ProAssurance Indemnity Co. v. Metheny
2012 Ark. 461
Ark.2012Background
- Cody Metheny, age 15, underwent SAH brain surgery at ACH on Aug 2, 2004 performed by Dr. Adada, employed by UAMS and practicing at ACH.
- During the same surgery, Dr. Adada reportedly operated on the left side first and began the right-side procedure after discovering the mistake; images and notes regarding the side were not clearly documented.
- Postoperative events allegedly included failure to inform Cody’s family and to document the sentinel event; ACH administrators were informed of the wrong-sided surgery but not of the depth of the harm.
- Cody’s parents filed a direct-action medical-negligence suit against ACH and ProAssurance (insurer for ACH) in 2009; settlement occurred with several settling physicians prior to trial, and ProAssurance sought to pursue apportionment against settling physicians via third-party claims, which the court dismissed.
- A jury awarded $20 million in damages; the circuit court later reduced the verdict to $11 million consistent with ProAssurance’s policy coverage, and ProAssurance moved for JNOV.
- The court refused ProAssurance’s requested jury instructions to allocate liability among ACH and settling UAMS physicians and did not admit certain deposition testimony from the settling physicians; ProAssurance appealed and Methenys cross-appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should have instructed apportionment of fault to nonparties under CJRA | Methenys argue court properly refused nonparty fault allocation; CJRA does not require nonparty apportionment. | ProAssurance argues §16-55-201 requires apportionment among all tortfeasors, including settling physicians, to reduce ACH's verdict. | No error: court did not abuse discretion; CJRA does not require nonparty fault allocation; liability to ACH limited to ProAssurance’s fault. |
| Whether the court erred by excluding evidence of fault of UAMS physicians | Methenys contend evidence of fault by UAMS doctors is admissible for complete fault allocation. | ProAssurance contends such evidence is probative and should be admitted. | Not reviewable: record lacking a ruling on admissibility; argument not preserved for appeal. |
| Whether JNOV was correctly denied due to alleged improper bundling of future-damages | Methenys argue life-care-planner bundled future costs; no objection undermines verdict validity. | ProAssurance asserts bundling prevents recoverable damages from being separated; objection insufficiently timely. | Denied: failure to timely object precludes review; testimony not preserved. |
| Whether reduction of the verdict on cross-appeal was proper under policy limits | Methenys claim policy limits should not reduce the award beyond available limits per aggregate/medical-incident analysis. | ProAssurance contends policy limits cap liability; single medical incident limits apply regardless of number of insureds. | Affirmed: one medical incident; policy limits appropriate; verdict reduced to $11 million. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241 (Ark. 2009) (nonparty-fault provision unconstitutional; CJRA allocation rights applied to defendants)
- Barnes v. Everett, 351 Ark. 479 (Ark. 2003) (AMI instructions; use of model instructions; non-model instructions require essential state of law)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dodson, 2011 Ark. 19 (Ark. 2011) (preservation of errors; burden on appellant to present record with objections)
- Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Austin, 2011 Ark. 283 (Ark. 2011) (contract interpretation of insurance policies; plain language controls)
- Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Davidson, 250 Ark. 35 (Ark. 1971) (use of plain-meaning interpretation for policy terms)
- McCoy v. Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc., 593 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2010) (nonparty fault moot when controlling state law affirms CJRA)