Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)

Citation: Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)
Parent Document: Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (1997)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1997-09-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2395626/carl-v-childrens-hospital/ ↗

Full Text

813 chars

In L'Orange v. Medical Protective Co., 394 F.2d 57 (6th Cir.1968), the court was confronted with the issue of whether a dentist could lose his malpractice insurance for testifying for a plaintiff in a malpractice suit against another dentist. The two dentists resided in the same city and had the same malpractice insurance carrier. The terms of the insurance contract had a cancellation clause that was almost equivalent to an at-will employment situationthe insurance could be cancelled upon ten days notice for any reasons as long as the unearned premium was returned. However, the court noted that Ohio courts have determined that an insurance policy is a voluntary contract "subject to the public policy of the state." Id. at 59. Thus, the court had to define public policy in a professional testimony case.

Other Sections in This Document (617)

Full Text