Shopping for value with malpractice insurance
When shopping for a malpractice insurance policy, one of the features most companies will tout is the consent to settle clause.
Simply stated, this means if you have a malpractice claim against you, your insurance company can't settle the claim without your consent to to so. It gives you more control over the case to protect your reputation.
But when we talk about looking for value in a malpractice product, this is one area you need to read the fine print and understand what you are buying.
There are a few gotchas commonly found in consent to settle language. One common loophole for insurers is what's called a "hammer clause."
It works like this.
Let's say a doctor has $1,000,000 per claim limit. During the course of the doctor's case there is an offer on the table to settle the claim for $100,000. The doctor doesn't want to settle because he/she feels they have done nothing wrong and it is their reputation on the line. The doctor does not provide consent and the case goes on to trial.
With this scenario, the hammer clause says that if the doctor does not agree to settle, the maximum the insurer will pay is the amount the case could have been settled for. So in our scenario, even though the doctor has $1,000,000 in coverage for this claim, the insurance company will only pay $100,000, the amount the claim could have been settled for. Any amount a jury may award over that amount is the responsibility of the doctor.
If you find a malpractice policy with a hammer clause in the consent to settle language, it should be a cheaper policy...it is less coverage. However, the question you must ask is whether it is the best value.





Add this blog to