Skip to main content

View Diary: A fetus is not a person if it costs us money, says Catholic Church (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Church certainly has a choice (34+ / 0-)

    Consistent with its doctrine, it is perfectly capable of either:

    1.  paying the malpractice claim without requesting reimbursement from its insurance carrier; or

    2.  defending the malpractice claim without involving its insurance carrier .

    Instead, it has taken the approach of attempting to minimize its liability by taking a litigation position that is diametrically opposed to what it says is a core doctrine.

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:41:22 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  This is not the case (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marykk, Ninepatch

      Once the malpractice claim is filed, it's filed. Failure to report the malpractice claim to your insurer would violate the policy and terminate your rights under the policy. In most states, it would also likely be a criminal or civil violation and subject the hospital to additional fines, loss of license to operate, etc.

      Moreover, I'm sure the malpractice claim named the doctor individually as well, so his malpractice insurer would be involved as well.

      As to defending the claim without involving your insurance carrier - again, this is not legal.  You can't have a contract with an insurance company which specifies how claims are handled, and then ignore that contract when a claim arises.

      The courts would likely disallow this as well - your insurance coverage represents a means of paying the potential award under the claim, the court is not going to just let you say, no, I'm not going to involve them.

      Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

      by absdoggy on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:54:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I doubt it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rbird

        It is legal for a tortfeasor to pay for its torts or to assume the defense of its own torts.  Of course if it does so, it will waive the right to make an insurance claim.

        As to your last point, I suppose that is a possibility where an insolvent defendant refuses to seek coverage.  But that is not the case here.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:12:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If moral consistency were important to the Church (7+ / 0-)

        I'm sure it could indemnify the insurance company against any claims resulting from a suit wherein the Church has prevented the insurance company from employing defenses that would violate the Church's teachings.

        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

        by Nowhere Man on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:54:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Funny how the Catholic church (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          finds itself unable to follow laws that go against its own doctrine and cost it money (Obamacare) but must follow the law when it goes against its doctrine and saves it money.

          They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. Terry Pratchett

          by Toon on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:13:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Catholic Health (0+ / 0-)

        appears to be self-insured.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:21:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site