The Case of Jacob v. Grant Choices Center
The following is a real-life example illustrating the distinction between general and professional liability insurance. While working out, Jacob, a member of a medically oriented fitness facility, became nauseated and felt discomfort in his chest. Jacob informed one of the trainers of his condition. The trainer took Jacob’s blood pressure and drew a finger-prick blood sample. He concluded that Jacob’s condition was caused by low blood sugar and advised him to drink some juice and rest. While driving home, Jacob found it difficult to breathe and subsequently drove himself to the hospital. He had suffered a myocardial infarction.
Jacob sued the fitness facility, the trainer (an employee) and the facility’s management company, claiming that all were negligent for failing to provide proper emergency care.
The facility’s management company argued that it was not liable since its insurance policy, which was for general liability insurance, covered only ordinary negligence and excluded professional services. The actions of the trainer in drawing blood, taking blood pressure and rendering a decision based on those findings, the management company argued, were professional services. The trial court disagreed, finding Jacob’s complaint as one for ordinary negligence. The appellate court agreed, stating that first aid was rendered as an act of public utility covered by the general liability policy and did not fall under the policy’s professional services exclusion. In other words, the trainer’s actions were not professional decisions, but rather basic services owed to all facility patrons. (In general, first aid and CPR are considered acts of public utility and will be covered by a general liability insurancepolicy.)
Source: Connaughton & Eickhoff-Shemek 2003.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου