Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you choose?

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
Post Reply
Topic Author
xrvision
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:23 am

Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you choose?

Post by xrvision »

I am a physician, and I am switching jobs. I need to purchase tail coverage for my malpractice insurance. I live in a state with damage caps of $250K/500K.

I was given multiple options by the insurance company-
$100K/300K coverage for $11.5K cost to me
$200k/600K for $13.5K cost to me
$500k/$1 mil for $17.5K cost me
$1 mil/$3 mil for $22K cost to me

I'm not considering the last two options since there's a damage cap in the state that is below that coverage. I know several other physicians who recently were in my situation and opted for the least expensive policy. Their reasoning was that the vast majority of cases are settled at whatever the max malpractice coverage is (so if I pick $100K policy, they will settle for that, if I pick $200K policy, they will settle for that, etc).

Which would you choose?
Last edited by xrvision on Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
am
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:55 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by am »

Think those caps are for non econ. damages so awards can definitely be much higher. Would go with highest limits. A small investment to protect assets and prevent wage garnishmnet. Have heard it happen.
manwithnoname
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:52 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by manwithnoname »

xrvision wrote:I am a physician, and I am switching jobs. I need to purchase tail coverage for my malpractice insurance. I live in a state with damage caps of $250K for an individual physician/500K for an institution.

I was given multiple options by the insurance company-
$100K/300K coverage for $11.5K cost to me
$200k/600K for $13.5K cost to me
$500k/$1 mil for $17.5K cost me
$1 mil/$3 mil for $22K cost to me

I'm not considering the last two options since there's a damage cap in the state that is below that coverage (seems like a racket for the insurance company; notice that there is NO policy for $250K/500K coverage). I know several other physicians who recently were in my situation and opted for the least expensive policy. Their reasoning was that the vast majority of cases are settled at whatever the max malpractice coverage is (so if I pick $100K policy, they will settle for that, if I pick $200K policy, they will settle for that, etc).

Which would you choose?
What data do you have that proves that cases are settled at max malpractice regardless of the damages that could be recovered at trial? If that were true then every doc would carry the minimum coverage regardless of his net worth because the lawyers will settle for minimum amount instead of a greater amount awarded by a jury.
Also if you are sued by separate plaintiffs in two cases is your total coverage limited to 250/500?
mhalley
Posts: 10432
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:02 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by mhalley »

Unless you are in a specialty that is very rareley sued (do those even exist anymore?) I would def go with the hightest one.
Mike
michaelsieg
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:02 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by michaelsieg »

Their reasoning was that the vast majority of cases are settled at whatever the max malpractice coverage is (so if I pick $100K policy, they will settle for that, if I pick $200K policy, they will settle for that, etc).
That is not quite correct, they will try to get as much as they they can get if they win in court - so it is your malpractice coverage plus your personal and business assets.
I know surgeons in states with high lawsuit volumes such as Florida, who drop their insurance coverage (much more expensive than yours) and shelter all their assets in their wife's name...and the frivolous lawsuits seem to stop as there are no assets to get - this sounds like a good plan, as long as your wife does not decide to leave...
I would get a good umbrella policy that clearly exceeds your personal assets as well.
User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 6063
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Artsdoctor »

X,

You are probably referring to a cap for "pain and suffering." There are some states, my state of California for one, that limit damages for this, but there is absolutely no limit anywhere for costs incurred as a result of negligence. For example, if you have been found guilty of malpractice which has resulted in someone having lifelong medical needs (spinal cord injury, for example), you will be expected to compensate them for medical costs associated with your actions. This can exceed $250,000 easily so your colleagues are not correct. You may also be on the hook for lost wages, and depending on where you practice and who your clientele might be, these numbers can be substantial.

I don't know what your specialty is but standard coverage in my neck of the woods is $1M/$3M.

The good news is that you can certainly take that premium and write it off as a bona fide business expense.

Hope this is helpful (if not depressing).

Artsdoctor
Texas hold em71
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Texas hold em71 »

How long of a period does the tail cover?

