.

The Quarterly Dose

Q&A with Curi

The Quarterly Dose – November 2025

November 1, 2025

To help understand the evolving landscape of medical malpractice, we spoke with the claims management team at Curi, a leader in health care risk and insurance solutions. They offer valuable insights into the complex factors driving today’s malpractice claims, the trends shaping the industry, and the challenges insurers and health care providers must navigate to protect both patients and practitioners.

TRENDS AND PATTERNS
What recent trends are you seeing in the volume and severity of medical malpractice claims?

For our Northeast-focused team, the majority of new cases are venued in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs’ counsel seem to go out of their way to find some way to connect to Philadelphia County in order to take advantage of the venue. We have a case now where a co-defendant resident was named and their involvement with the patient was minimal. It seems apparent she was only named because she is a resident of Philadelphia County. There is no other affiliation with regard to where the care took place or the parties. We are also seeing some less severe and less meritorious claims being filed in Philadelphia County, likely because it is a challenging venue for defendants.

In New Jersey, we are seeing an increase in the severity of claims being pursued. This may be due to the rising expenses in putting together a medical malpractice case, particularly the cost of retaining experts, which has greatly increased over the past several years.

Have you observed any changes in the types of providers or specialties most affected by claims?

We have not observed significant changes in providers or specialty types most affected by claims. In our experience, the providers who have traditionally been at higher risk for claims remain so today.

Are there specific provider types or geographic regions showing disproportionate increases in claims?

We have not noticed any significant trends as far as provider types. As far as geographic regions (besides Philadelphia), we have seen an increase in cases being filed in New Jersey in the middle of the state. This may be due to an increase in population in those counties along with a migration of people in urban areas due to rising property costs.

LEGAL AND REGULATORY LANDSCAPE
How are current legal trends-such as nuclear verdicts or social inflation—affecting your claims exposure?

The current legal environment is negatively impacting claims exposure. The word “negotiation” seems to have lost its meaning as demands routinely start well above available coverage limits, and plaintiffs seem to show limited flexibility. Even reasonable counteroffers are sometimes met with only minimal movement, making it difficult to reach balanced resolutions.

As far as social inflation is concerned, a new tactic from the plaintiffs’ side is to really focus on the non-economic damages to appeal to the jury. If true economic damages are presented, it is more of a secondary focus. This is particularly challenging for the defense as the jury pools begin to draw more heavily on the younger generations who tend to generally award higher non-economic damages.

How are changes in tort reform or state-specific regulations affecting your claims handling strategies?

Unfortunately, we aren’t seeing any tort reform in the Northeastern states that our team handles. However, Curi has partnered with state medical associations and legal and lobbying experts in recent months to help advance tort reform bills in some other states where we have clients.

Are you adjusting your litigation strategies in light of higher jury awards or more aggressive plaintiff attorneys?

We are moving more cases to high/low binding arbitrations when there is an opportunity to do so.

CLAIMS HANDLING FUTURE OUTLOOK
What emerging risks or developments (e.g., telemedicine, Al in diagnostics) do you think will significantly impact medical malpractice in the next three to five years?

Al will have a significant impact on medical malpractice cases as more health care providers and health systems begin to use it for diagnostic purposes and notetaking. Medical providers will need to use Al as a tool and not become complacent about allowing it to be the final word. In our own use of Al for note taking or summarizing information, we have seen things interpreted incorrectly or misstated. The human element remains critical in the process.

What keeps you up at night when thinking about the future of medical malpractice claims?

We have found ourselves asking lately, “What monetary amount will shock the conscience of the court?”

We have observed a significant plaintiff-leaning shift in certain jurisdictions. Judges also appear to be taking a more active role in cases, often engaging with defendants and their insurance carriers directly. While these judges may intend to facilitate resolution, it often places undue pressure on defendants to consent to settlements—even in cases that we believe should be defended and tried.

As there continue to be fewer independent physician practices, we have also been experiencing an issue with the larger health systems not waiving conflicts for defense counsel even when the hospital or system are not named in the suit for which a waiver is being sought. We experienced this in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We recently had a case where we had to go to five different defense firms before we found someone who could handle the case for our insured physician. 

Finally, we are seeing fewer global settlements. Plaintiffs’ counsel have become very savvy at peeling off defendants with individual settlements and threatening the remaining parties with the potential for bad faith claims.

Responses shared by Curi
Curi is a full-service advisory firm comprised of three distinct businesses: Curi Insurance, Curi Advisory, and Curi Capital. The claims team is grounded by a deep commitment to defending good medicine, partnering closely with firms like Marshall Dennehey and investing substantially in the defense of its cases. Visit Curi’s website. 

The Quarterly Dose – November 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed.