Do Your Doctor Clients Know What Kind of Malpractice Insurance They Have?
For doctors in private practice in particular, decisions about malpractice insurance may be among the most important they will make.
April 02, 2020 at 01:26 PM
6 minute read
You've just received a call from a physician or dentist asking you to review their new employment contract. Or, maybe you've received a call from a doctor who is hoping to start the "wind down" process and retire in the near future. What should they know when it comes to medical malpractice insurance, and how will it impact their decision in taking or leaving a job?
For doctors in private practice in particular, decisions about malpractice insurance may be among the most important they will make.
Medical malpractice insurance, also called medical professional liability insurance, is a type of errors and omissions (E&O) coverage. It protects physicians, dentists, nurses, physical therapists and other health care professionals against claims alleging their negligent acts caused injury to patients. Medical malpractice insurance comes in two basic forms: occurrence or claims-made. Surprisingly, many doctors do not know what kind of malpractice insurance they have.
Occurrence v. Claims-Made Policies
An occurrence-based policy provides insurance against any incident that occurs during the term of the policy, regardless of when the claim is made. As long as the event occurs during the coverage period, your client will be covered. Thus, if your client has an occurrence-type policy in effect for the calendar year 2017, and a patient files a claim in 2020 for an incident that happened during 2017, the policy covers your client for that claim, even if he no longer has insurance with that carrier. This type of policy is usually considered the "better" option because it provides "lifetime coverage" but can come with a heftier price tag for employers.
A claims-made policy provides coverage only for incidents that occurred and were reported while your client was insured by that carrier. In other words, both the incident and the filing of the claim must happen while the policy is in effect. Thus, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. Claims-made policies are much more common because they are less expensive "up front" than occurrence policies.
If your client leaves an employer for any reason, and therefore drops a claims-made policy, he is not covered for any suits filed later unless they obtain and pay for what is known as "tail coverage," sometimes called an extended reporting endorsement. Tail coverage can be expensive—often three times the amount of an annual premium—but it's essential to be insured for any claims that could arise later.
Therefore, it is imperative that your client understand who will be responsible for tail coverage—the doctor or the employer—before starting a new position and that such responsibility is clearly specified in the employment contract.
Hundreds of medical residents and fellows of the now-defunct Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia almost had to learn this lesson the hard way after the hospital closed last summer because of severe financial problems. On top of scrambling to find new programs willing to accept them to finish their training, and bearing the cost to move all over the country, these young doctors were faced with the prospect of having to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann. This caused many residents and fellows to believe that all guarantees had been yanked out from them in a time when they do not earn enough money to cover these costs.
Fortunately for these young doctors, including new attending physicians, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge signed an order at the beginning of last month allowing the owners of Hahnemann to use the hospital's assets to purchase tail insurance for residents and attending physicians who otherwise would have faced a loss in coverage. For most doctors, this kind of bailout is not a possibility when it comes to tail coverage.
Depending on the location and nature of a medical practice, medical malpractice insurance can take several forms, including: an individual or group policy purchased from a traditional private insurer; an individual or group policy obtained through a medical risk retention group (RRG), a mutual organization of medical professionals organized to provide liability insurance; and coverage provided as part of a policy held by an employer, such as a hospital.
What's Covered … and What's Not
One should carefully read a particular malpractice insurance policy's terms to be sure what it covers.
Medical malpractice insurance covers a range of expenses associated with defending and settling malpractice suits. It also pays damages if your client is found liable. Examples of commonly covered costs include attorney fees and court costs, arbitration costs, settlement costs, punitive and compensatory damages, and medical damages.
There are also many common exclusions in malpractice policies that your client should be aware of, including:
- Acts committed while you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol
- Sexual misconduct
- Dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or illegal acts
- Injuries arising out of the use of autos, including loading or unloading of patients
- Claims arising out of any business (such as a clinic or nursing home) you own or manage that's not named on the policy
- Claims arising out of certain types of procedures (such as the administration of general anesthesia)
- Claims arising from your unauthorized disclosure of patients' medical records
Medical malpractice insurance is one of the most important, and also one of the most nuanced, parts of taking or deciding to leave a job as a doctor. It can be difficult for a doctor to ask for tail coverage from an employer because it may seem as if the doctor is already planning to leave the practice. Yet common sense dictates that no one can be absolutely sure that he or she will stay in the same job for the full duration of a career—even the employer. The best way to ensure that medical malpractice tail coverage is part of an employment contract is to negotiate for it when starting a job. Once a doctor begins an employed position, there is no incentive for an employer to add tail coverage to the physician's contract because this can give an employed doctor a way out while costing the employer a large sum of money.
—Rachel E. Lusk, an associate at Lamb McErlane who focuses on health law and health care litigation, assisted with preparing this article.
Vasilios J. Kalogredis is chairman of Lamb McErlane's health law department. He represents many medical and dental groups and thousands of individual physicians and dentists.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSuperior Court Rejects Pa. Hospital's Challenge to $7.3M Med Mal Judgment
3 minute readLongtime Reed Smith Health Care Partner Opts for Solo Practice Over Retirement
3 minute readPa. Appeals Court: Trial Judge Dismissed Med Mal Claims Without Giving Plaintiffs Proper Time to Fight Back
4 minute readPa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250