Are you a proceduralist where patients are more likely to have a claim or a pediatric specialty where a minor has an extra long period to file a claim? Some states allow a patient to make a claim many years after reaching 18 even if the injury occurred early in life.

Do you have cases where you believe you have a potential claim that has not been asserted?

The longer the exposure, the more cases you have covered, the longer the patient has to file the claim and your knowledge of potential claims should be factors in your decision.

A claimant who finds you have little insurance will go after your personal assets and future earnings. Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do to a physician who you believed harmed you?
Last edited by Texas hold em71 on Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
toofache32
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by toofache32 »

Texas hold em71 wrote: .......Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do to a physician who believed harmed you?
Unbelievable world we live in with what is implied here. It doesn't matter what you believe. The facts are what matters. What would you do to a car salesman who you believed harmed you? What would you do to a financial advisor who you believe harmed you? Why does there always have to be someone at fault? Sometimes $hit just happens. The funniest and most ironic part is how this same forum is filled with doctor bashing about how they make too much. Why on earth would they risk seeing these lawsuit-happy patients for pennies on the dollar??
Texas hold em71
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Texas hold em71 »

toofache32 wrote:
Texas hold em71 wrote: .......Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do to a physician who believed harmed you?
Unbelievable world we live in with what is implied here. It doesn't matter what you believe. The facts are what matters. What would you do to a car salesman who you believed harmed you? What would you do to a financial advisor who you believe harmed you? Why does there always have to be someone at fault? Sometimes $hit just happens. The funniest and most ironic part is how this same forum is filled with doctor bashing about how they make too much. Why on earth would they risk seeing these lawsuit-happy patients for pennies on the dollar??
Not engaging in a debate about that whatsoever. You have read something into my post that simply is not there and gone off topic to boot.

The implication by the peers is that carrying less insurance will scare away plaintiffs and their attorneys. My point is that a patient who believes they have been harmed will go after personal assets and future earnings as long as they can find an attorney willing to do it.

Edited to add: the point being to tell the OP what I would do in his situation
toofache32
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:30 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by toofache32 »

Texas hold em71 wrote:
toofache32 wrote:
Texas hold em71 wrote: .......Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do to a physician who believed harmed you?
Unbelievable world we live in with what is implied here. It doesn't matter what you believe. The facts are what matters. What would you do to a car salesman who you believed harmed you? What would you do to a financial advisor who you believe harmed you? Why does there always have to be someone at fault? Sometimes $hit just happens. The funniest and most ironic part is how this same forum is filled with doctor bashing about how they make too much. Why on earth would they risk seeing these lawsuit-happy patients for pennies on the dollar??
Not engaging in a debate about that whatsoever. You have read something into my post that simply is not there and gone off topic to boot.

The implication by the peers is that carrying less insurance will scare away plaintiffs and their attorneys. My point is that a patient who believes they have been harmed will go after personal assets and future earnings as long as they can find an attorney willing to do it.

Edited to add: the point being to tell the OP what I would do in his situation
OK now I understand what you're saying and that makes total sense. I completely misinterpreted your post and I apologize for commenting on a viewpoint that you actually don't have.
Anon1234
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Anon1234 »

xrvision wrote:I am a physician, and I am switching jobs. I need to purchase tail coverage for my malpractice insurance. I live in a state with damage caps of $250K for an individual physician/500K for an institution.

I was given multiple options by the insurance company-
$100K/300K coverage for $11.5K cost to me
$200k/600K for $13.5K cost to me
$500k/$1 mil for $17.5K cost me
$1 mil/$3 mil for $22K cost to me

I'm not considering the last two options since there's a damage cap in the state that is below that coverage (seems like a racket for the insurance company; notice that there is NO policy for $250K/500K coverage). I know several other physicians who recently were in my situation and opted for the least expensive policy. Their reasoning was that the vast majority of cases are settled at whatever the max malpractice coverage is (so if I pick $100K policy, they will settle for that, if I pick $200K policy, they will settle for that, etc).

Which would you choose?
You must live in Texas, and I understand those limits are non-economic damage only, so they can tack on lost wages and cost of future care, etc. However, I recently found information from TMLT, and I think you may find it helpful in making your decision.
Since 2008 we have opened 32 new claims for physicians specializing in XXX or XXX related practices in the greater Austin area (Travis
County, Hays County and Williamson County). We have closed 37 claims. Of the 37, 31 were closed without indemnity payment. None of the
physicians involved in the 6 paid claims had to pay money from their personal assets to resolve a claim. In fact, none of our policyholders in the
entire state of Texas have had to pay money from their personal assets to resolve a claim in the last six years. Looking at historical data prior to 2007
can be skewed because there were claims that were filed in 2003, before tort reform that were not resolved until as late as 2007. However, there is a
noticeable decrease in claim activity since 2003.
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 17413
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by White Coat Investor »

xrvision wrote:I am a physician, and I am switching jobs. I need to purchase tail coverage for my malpractice insurance. I live in a state with damage caps of $250K for an individual physician/500K for an institution.

I was given multiple options by the insurance company-
$100K/300K coverage for $11.5K cost to me
$200k/600K for $13.5K cost to me
$500k/$1 mil for $17.5K cost me
$1 mil/$3 mil for $22K cost to me

I'm not considering the last two options since there's a damage cap in the state that is below that coverage (seems like a racket for the insurance company; notice that there is NO policy for $250K/500K coverage). I know several other physicians who recently were in my situation and opted for the least expensive policy. Their reasoning was that the vast majority of cases are settled at whatever the max malpractice coverage is (so if I pick $100K policy, they will settle for that, if I pick $200K policy, they will settle for that, etc).

Which would you choose?
No way would I buy less than $1/3M. I'd be very happy to get it for just $22K.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
Anon1234
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Anon1234 »

EmergDoc wrote:
xrvision wrote:I am a physician, and I am switching jobs. I need to purchase tail coverage for my malpractice insurance. I live in a state with damage caps of $250K for an individual physician/500K for an institution.

I was given multiple options by the insurance company-
$100K/300K coverage for $11.5K cost to me
$200k/600K for $13.5K cost to me
$500k/$1 mil for $17.5K cost me
$1 mil/$3 mil for $22K cost to me

I'm not considering the last two options since there's a damage cap in the state that is below that coverage (seems like a racket for the insurance company; notice that there is NO policy for $250K/500K coverage). I know several other physicians who recently were in my situation and opted for the least expensive policy. Their reasoning was that the vast majority of cases are settled at whatever the max malpractice coverage is (so if I pick $100K policy, they will settle for that, if I pick $200K policy, they will settle for that, etc).

Which would you choose?
No way would I buy less than $1/3M. I'd be very happy to get it for just $22K.
My research on Texas says that most docs there have $200k/$600k since tort reform in 2003. That's crazy for anywhere else but somehow seems to work in Texas (based on the TMLT quote I shared). Do you have any good stats on malpractice claims & probabilities that are state specific?
Texas hold em71
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Texas hold em71 »

Anon 1234

Does TMLT mention what coverage limits those physicians had?
Anon1234
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Anon1234 »

Texas hold em71 wrote:Anon 1234

Does TMLT mention what coverage limits those physicians had?
No, it would be a mix. But 1 broker and 2 companies (1 being TMLT) all told me most docs have the minimum $200k/$600k. That's per occurrence, per year limits, not per institution as the OP stated.
SGM
Posts: 3341
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:46 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by SGM »

As every hospital, nursing home, and large group practice in our state requires $1M/$3M coverage I would stick with that. When I approached my agent about higher coverage, he stated he was able to sell higher coverage (surprisingly inexpensively), but recommended against it as he felt higher coverage would only result in becoming a target. My agent seems very knowledgeable and honest. So his logic argues for keeping the same coverage that everyone else has in your state.
"Let us endeavor, so to live, that when we die, even the undertaker will be sorry." Mark Twain
letsgobobby
Posts: 12073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by letsgobobby »

