Medical Protective Co. v. Bell
| Decision Date | 03 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1976WM,89-1976WM |
| Parties | The MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY, Appellee, v. Fletcher BELL, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Robert M. Kroenert, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
John F. Murphy, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before FAGG and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Fletcher Bell, commissioner of insurance for Kansas and administrator of Kansas's Health Care Stabilization Fund (the Fund), appeals from an adverse ruling of the district court. The sole question before us on appeal is whether the Kansas Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act (the Act) permits the Fund to contribute toward a malpractice settlement against Kansas physicians whose nonresident professional corporation carries liability insurance covering the settlement. The district court entered a declaratory order concluding the Act directs the Fund to make payments in this situation. Because the Kansas Supreme Court has construed the Act to the contrary, we reverse.
The Act requires every health care provider residing and licensed to practice medicine in Kansas to maintain a specified minimum amount of professional liability insurance. Kan.Stat.Ann. Secs. 40-3401(b), (f), -3402(a) (1986). The Act also provides the Fund will pay any portion of a malpractice settlement against a Kansas provider that exceeds the required minimum coverage. Id. Sec. 40-3403(c)(1). "[I]f any liability insurance in excess of [the required minimum coverage] is applicable to [a settlement] or would be applicable in the absence of th[e] [A]ct," however, payments from the Fund are limited to "[the] excess [of the settlement amount] over [the] amounts paid [on the applicable liability insurance] or that would have been payable in the absence of th[e] [A]ct." Id. Sec. 40-3408. During the period relevant to this appeal, the Act required minimum coverage of $100,000 for each occurrence of malpractice. Id. Sec. 40-3402(a) (1976) (amended 1986).
Andrew B. Kaufman, M.D., and Robert A. Morantz, M.D., resided in Kansas and were licensed to practice medicine there. Both maintained professional liability policies with the Medical Protective Company (Medical Protective) that satisfied the Act's $100,000 minimum coverage requirement. Although not governed by the Act, the Missouri professional corporation that employed Kaufman and Morantz (the Corporation) also maintained a liability policy with Medical Protective. The Corporation's policy insured against up to $1,000,000 in damages resulting from "professional services rendered ... [by any] person for whose acts or omissions the [Corporation was] legally responsible."
In 1983, Kaufman, Morantz, and the Corporation were named as defendants in a malpractice action. Medical Protective settled the claim on behalf of the doctors and the Corporation for $715,000, charging $100,000 of the payment to the individual policies of Kaufman and Morantz, respectively, and $515,000 to the Corporation's policy. Medical Protective then sought a declaratory judgment that the Fund was liable for the $515,000 portion of the settlement exceeding the coverages of Kaufman and Morantz. The Fund replied that the Act prohibited payment, contending the Corporation's vicarious liability insurance was "applicable to [the settled] claim or would [have been] applicable in the absence of th[e] [A]ct." Id. Sec. 40-3408 (1986).
The district court rejected the Fund's contention. Since the Corporation could recover the full amount of its vicarious liability from Kaufman and Morantz by asserting its right to indemnity, the court concluded Kaufman and Morantz alone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olympus Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Kehm Enterprises, Ltd.
...addressed the matter," citing Chandler v. Presiding Judge, Callaway County, 838 F.2d 977, 979 (8th Cir.1988)); Medical Protective Co. v. Bell, 912 F.2d 244, 245 (8th Cir.1990) (also citing Chandler), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1090, 111 S.Ct. 970, 112 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1991); Chadima v. National Fi......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Rand & Reed Powers Partner
...addressed the matter," citing Chandler v. Presiding Judge, Callaway County, 838 F.2d 977, 979 (8th Cir.1988)); Medical Protective Co. v. Bell, 912 F.2d 244, 245 (8th Cir.1990) (also citing Chandler), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1090, 111 S.Ct. 970, 112 L.Ed.2d 1056 In the absence of such interpr......
-
Chadima v. National Fidelity Life Ins. Co.
...668A.1(1)(b), the interpretation of state statutes is a task in which this court must defer to state courts. See Medical Protective Co. v. Bell, 912 F.2d 244, 245 (8th Cir.1990) (holding that a federal court interpreting a state statute is bound by construction given statute by state's high......
-
Gaston v. Webster
...language, this Court is obligated to follow the Arkansas Supreme Court's interpretation of an Arkansas statute. Medical Protective Co. v. Bell, 912 F.2d 244, 245 (8th Cir. 1990). Therefore, as Gaston has alleged intentional acts rather than negligence, the defendants are not immune under se......