Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
CONSTANTINE, M.D., JEFFREY v. STELLA MARIS INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD
Citation: Not availableDocket: CA 14-01751
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 1, 2015; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Plaintiff Jeffrey Constantine, M.D., seeks a declaration of coverage under a liability policy issued by Stella Maris Insurance Company, Ltd. (SMI) amid a medical malpractice claim by Nicholas Serio concerning the birth of his daughter at Sisters of Charity Hospital. SMI, a captive insurance company owned by Catholic Health East (CHE), argues that Constantine is not a covered person under the policy since he was not employed by Sisters Hospital nor acting as an on-call physician during the incident. Constantine counters that the policy's terms are ambiguous and seeks a declaration of coverage. The court previously denied summary judgment motions from all parties involved, including SMI and CHE, who claimed there was no justiciable controversy as they are not insurers. The appeals and cross-appeals were subsequently filed, with the court dismissing the Serios' cross-appeal as they are not aggrieved by the order. Additionally, SMI argues that the declaratory judgment is premature, as liability must first be established in the underlying malpractice case. The policy is governed by Pennsylvania law. Pennsylvania law allows for a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance coverage before liability is determined. The court upheld the denial of CHE and Sisters Hospital's summary judgment motion, confirming that both are covered by SMI's insurance and are necessary parties due to their involvement in a related medical malpractice case. The court found that there was a factual dispute regarding whether the plaintiff provided timely notice to SMI as required by the policy. The plaintiff asserted he was unaware of the policy's existence until SMI's 2010 action, supported by deposition testimony indicating that notice was not an issue in the malpractice case. The court identified further factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's status as a covered person under the policy, emphasizing that the policy's coverage extends beyond the plaintiff's contractual obligations to Sisters Hospital. Despite evidence that the plaintiff was not acting as an employee during the alleged malpractice, the court rejected SMI's claim that coverage was limited to situations where the plaintiff was on-call under contract. The plaintiff's assertion of providing necessary supervision was deemed conclusory and insufficient to establish his entitlement to judgment, while SMI's affidavits regarding the responsibilities of on-call physicians were deemed irrelevant. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument regarding ambiguity in the policy language.