A Pennsylvania federal judge has refused to overturn a $7.9 million verdict in an insurance bad faith case brought on behalf of a doctor who claimed that his insurer's failure to offer the limits of his policy led to a $2.5 million malpractice verdict against him. The judge rejected the insurer's argument that the jury's award of $6.25 million in punitive damages was unjustified and excessive. The ruling upholds what appears to be the largest insurance bad faith verdict ever handed up in the state.
March 31, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A Pennsylvania federal judge refused to overturn a $7.9 million verdict in an insurance bad faith case brought on behalf of a doctor who claimed that his insurer’s failure to offer the limits of his policy led to a $2.5 million malpractice verdict against him.
In her 16-page opinion in Jurinko v. The Medical Protective Co., U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe rejected the insurer’s argument that the jury’s award of $6.25 million in punitive damages was unjustified and excessive.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
