scope of coverage.
The trial court examined two principal issues: (1) whether the underlying complaint contained allegations that could trigger coverage, and (2) whether exclusions in the policy clearly and unambiguously barred coverage for all allegations and concluded there was no coverage for defense or indemnity.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Providing IVF services to Kayla’s parents plainly is within the customary scope of the defendant’s practice specialty and thus constitutes “professional services” as that term is defined in the policy. The fact that the defendant may have negligently used his own sperm while providing those professional services, as the civil action plaintiffs allege in their complaint, does not alter that conclusion.
CONCLUSION
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by concluding that the policy exclusions applied to every allegation without ambiguity.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant’s fraudulent artificial insemination of his patients with his own sperm involved the provision of professional, medical services requiring special skill and knowledge. In this case, it is the operation itself, i.e., the insemination (and, ironically, its success), that is the proximate cause of the harms alleged in the underlying civil actions. As a result, the plaintiff’s policy extends coverage to claims arising from the defendant’s misconduct.
The civil action plaintiffs did not allege in count one that the defendant was aware that his sperm contained a genetic disease or that he knowingly used sperm that contained a genetic disease when providing IVF services to Kayla’s parents and that specific allegation constitutes an ordinary claim of negligence on the part of the defendant, and one that is not sexual in nature.
ZALMA OPINION
Since the good doctor never had any contact with the plaintiff’s mother but merely performed his specialty, inseminating her eggs with sperm from the father mixed with the doctor’s sperm. There was no excluded sexual conduct, just professional in vitro fertilization of the mother’s egg – a medical procedure not excluded.
(c) 2026 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://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; 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 InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
