Recent Entries

Archive for the 'UM/UIM' Category

UPDATE – Recent Bills Affecting Subrogation!

H.R  2205

The United States House of Representatives introduced a bill on June 16, 2011 aimed at tort reform.  The stated intent of the bill is to improve the medical justice system and the short title is “Ending Defensive Medicine and Encouraging Innovative Reforms Act of 2011.”  This bill has the potential to bar subrogation rights for workers compensation, health and casualty carriers.  

House of Representative Bill 2205 (H.R. 2205) attempts to encourage states to create alternative medical liability laws and mandates specifics to be included in any such law enacted by a state.  Incentive payments would be available to states that had successfully enacted and implemented such an alternative medical liability law.  To ensure the incentive payments produce the desired results, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would require states to submit reports.  The Secretary would then compile the data and annually measure whether there was (1) a reduction in the number of health care lawsuits initiated in a state; (2) a reduction in the amount of time required to resolve lawsuits in the state; and (3) a reduction in the cost of malpractice insurance in the state.  If the alternative medical liability law produced the intended results, then the state would be eligible for an incentive payment.  However, if the secretary determined that the state law had not produced the intended results, any subsequent health care lawsuits would be subject to further scrutiny and the bill lists a number of provisions for which a state must comply.  For example, one such provision is a cap of $250,000 for noneconomic damages.  A further provision provides a complete bar to pursue any subrogation rights or enforce any lien or credit against a claimant’s recovery.  Although, Medicare is excepted from this bar to pursue subrogation rights or a lien, it would apply to any case that is settled or decided by a trier of fact.  

This federal bill takes a unique approach to addressing medical malpractice reform.  Although, the importance of subrogation recoveries is recognized as to the federal government and specifically preserved in the bill, the same consideration is not provided for other entities or businesses.  If the bill is passed, only those states that struggle to produce the intended results would trigger the bar to subrogation.

Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1131

On June 28, 2011 Governor Tom Corbett signed into law the Fair Share Act, allowing for a change generally to “several” liability in comparative negligence actions.  The new law applies to causes of action that accrue on or after its enactment.  Pennsylvania joins a growing number of states that have sought and passed reforms to their joint and several liability laws. Now, when a Pennsylvania defendant’s negligence is determined to be less than 60% responsible, they will pay damages in accordance with the degree of fault assessed against them.  However, there are a few exceptions, where a defendant’s liability remains joint and several, which are:

 
(i) intentional misrepresentation;
(ii) intentional tort;
(iii) a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance under the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act; and
(iv)  a civil action in which a defendant has violated section 497 of the Liquor Code.

Alabama Senate Bill 269

The Governor of Alabama recently signed Senate Bill 269, which excludes someone who handles only subrogation claims from the licensing and regulation requirements of an independent adjuster.

AS REPORTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SUBROGATION PROFESSIONALS

NASP – Litigation Skills Conference

Mike Dougherty and A.J. Ober are in San Diego, CA this week attending the National Association of Subrogation Professionals - Litigation Skills Conference. 

We have met many great attorneys and insurance professionals, while attending courses to improve our litigaton techniques and better represent our clients.

Proposed Change to PA Comparative Negligence Law

On January 27, 2011, changes to the PA Comparative Negligence law (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) were proposed to the PA General Assembly under House Bill No. 1.

As the law currently stands, when liability is apportioned among multiple Defendants, all Defendants are deemed jointly and severally liable, regardless of their percentage of apportioned fault.  This has long been referred to in Pennsylvania as the 1% rule. 

For example, suppose a motor vehicle accident occurs and a Jury determines that Plaintiff is awarded $10,000.00.  The Jury determines that liability is apportioned as follows: 70% to Defendant A; 29% to Defendant B; and 1% to Defendant C.  Now further suppose that Defendant A and Defendant B are individuals that are not insured, but Defendant C is a large corporation with insurance.  As the law currently stands, Plaintiff may rightfully seek the full $10,000.00 verdict from Defendant C only.  This often occurs when one Defendant has “deeper pockets”, when compared to their Co-Defendants.

The opposite of PA’s current law is a pure several liability theory.  Under several (rather than joint and several),Plaintiff could only recover 1% of the $10,000.00 verdict from Defendant C.House Bill No. 1 proposes somewhere in between.  Here, if Defendant A is found 60% liable or more, they can be on the  hook for the full verdict.  But, any Defendant that is found less than 60% liable, only owes Plaintiff according to their apportioned percentage of liability.

It is important to note that House Bill No. 1 has yet to be approved, and will not likely be voted on for a few more months.  Until then, the 1% rule is still in effect.

A.J. Ober, Esq.

NASP: Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter Meeting

Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the National Association of Subrogation Professionals, Eastern PA Chapter Meeting on behalf of WWR. The Conference was attended by both Legal and Insurance professionals and topics included Waiver of Subrogation Rights, Filing a Claim in Arbitration Forums and Fire Loss Investigation.

States Can Subrogate but Health Insurers Cannot: Kansas House Bill 2750 & Arizona Senate Bill 1043

Kansas and Arizona both presently prohibit health insurance companies from seeking subrogation recoveries within their states.  Interestingly, both states introduced legislation to allow their state funds or programs to seek recovery of their payments through subrogation and/or reimbursement. 

Kansas seeks to allow its state employee fund to pursue subrogation rights and reimbursement from its employees.   The Kansas bill would provide the underlying plaintiff attorney a fee of either 33-1/3 or 40% from any recovery by the state health plan.  It also establishes coordination of benefits as a matter of law. 

Arizona Senate Bill 1043 was enacted on May 6, 2010.  The bill creates for the State of Arizona the “Children’s Health Insurance Program” (CHIP).  The law grants the State subrogation rights “against any other person or firm to enforce the assignment of medical benefits.”  Section 36-2986, subsection A, paragraph 8.  With the new CHIP program the legislature has created subrogation rights for the State of Arizona to ensure they remain the payor of last resort.  This law is an example of a state using subrogation to further advance public policy and provide benefits to the citizens of its state as well as assistance in controlling costs.   

As reported by the Amicus Committee for the National Association of Subrogation Professionals, Weltman, Weinberg and Reis, Co., LPA member.