Over the past 25 years, both as a practicing
defense attorney and as a trial court judge, several
risk themes occur again and again. To the extent
that most (if not all) are either avoidable or controllable,
the knowledge of these scenarios might
be helpful.
A brief introduction might be useful, before
reviewing two cases. Recent studies involving surveys
of affluent individuals, many of whom are
health-care practitioners, about their risk and litigation
perceptions have been reported. Some of
these individuals related personal experiences that
at the very least should give pause for consideration
and thoughtful planning.
One universal area of risk received extensive
media coverage. Several months ago, a newscast did
an in-depth story on the safety of home decks. It
reported that a significant number of decks had
collapsed, seriously injuring or killing people.
(Note: the report mentioned that deck inspectors
estimated that more than half of the decks installed
had serious flaws in one or more aspects.) One
situation described a group of celebrating friends
who had assembled at an elegant, oceanfront home
for cocktails before going to a local restaurant.
They had crowded onto the oceanfront deck for a
photo. However, the deck collapsed, seriously
injuring many of the guests. Subsequently, there were many lawsuits against the homeowners. The
years that followed were filled with the stress of ligation
and the loss of friendships. Most insurance
policies are written with limits for one occurrence
and limits for all occurrences during a particular
policy year, i.e., $1 million/$3 million. In this case,
the damages far exceeded both limits and the
homeowners were required to pay a large amount
out of their personal assets in order to settle the
matter instead of going to trial on each case.
Other potential risk management situations
that the affluent should be aware of and plan for
include some obvious and some not-so-obvious
situations, such as home swimming pools and
other sporting and entertainment equipment like
trampolines, younger drivers in your family, etc.
In one representative case several years ago, a new
teenage driver was given a sports car for his birthday
and was seeing how fast it could go, notwithstanding
that he was in a residential area. Unable
to stop in time, he severely injured a pedestrian
and when all the litigation was over, the traditional
insurance policy was inadequate to cover the damages.
In the end, the boy's parents were responsible
for part of the settlement that was far in excess of
the policy limits.
Another relatively common situation involves
the use of snowmobiles. Significant liability exists
when owners of these recreational vehicles allow
friends and guests to use them. Even when experienced
riders use equipment that they might be
unfamiliar with, problems may occur; imagine
allowing a guest who is completely or relatively
unfamiliar with them to use one. Then, perhaps
add some holiday cheer to the mix. This describes
the potential for a catastrophe both for the guest
and the owner.
Also consider the ownership of another type
of asset that isn't generally considered to involve
significant risk: real estate, including commercial
property, apartment complexes and farms or horse
stables. These can be investments or side businesses
or merely for personal use and use of guests. One
recent case involves the sexual attack of a female
tenant in an apartment complex. The management
company had recently advised the affluent
owner that repairs were needed to the security system.
However, the cost was high and the owner was somewhat dilatory in authorizing the needed
repairs. The ensuing lawsuit resulted in an award
that exceeded the insurance policy limits, exposing
the owner's personal assets.
With an awareness of the risks posed by everyday
life, the following are two instances involving
health-care professionals. These examples relate
more specifically to professional practice but also
illustrate how vulnerable affluent and seemingly
affluent individuals may be to the risk of lawsuits.
For many reasons, couples might desire to
practice together. Two examples stand out and are
illustrative of the potential for catastrophic outcomes.
The first involved a husband and wife
orthodontic-pediatric dental team. They formed
their practice together; a single limited liability
company (LLC). Since this occurred just after
graduation, they created this practice entity with
the help of one of their friends, a recent law school
graduate. After several years and much hard work,
they enjoyed significant success. So much so that
the pediatric dentist had a significant backlog of patients waiting for sedation/anesthesia. In this
area, few practitioners were offering these services
in the private office setting and fewer yet were
offering their expertise to state-insurance patients,
due to lower reimbursement. Both the orthodontist
and the pediatric dentist felt good about helping
the community meet their dental needs and
also being able to treat a high volume of patients
and earn a substantial income.
Several days each week, their reception area
was standing room only with orthodontic and
pediatric patients waiting for their turn for treatment.
This all came to an abrupt end when for
reasons that are not important, something went
terribly wrong with one of the pediatric anesthesia
cases. A lawsuit ensued and, much to their dismay,
they were advised that their joint assets and their
lifestyle that included a large home, expensive
automobiles and frequent travel, were at risk due
to their choice of practice entity.
During the discovery process, the couple was
surprised to learn that some aspects of their life
mentioned above became issues when raised in
depositions by witnesses, staff, other patients and
the plaintiff 's family. Their success and apparent
wealth had not gone unnoticed, human nature
being what it is.
After several very stressful years that included
many interactions with the legal system, the matter
was settled. However, their joy of practice and
the practices themselves were not the same. This
unfortunate situation was made more difficult by
the couple's choice of practice entity.
The second instance involves an oral surgeon
and nurse anesthetist couple. As you might
already expect, the nurse anesthetist provided anesthesia services for the oral surgeon's patients.
Without going into the specific details, something
tragic occurred.
The oral surgeon had a professional corporation,
however, the nurse spouse was an officer. The
nurse had an LLC, and the oral surgeon was a
member. When these were created at different
times, good intentions were involved.
This couple's litigation experience was very
much the same except that the matter was unable
to be settled before trial and the couple had to
endure a trial. Once again, as a result of their manner
of practice, their joint assets were at risk. Also,
the potential for an excess verdict, a verdict in
excess of the insurance coverage, weighed heavily
on them. Although the final award was within the
policy's limits, the stress of the litigation took its
toll and they divorced shortly after the trial.
From the discussed scenarios, as well as your
imagination and the expertise of your advisors, it
is not unreasonable to consider that affluent/perceived
affluent individuals might have a higher
litigation/risk exposure. But don't despair.
Proper consideration and planning can prepare
you for almost any situation. Consider doing a
review of all of your assets and activities, and
those you have responsibility for or potential
responsibility for, from a risk perspective. It is
suggested that you consult with your attorney
and advisors on a regular basis and when changes
in your specific situation occur. Be proactive as
opposed to being reactive, when it might be too
late. Stress test your asset and activity portfolio.
Think outside the box. Consider worst case scenarios.
Remember to be proactive, with the
moral being to plan carefully.
|