Buckner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund

Decision Date06 November 1979
Docket NumberNo. 79-182,79-182
Citation376 So.2d 461
PartiesJohn W. BUCKNER, M.D., Appellant, v. PHYSICIANS PROTECTIVE TRUST FUND, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy and Charles C. Powers, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and Raymond A. Reiser, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a physician, challenges the entry of the summary final judgment, the effect of which was to deny him coverage under a professional service policy issued by the appellee.

The appellee had denied coverage to Dr. Buckner after an action for slander had been initiated against him by Drs. Benavides and Schaubel. In that action, Drs. Benavides and Schaubel alleged that they had been slandered by Dr. Buckner and others, stating that:

During or immediately prior to the month of October, 1976, Defendants, acting in concert and in pursuit of mutual goals, spoke to reporters for The Miami Herald and maliciously charged Plaintiff with performing unnecessary and incompetent spinal surgery. Defendants intended and contemplated that said charges would appear in an article to be published by The Miami Herald.

The complaint went on to allege that the initial article containing the defendant's charges appeared in The Miami Herald on October 31, 1976. Drs. Benavides and Schaubel further asserted that, as was foreseeable, defendant's charges were republished; specifically in The News and Courier, a South Carolina daily and four subsequent times in The Miami Herald.

In their claim for slander, they further contended that the charges were maliciously false and were intended to, were understood to and did refer to the plaintiffs. The complaint maintained that the defendants communicated these charges willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and either with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth, with the express intent of discrediting the plaintiffs.

Under the professional service policy, appellee agreed:

(t)o pay on behalf of the Member all sums which the Member shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of any claim or claims made against the member during the indemnity period arising out of the performance of professional services rendered or which should have been rendered . . . .

Under the indemnity agreement, professional services were defined as follows:

the rendering of or failure to render any service of a professional nature by a physician . . . and shall be deemed to include . . . the services by a Member as a member of a formal accreditation or similar board or committee of a hospital or professional society.

After the appellee denied coverage under the indemnity agreement, Dr. Buckner joined the appellee in a third party action pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.180. In this action, Dr. Buckner alleged that:

At all times material herein, JOHN W. BUCKNER, M.D., was duly deputized pursuant to Florida Statutes 458.1201 by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners for the purpose of conducting an investigation into the conduct and competence of physicians and was at all times material hereto acting in the course and scope of his authority and in furtherance of the duty thereby imposed.

After...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Lindheimer v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 1994
    ...v. Lieberman, 526 So.2d 969, 972 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 536 So.2d 244 (Fla.1988). See also Buckner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 376 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (insured's act of conducting a press conference not a "professional service" under policy because act was not embr......
  • Hirst v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 1984
    ...its legal effect. These are questions of law which are appropriate for determination by summary judgment. Buckner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 376 So.2d 461 (Fla.App.1979). We must decide therefore only whether the parties were entitled to judgment as a matter of II. Coverage of the......
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. AMERICAN REINSURANCE, No. C-2-86-1158.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • August 7, 1991
    ...ambulance attendants was the subject of discussion in Merrill v. Packard, 395 So.2d 285 (Fla.App.1981). Buckner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 376 So.2d 461 (Fla.App.1979) discussed, without hesitation, the scope of coverage provided under an indemnity policy which, although it covere......
  • Hartman Services, Inc. v. Southeast First Nat. Bank of Miami, 80-1191
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1981
    ...1970); National Luggage Services, Inc. v. Reedy Forwarding Company, Inc., 339 So.2d 305 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Buckner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 376 So.2d 461 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). We find no error in denying the rehearing and in refusing leave to amend. Fink v. Powsner, 108 So.2d 324 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT