November 12, 2019

November 12, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 11, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Bodily Injury Exclusion Does Not Apply to Wrongful Death Action

Somerset Medical Center v. Executive Risk Indemnity Inc.  (Sup. Ct. N.J., Mar. 22, 2010)

Defendant Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. (ERII) issued Somerset Medical Center a Directors, Officers & Trustee’s Liability Insurance Including Health Care Organization Reimbursement Policy. Somerset sought coverage under this policy for a series of underlying lawsuits in which nurse Charles Cullen pleaded guilty to committing 29 murders and 6 attempted murders at various health care facilities, including Somerset. The allegations in the “master complaint” resulting from the consolidated tort actions alleged that Somerset and its officers were guilty of negligent hiring, negligent supervision and entrustment, negligent reporting and negligent continuation of employment. ERII denied coverage based on the policy exclusion precluding coverage for claims “arising out of” bodily injury.

The court stated that the underlying plaintiffs sued Somerset and its officers for negligence, a claim that fell within the category of protection Somerset sought when purchasing the insurance. The court stated that it was reasonable to assume that there was an expectation by the insured of coverage for the underlying claim and that expectation of coverage was particularly reasonable here where the insured enterprise is a hospital, rather than some other institution that does not care for sick people and assumes the risks inherent in that responsibility. Accordingly, the court held that the bodily injury exclusion did not bar coverage for the underlying lawsuits.

Impact: The court relied heavily upon a previous decision wherein it held that coverage existed under similar circumstances. In short, the court appears to be applying a rationale by which the bodily injury exclusion does not apply where the alleged bodily injury and/or death is alleged to have resulted from the professional negligence of the policyholder (i.e. negligent supervision, etc.) One could argue that this serves as a reminder of courts’ reluctance to eliminate coverage for a policyholder based upon the clearly abhorrent acts of an employee.

For a copy of this decision, click here:

All content © 2019 Goldberg Segalla LLP


About this Author

Richard J. Cohen, Goldberg Segalla Law Firm, Insurance Attorney
Managing Partner

Richard Cohen, a founding partner of Goldberg Segalla, has been the firm’s managing partner since its inception and has led its dynamic growth from a team of seven attorneys into one of the largest law firms headquartered in the United States. Rick oversees all of the firm’s operations across its more than 20-office footprint, and is responsible for developing and implementing the firm’s strategic direction, driving its geographic expansion, and cultivating leadership within the firm and throughout the greater business community. He plays a primary, active role in the...

Sharon Angelino, Insurance Lawyer, Goldberg Segalla Law Firm

Sharon Angelino is a Goldberg Segalla partner and a member of the firm's Insurance Coverage and Extra-contractual Liability Practice Group, where her practice includes complex insurance coverage, commercial litigation and general corporate law.

Having earned a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and an M.B.A., combined with several years of working in the health care industry, Ms. Angelino brings unique blend of knowledge and experience to benefit her clients.

Ms. Angelino has more than a dozen years of insurance coverage experience in both first party and third party claims. She has reviewed coverage issues in New York as well as throughout the Northeast, and served as national coverage counsel monitoring exposure and coverage issues for all toxic tort claims for London insurers for several years.