Physicians Insurance Co. of Ohio v. Grandview Hospital & Medical Center

542 N.E.2d 706, 44 Ohio App. 3d 157, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4178
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 19, 1988
Docket10948
StatusPublished
Cited by52 cases

This text of 542 N.E.2d 706 (Physicians Insurance Co. of Ohio v. Grandview Hospital & Medical Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Physicians Insurance Co. of Ohio v. Grandview Hospital & Medical Center, 542 N.E.2d 706, 44 Ohio App. 3d 157, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4178 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Wilson, J.

On August 1, 1983, the defendant-appellee, Grandview Hospital and Medical Center, entered into a one-year “Resident-Hospital Contract” with Dr. Kedrin Van Steen-wyk, D.O. The printed form employment contract spelled out in detail the rights and duties of each party and included the following provision:

“Grandview Hospital provides professional liability coverage through a blanket insurance policy for interns covering their professional activities in the Hospital.”

During the contract period alleged medical malpractice occurred at the hospital involving Dr. Van Steenwyk which resulted in a medical malpractice complaint being filed against the resident, the hospital, and another D.O.

When the alleged malpractice occurred Van Steenwyk was covered by an individual professional liability policy issued by plaintiff-appellant, Physicians Insurance Company of Ohio (“PICO”). The PICO policy limited its liability to $200,000 for each medical incident. The policy also contained “other insurance” provisions which in effect reduced PICO’s liability by requiring contribution if there was “other insurance” covering the same loss.

After the intern-hospital employment contract had been printed and before Van Steenwyk became a resident, Grandview elected to become what is commonly known as a “self-insurer.”

The medical malpractice case was settled for $300,000 by PICO contributing its policy limit and by Grand-view contributing $100,000.

While the malpractice case was pending PICO brought this action seeking a declaration that Grandview’s above-quoted contractual obligation to its resident was “other insurance” within the meaning of the PICO policy.

PICO has appealed from the final order which in effect declared that the “Resident-Hospital Contract” was not “other insurance.”

A New Jersey intermediate appellate court came to the same conclusion in a case involving similar facts in American Nurses Assn. v. Passaic Gen. Hosp. (1984), 192 N. J. Super. 486, 471 A. 2d 66. It stated:

“As a matter of common understanding, usage, and legal definition, an insurance contract denotes a policy issued by an authorized and licensed insurance company whose primary business it is to assume specific risks of loss of members of the public at large in consideration of the payment of a premium. There are, however, other risk-shifting agreements which are not insurance contracts. These include the customary private indemnity agreement where affording the indemnity is not the primary business of the in-demnitor and is not subject to governmental regulation but is merely ancillary to and in furtherance of some other independent transactional relationship between the indemnitor and the indemnitee. The indemnity is, thus, *158 not the essence of the agreement creating the transactional relationship but is only one of its negotiated terms.” Id. at 494-495, 471 A. 2d at 70-71.

This case was affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in its opinion reported at (1984), 98 N.J. 83, 484 A. 2d 670, 46 A.L.R. 4th 699.

The opinion in this case and the annotation which follows indicate that although there is a split of authority on the question before us the tendency has been not to consider self-insurance to be insurance.

We agree with the New Jersey courts that self-insurance is not insurance; it is the antithesis of insurance.

Insurance shifts the risk of loss from an insured to an insurer. Self-insurance “is the retention of the risk of loss by the one upon whom it is directly imposed by law or contract.”

Here Grandview agreed to assume a risk of loss which as an employer it already had by operation of law.

The employment agreement in this case merely shifted the entire risk of loss as between the parties to the least-cost risk-bearer.

We affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

Brogan and Wolff, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Akron v. Ohio Dept. of Ins.
2014 Ohio 96 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2014)
Hale v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs.
2013 Ohio 4854 (Ohio Court of Claims, 2013)
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. ENTERPRISE LEASING
708 S.E.2d 852 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 2011)
Williamson v. Walles, L-08-1010 (3-13-2009)
2009 Ohio 1117 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)
Green v. Alford
274 S.W.3d 5 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Iowa Ass'n of School Boards v. Iowa Department of Education
739 N.W.2d 303 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2007)
Sowders v. St. Joseph's Mercy Health Center
247 S.W.3d 514 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2007)
White v. Ins Co of PA
Sixth Circuit, 2005
Safe Auto Insurance v. Corson
803 N.E.2d 863 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2004)
Hall v. Kemper Ins. Cos., Unpublished Decision (9-30-2003)
2003 Ohio 5457 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Stonewall Insurance
71 P.3d 1097 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
542 N.E.2d 706, 44 Ohio App. 3d 157, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/physicians-insurance-co-of-ohio-v-grandview-hospital-medical-center-ohioctapp-1988.