SGM wrote:As every hospital, nursing home, and large group practice in our state requires $1M/$3M coverage I would stick with that. When I approached my agent about higher coverage, he stated he was able to sell higher coverage (surprisingly inexpensively), but recommended against it as he felt higher coverage would only result in becoming a target. My agent seems very knowledgeable and honest. So his logic argues for keeping the same coverage that everyone else has in your state.
It seems this should vary widely by specialty. For example, anesthesiology vs psychiatry.
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 17413
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by White Coat Investor »

SGM wrote:As every hospital, nursing home, and large group practice in our state requires $1M/$3M coverage I would stick with that. When I approached my agent about higher coverage, he stated he was able to sell higher coverage (surprisingly inexpensively), but recommended against it as he felt higher coverage would only result in becoming a target. My agent seems very knowledgeable and honest. So his logic argues for keeping the same coverage that everyone else has in your state.

I've heard that argument too. I'd sure love to have as much malpractice coverage as I have umbrella coverage, but I guess I would have to keep it secret, which would probably be difficult to do.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
User avatar
kingsnake
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:05 am
Location: midwest

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by kingsnake »

I'd suggest only taking jobs where tail is covered by the employer/practice. IMHO. I'd suggest the 1/3 also which is the standard.
Topic Author
xrvision
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by xrvision »

Thanks to all for your thoughts.

Yes, I live in Texas. This is the reason I'm asking the question- if I lived in other state, this decision would be a no brainer. As Texas is one of the most physician-friendly states with tort reform laws in place, it seems to be a different ballgame here.

Unfortunately, future employer will not cover my tail coverage.

Also, shout out to EmergDoc, Your disability insurance posts were invaluable several months ago- please write a post soon on your website for malpractice insurance!
lostInFinance
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:57 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by lostInFinance »

EmergDoc wrote: I've heard that argument too. I'd sure love to have as much malpractice coverage as I have umbrella coverage, but I guess I would have to keep it secret, which would probably be difficult to do.
I would guess that you should have at least as much as malpractice coverage as umbrella coverage. While I don't have any data, I'm guessing for most specialties, the probability of ever needing a malpractice policy to pay out X million is at least as high as the probability of ever having an umbrella policy pay out that much.
lostInFinance
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:57 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by lostInFinance »

manwithnoname wrote: If that were true then every doc would carry the minimum coverage regardless of his net worth because the lawyers will settle for minimum amount instead of a greater amount awarded by a jury.
There's some circular reasoning here. First, doctor A, I'll buy as much coverage as doctor B has. Later on, doctor B: I wonder whether I could drop my coverage to a lower amount. No, on second thought, I better stick with at least as much coverage as doctor A.
letsgobobby
Posts: 12073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by letsgobobby »

lostInFinance wrote:
EmergDoc wrote: I've heard that argument too. I'd sure love to have as much malpractice coverage as I have umbrella coverage, but I guess I would have to keep it secret, which would probably be difficult to do.
I would guess that you should have at least as much as malpractice coverage as umbrella coverage. While I don't have any data, I'm guessing for most specialties, the probability of ever needing a malpractice policy to pay out X million is at least as high as the probability of ever having an umbrella policy pay out that much.
yes, and it's infinitely more expensive as well.
Nowizard
Posts: 4842
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:33 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Nowizard »

I don't know if you have had a malpractice suit filed against you, but I had a complaint filed many years ago. Though it was dismissed without, it was quite anxiety provoking, not the least being relative to the limits of my malpractice coverage. The second option is $2,000 more than the first for greater coverage. I would say to make your decision in the same way we make investment decisions, in this case the one would lead to the most comfortable pillow at night rather than automatically choosing the one that was less expensive. The 1/3 is the typical coverage in my area of the country.

Tim
Last edited by Nowizard on Fri Dec 06, 2013 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 6063
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Artsdoctor »

X,

If you haven't already done it, make sure that your new contract specifies that your new employer will pick up the tail insurance once you leave. This is pretty standard, at least where I am. A contract lawyer taught me many, many years ago that the most important part of a contract is how to wind down. Everyone's happy at the beginning, just like a marriage. But when it comes time to leave, make sure you understand what it takes to go elsewhere. And that includes your Accounts Receivable and any non-compete clauses (if your area permits that).
Topic Author
xrvision
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by xrvision »

Artsdoctor wrote:X,

If you haven't already done it, make sure that your new contract specifies that your new employer will pick up the tail insurance once you leave. This is pretty standard, at least where I am. A contract lawyer taught me many, many years ago that the most important part of a contract is how to wind down. Everyone's happy at the beginning, just like a marriage. But when it comes time to leave, make sure you understand what it takes to go elsewhere. And that includes your Accounts Receivable and any non-compete clauses (if your area permits that).
In my situation, these were not negotiable (with former employer when I signed and future employer). Seems to be the case with practices in my area.
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 17413
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by White Coat Investor »

letsgobobby wrote:
lostInFinance wrote:
EmergDoc wrote: I've heard that argument too. I'd sure love to have as much malpractice coverage as I have umbrella coverage, but I guess I would have to keep it secret, which would probably be difficult to do.
I would guess that you should have at least as much as malpractice coverage as umbrella coverage. While I don't have any data, I'm guessing for most specialties, the probability of ever needing a malpractice policy to pay out X million is at least as high as the probability of ever having an umbrella policy pay out that much.
yes, and it's infinitely more expensive as well.
Perhaps non-physicians don't get that. I'm in nowhere near the most expensive malpractice specialty, but an umbrella for $1 Million is like $200 a year. A $1 Million malpractice policy for my specialty in my area is $16-18K per year.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 6063
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Artsdoctor »

I'm sure this is clear from the posts above, but just to reiterate and make it more than clear: Personal liability insurance and medical malpractice insurance are two separate entities. Your umbrella policy will not cover medical malpractice. If you have the very unfortunate situation of being found negligent and the settlement exceeds your malpractice policy, your umbrella policy will not make up the difference.

Back to the OP: you may well be fortunate enough to be in a state where settlements are usually favorable to physicians. I don't know which community you're in, but all it takes is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, add a patient with an extremely high net worth (you live in Texas and there is no shortage of wealthy people in your state) and a bad medical outcome, and you expose yourself to needless personal liability by skimping on your malpractice coverage. Why would you risk that?

Get the $1M/$3M policy, pay the money, take the business expense, and sleep well.
lostInFinance
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:57 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by lostInFinance »

EmergDoc wrote:
Perhaps non-physicians don't get that. I'm in nowhere near the most expensive malpractice specialty, but an umbrella for $1 Million is like $200 a year. A $1 Million malpractice policy for my specialty in my area is $16-18K per year.
That's not a direct comparison because you typically have home owner's and auto insurance as the primary coverage. Nevertheless, assuming similar profit margins for the insurance companies, you might infer from those numbers, that a physician has a 10x higher probability of going bankrupt from malpractice claims than from an auto accident. Based on that, aren't all the umbrella threads where physicians worry whether a 1 million policy is sufficient, at best debating something that doesn't matter, since it has little impact on a physician's total risk exposure?
User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 6063
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Artsdoctor »

LostInFinance,

Location might be key here, and I can only speak about something that I am familiar with in my own area.

The reason why malpractice premiums are much higher than umbrella premiums is because a doctor is more likely to be sued for large amounts at work than at home. Even if you never even get as far as a settlement, it costs money to utilize defense attorneys just for discovery. And in states that don't have some limits, those cases that are settled can be settled for large amounts. In reality, most malpractice cases will drag in everyone involved, including the hospital, if possible; there's a search for "deep pockets." Usually (and that is a different word than always), if a settlement is inevitable, you will most likely not go above your limit unless something extraordinary has happened, provided you have a reasonable plan--and one could argue that a $100,000 policy is not a reasonable plan.

Umbrella policies are not commonly employed but if they are, they can be extremely helpful. At least in Southern California, the tiniest auto accident can result in a large claim if the plaintiff views the defendent as having "deep pockets." And unfortunately, scams are surprisingly common. After the financial meltdown in 2008, more suits occurred as people literally flung themselves on hoods of expensive cars declaring they were hit (you can't make this stuff up). So it is not surprising that doctors might feel that their malpractice is pretty much covered, but the crazies on the street are far more capable of inflicting angst and damage.

Such is the world we live in. The good news is that umbrella policies are so amazingly affordable.
User avatar
sleepysurf
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:59 am
Location: Florida

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by sleepysurf »

xrvision wrote:...

Unfortunately, future employer will not cover my tail coverage...
Here's another possible option. Most Malpractice insurers are willing to add "nose" coverage (covering prior acts) to a new policy, typically quoting a premium at the "matured rate" (vs. initial year). That cost is still usually LESS than purchasing an equivalent "tail" from your previous insurer. Even if your new employer/group is unwilling to pay the additional premium for "nose" coverage, they may be willing to let YOU pay the difference, which could ultimately prove more cost-effective.
Retired 2018 | currently ~64/33/3 (partially sliced and diced, with a slowly rising equity glide path)
lostInFinance
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:57 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by lostInFinance »

Artsdoctor wrote:LostInFinance,

Location might be key here, and I can only speak about something that I am familiar with in my own area.

The reason why malpractice premiums are much higher than umbrella premiums is because a doctor is more likely to be sued for large amounts at work than at home. Even if you never even get as far as a settlement, it costs money to utilize defense attorneys just for discovery. And in states that don't have some limits, those cases that are settled can be settled for large amounts. In reality, most malpractice cases will drag in everyone involved, including the hospital, if possible; there's a search for "deep pockets." Usually (and that is a different word than always), if a settlement is inevitable, you will most likely not go above your limit unless something extraordinary has happened, provided you have a reasonable plan--and one could argue that a $100,000 policy is not a reasonable plan.

Umbrella policies are not commonly employed but if they are, they can be extremely helpful. At least in Southern California, the tiniest auto accident can result in a large claim if the plaintiff views the defendent as having "deep pockets." And unfortunately, scams are surprisingly common. After the financial meltdown in 2008, more suits occurred as people literally flung themselves on hoods of expensive cars declaring they were hit (you can't make this stuff up). So it is not surprising that doctors might feel that their malpractice is pretty much covered, but the crazies on the street are far more capable of inflicting angst and damage.

Such is the world we live in. The good news is that umbrella policies are so amazingly affordable.
I think you're making some version of the argument that the malpractice lawyers really don't want to go to trial and they certainly don't want to try collecting from personal assets. If you have a $100k policy, they want to settle for a $100k, but if you have a million dollar policy, they want to settle for a million. I've heard basically the same exact argument made many times about plaintiffs in auto accidents and umbrella policies.
letsgobobby
Posts: 12073
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by letsgobobby »

lostInFinance wrote:
EmergDoc wrote:
Perhaps non-physicians don't get that. I'm in nowhere near the most expensive malpractice specialty, but an umbrella for $1 Million is like $200 a year. A $1 Million malpractice policy for my specialty in my area is $16-18K per year.
That's not a direct comparison because you typically have home owner's and auto insurance as the primary coverage. Nevertheless, assuming similar profit margins for the insurance companies, you might infer from those numbers, that a physician has a 10x higher probability of going bankrupt from malpractice claims than from an auto accident. Based on that, aren't all the umbrella threads where physicians worry whether a 1 million policy is sufficient, at best debating something that doesn't matter, since it has little impact on a physician's total risk exposure?
Of course it matters. It's a way to reduce a small risk at a small cost. In this case a doctor's risk of being sued is probably not higher or lower than the risk of any other highly paid person with assets to sue. I don't understand why you'd say it doesn't matter.
User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 6063
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Artsdoctor »

^ I am not at all suggesting the plaintiff's attorneys don't WANT to go to trial. Depending on the state, most trials involving juries are usually settled in the defendent's favor. However, you have to give the plaintiff's attorney something to work with. If you're only insured for $100,000 per claim for medical malpractice, that's really not a lot to work with. The plaintiff's attorney may indeed decide that it's worth going for this. But most importantly, the FEAR of going over the limit will factor into the equation quite a bit. Personally, in my neighborhood, I would be concerned about a plaintiff's attorney going after my assets if I only had a $100,000 cap on my medical malpractice. It is just far, far beyond what anyone here would have (and if part of your work involves seeing patients in the hospital, the hospital will require a substantially higher limit to get privileges).

