In Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Smith, 2009 WL 3199209 (Mass. Super.), Judge Fabricant of the Superior Court held that separate limits apply to a main claimant and claimants seeking coverage for loss of consortium from the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund.
The Fund is an entity created by statute that pays claims on behalf of insolvent insurance companies; but by statute it pays "only that amount of each covered claim which . . . is less than three hundred thousand dollars."
Mason was a medical provider who had malpractice insurance with an insurer that is now insolvent. His policy had a coverage limit of $1,000,000.
Mason was sued by a patient for physical injury and by the patient's family members for loss of consortium. The Fund argued that the aggregate amount it could pay to all of the claimants--the patient and the family members--was $300,000. The claimants argued that the $300,000 cap applied to each of their claims individually.
Judge Fabricant noted that no Massachusetts appellate decision has addressed this question and that the Superior Court and extra-jurisdictional decisions are split. She held, based on the language of the original policy and the statute enabling the fund, that the fund must pay up to $299,999 on each separate claim.
The Fund is an entity created by statute that pays claims on behalf of insolvent insurance companies; but by statute it pays "only that amount of each covered claim which . . . is less than three hundred thousand dollars."
Mason was a medical provider who had malpractice insurance with an insurer that is now insolvent. His policy had a coverage limit of $1,000,000.
Mason was sued by a patient for physical injury and by the patient's family members for loss of consortium. The Fund argued that the aggregate amount it could pay to all of the claimants--the patient and the family members--was $300,000. The claimants argued that the $300,000 cap applied to each of their claims individually.
Judge Fabricant noted that no Massachusetts appellate decision has addressed this question and that the Superior Court and extra-jurisdictional decisions are split. She held, based on the language of the original policy and the statute enabling the fund, that the fund must pay up to $299,999 on each separate claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment