Proassurance Indemnity Company, Inc., F/k/a the Medical Assurance Company, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Pamela…

Summary

The court affirmed the judgment on both the direct appeal and cross-appeal. It held that the circuit court properly refused instructions requiring allocation of fault to settling physicians who were not defendants, and ProAssurance failed to preserve its evidentiary and future-damages arguments for appellate review. The court also held that the insurance policies treated the surgery and related conduct as one medical incident and therefore supported reducing the verdict to the applicable $11 million coverage limit. Justice Brown, concurring, agreed with the result but would have held that ProAssurance preserved its objection to excluding Dr. Bingaman's deposition, while concluding that any error was harmless.