From a personal liability perspective, they will generally go after what your policy provides for, although there are plenty of exceptions, especially if there are truly significant consequences.
Jack
Posts: 3254
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:24 am

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Jack »

Artsdoctor wrote:Such is the world we live in. The good news is that umbrella policies are so amazingly affordable.
Which implies that in this world claims are amazingly rare.
john94549
Posts: 4638
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by john94549 »

As a retired attorney, I bought a "forever" tail, even though the statute of limitations was much shorter. Frankly, the cost of a "forever" tail was so minimal, it was a no-brainer. Needless to say, it was money down the drain, as nobody ever sued me.
User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 6063
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Artsdoctor »

Jack wrote:
Artsdoctor wrote:Such is the world we live in. The good news is that umbrella policies are so amazingly affordable.
Which implies that in this world claims are amazingly rare.
LOL. Yes! Until it happens to you. And then no matter how rare they might be it doesn't matter: you're the only one that matters.

And it did indeed happen to me. It caused a tremendous amount of grief because it was all just so ludicrous. When you're going through it, your mind certainly works overtime. Having a personal umbrella policy kept me sane.

Unfortunately, and I'm sorry to sound cynical, but the more assets one has, the more steps one needs to go through to protect them. It's just the nature of the beast.
OKwarrior
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by OKwarrior »

I also left my private practice for an employed position. My former carrier (in Missouri) offered a parttime policy that covered me for anything up to 20 hr/week at a cost of about 40% of my prior fulltime policy. Of course my new employer covers any future occurrences, but not "prior acts". They bill me quarterly. I will keep it in effect for 3 years, til the statute of limitations runs out. Buying the tail on the full time policy was equal to ~ 280% of my yearly premium, paid out in one lump sum within 30 days of termination of the policy. Since I was switching to an employed position, such as you, I did not need the parttime policy, but bought it all the same as it provided the "prior acts coverage" same as the tail policy did.

You might do well to check if you have a part time policy option.
lostInFinance
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:57 pm

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by lostInFinance »

Artsdoctor wrote:
Jack wrote:
Artsdoctor wrote:Such is the world we live in. The good news is that umbrella policies are so amazingly affordable.
Which implies that in this world claims are amazingly rare.
LOL. Yes! Until it happens to you. And then no matter how rare they might be it doesn't matter: you're the only one that matters.

And it did indeed happen to me.
So a plaintiff against you actually won or settled for an amount greater than your underlying auto/homeowner limits, so that your umbrella policy had to pay out?
User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 6063
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Physician Malpractice tail insurance-which would you cho

Post by Artsdoctor »

LostInFinance,

It's a testament to "Time Heals Everything" that I can even discuss it! :D

It was a bogus case that wound up in a two-week trial several years ago. They were suing for damages well above my homeowner's coverage. You know, sitting in that chair day after day, I actually found myself thinking that we should just settle before it exceeded the limits of my umbrella policy! It's amazing how you can get sucked into the vortex. Ultimately, in the end, I evidently had developed a good rapport with the jury and the whole thing was pretty much thrown out. In reality, it really could have gone either way because jury selection can be a little out of your control to some extent. However, I did wind up becoming friends with my lawyer and the stories he continues to describe are just crazy.

I've come to view insurance differently over the years. I don't think it's money wasted to pay for premiums if there's never a pay out. The peace of mind counts for something. In my mind, I hope I NEVER have to have a payout for any policy I hold, but my experience tells me that that is unlikely. I do freely admit that the environment in which I live could be considered very litigious and that my jaded view may be misplaced in another environment.
Post Reply