insurer responsible for practical joke taken badly by: kyon johnson

8
INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson

Upload: gunner-northern

Post on 31-Mar-2015

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson

INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN

BADLY

By: Kyon Johnson

Page 2: INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson

KEY WORDS

General Liability- The legal exposure under common

law, Statute or Civil law, to act as a reasonably prudent

person would, or would not, under the circumstances.

Duty to Defend- The insurer appoints defense counsel

and assumes the defense of a covered claim.

Tort- a wrongful act or an infringement of a right

(other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.

Page 3: INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson

KEY WORDS 2

Practical Joke - a trick played on someone in order

to make them look foolish and to amuse others.

Dental Practice- the practice of dentistry

Page 4: INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson

DECISION

A reversed decision, during a dental procedure this

is against general liability policy. Creating a problem

to both he customer and the policy of the dental

performance. Especially since it was non intently

and or was an accident it creates a hassle subjecting

the patient to increased injury if the doctor was

being careless.

Page 5: INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson

SUMMARY

Woo, an oral surgeon, was performing a dental procedure on his employee, Tina

Alberts, whose hobby was raising potbellied pigs. While Alberts was under

anesthesia, Woo put some fake pig tusks in her mouth and took a picture. He

then completed the dental procedure. Woo did not give Alberts the picture, but

the office staff did at her birthday party. She quit work and sued Woo for mental

distress and many other torts. Woo’s general liability carrier refused to defend

the suit on the grounds that the incident did not arise out of the provision of

dental services. Woo defended the suit and paid Alberts $250,000 to settle the

matter. Woo then sued his insurer for breach of duty to defend. The jury awarded

Woo $750,000, the $250,000 he paid Alberts, plus attorney fees. The court of

appeals reversed and ordered the suit dismissed. Woo appealed.

Page 6: INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson
Page 7: INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson
Page 8: INSURER RESPONSIBLE FOR PRACTICAL JOKE TAKEN BADLY By: Kyon Johnson