.

Case Law Alerts

Prior acts exclusion applies and coverage is excluded because claim was previously reported to another insurer.

Green Tree Community Health Foundation v. Admiral Insurance Co., 2022 WL 3281873 – Aug. 10, 2022

October 1, 2022

by Gabor Ovari

This case involves contract interpretation and insurance coverage. Specifically, the health care plaintiff contended that the defendant insurance company acted in bad faith in failing to cover a medical malpractice claim against it.

The plaintiff purchased tail insurance from the defendant to protect it against professional and general liability that had occurred before this entity took over a specific hospital. The policy did not cover claims that had already been reported to another insurer, only against claims based on old, unknown incidents.

Subsequently, the plaintiff became involved in a lawsuit brought by a mother and her child based on alleged malpractice that occurred at the acquired hospital during the child’s birth in 2001. The defendant refused to defend the lawsuit and indemnify the plaintiff on the basis that the claim was not covered because the mother brought a similar lawsuit in 2002 on the child’s behalf that was litigated and dismissed. Therefore, the defendant contended that the first case was reported to another insurance company and the new case was excluded under the prior acts exclusion. The plaintiff argued that the old case was separate and distinct from the new case and the prior acts exclusion did not apply.

The U.S. District Court agreed with the defendant’s interpretation of the insurance contract. The court reviewed the contract and noted that the policy provisions required three conditions to trigger coverage: (1) the loss is for an injury caused by a medical incident; (2) the incident occurred before 2005; and (3) the claim was not reported to another insurer. In this case, the claim arose from the same loss event as the prior case, which was litigated before and was reported to another insurer. Therefore, the prior acts exclusion applied and coverage was properly excluded.

 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.