Explore the vast range of titles available.

Shareholder litigation and class action suits play a key role in protecting investors and regulating big businesses. But Directors and Officers liability insurance shields corporations and their managers from the financial consequences of many illegal acts, as evidenced by the recent Enron scandal and many of last year’s corporate financial meltdowns. Ensuring Corporate Misconduct demonstrates for the first time how corporations use insurance to avoid responsibility for corporate misconduct, dangerously undermining the impact of securities laws. As Tom Baker and Sean J. Griffith demonstrate, this need not be the case. Opening up the formerly closed world of corporate insurance, the authors interviewed people from every part of the industry in order to show the different instances where insurance companies could step in and play a constructive role in strengthening corporate governance—yet currently do not. Ensuring Corporate Misconduct concludes with a set of readily implementable reforms that could significantly rehabilitate the system.

Background An increased interest in medical liability claims has been noticed. Nevertheless, detailed data on subject of claims and possible factors that contribute to litigation and indemnity payments are scarce and relatively dated. Insight into these data may provide valuable information to prevent both incidents and malpractice claims. Objective To analyse the subject, outcome and costs of malpractice claims related to gynaecological care and their connection with treatment indications and treatment phases. Design A retrospective analysis of malpractice claims related to gynaecology. Setting All claims related to gynaecology, filed and closed by Netherlands’ largest liability insurance company, Centramed between 2005 and 2022. Sample N  = 382. Methods An in-depth analysis of claim files was performed. Results A total of 68.6% of the claims were related to perioperative incidents. A total of 88.0% of all claims were related to treatments with a benign indication and only 12.0% were related to malignancies. The share of malignant treatment indications was high for claims related to diagnostic incidents (37.9%), compared to 7.3% for claims related to surgical treatment. Liability was accepted in 22.5% of all claims. The total costs of all claims amount €6,6mlj. Besides the indication for treatment, deficient expectation management (a lack of informed consent) contributes to dissatisfaction and increases the risk of malpractice claims. Finally, an inadequate medical file compromises legal defence and influences the judgement and settlement of malpractice claims. Conclusions There is a connection between treatment indications and treatment phases and the risk of malpractice claims and their outcome.

In communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs), health systems and liability insurers encourage the disclosure of unanticipated care outcomes to affected patients and proactively seek resolutions, including offering an apology, an explanation, and, where appropriate, reimbursement or compensation. Anecdotal reports from the University of Michigan Health System and other early adopters of CRPs suggest that these programs can substantially reduce liability costs and improve patient safety. But little is known about how these early programs achieved success. We studied six CRPs to identify the major challenges in and lessons learned from implementing these initiatives. The CRP participants we interviewed identified several factors that contributed to their programs' success, including the presence of a strong institutional champion, investing in building and marketing the program to skeptical clinicians, and making it clear that the results of such transformative change will take time. Many of the early CRP adopters we interviewed expressed support for broader experimentation with these programs even in settings that differ from their own, such as systems that do not own and control their liability insurer, and in states without strong tort reforms. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Background: Since the 1990s, nationwide rates of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) have decreased sharply and rates of cesarean section have increased sharply. Both trends are consistent with clinical behavior aimed at reducing obstetricians' exposure to malpractice litigation. Objective: To estimate the effects of malpractice pressure on rates of VBAC and cesarean section. Research Design, Subjects, Measures: We used state-level longitudinal mixed-effects regression models to examine data from the Natality Detail File on births in the United States (1991-2003). Malpractice pressure was measured by liability insurance premiums and tort reforms. Outcome measures were rates of VBAC, cesarean section, and primary cesarean section. Results: Malpractice premiums were positively associated with rates of cesarean section (β = 0.15, P = 0.02) and primary cesarean section (β = 0.16, P = 0.009), and negatively associated with VBAC rates (β = -0.35, P = 0.01). These estimates imply that a $10,000 decrease in premiums for obstetrician-gynecologists would be associated with an increase of 0.35 percentage points (1.45%) in the VBAC rate and decreases of 0.15 and 0.16 percentage points (0.7% and 1.18%) in the rates of cesarean section and primary cesarean section, respectively; this would correspond to approximately 1600 more VBACs, 6000 fewer cesarean sections, and 3600 fewer primary cesarean sections nationwide in 2003. Two types of tort reform--caps on noneconomic damages and pretrial screening panels--were associated with lower rates of cesarean section and higher rates of VBAC. Conclusions: The liability environment influences choice of delivery method in obstetrics. The effects are not large, but reduced litigation pressure would likely lead to decreases in the total number cesarean sections and total delivery costs.

Indemnity is compensation given to make another whole from a loss already sustained.Contractual indemnity, on the other hand, is that which is voluntarily given as security or protection to prevent his or her suffering damage.

Liability law is rapidly changing in quite a number of countries. This is due to various factors, which are interrelated to a large extent: changing case law and legislation as well as increased and still increasing technical and medical knowledge. As a result, various occupational diseases can, for example, be attributed to working conditions or personal injury to specific products. From the very moment that causation can be proven, the question arises of whether or not liability can be established ‑ with far-reaching economic consequences for all parties involved. The rise of phenomena such as mass torts, multiple causation, joint and several liability or various heads of damages (like ecological damage and several diseases and affections) rapidly increases the interest in tort law. In the context of the interrelation between liability and insurance, attention must be paid to the question of whether certain liabilities are still coverable or not, and, if they are, to what amounts. (The question of jurisdictions is of growing importance as is the question of whether a specific liability can be covered by insurance. In this context, one should bear in mind that the affordability of tort law also requires safe and sound insurers. The recent past has shown that there is a limit to their financial stability.) _x000D_.

This Health Policy Report describes the malpractice system in the United States, examines its shortcomings, and analyzes the forces that have led to past and current malpractice crises. The authors review options for reform of the U.S. malpractice system. Conventional tort reforms include caps on damages, limits on attorneys' fees, and shortening of the statute of limitations. Experts have also proposed major system reforms, such as enterprise liability or administrative compensation. Options for reform of the American malpractice system. Few issues in health care spark as much ire and angst as medical-malpractice litigation. Physicians revile malpractice claims as random events that visit unwarranted expense and emotional pain on competent, hardworking practitioners. Commentators lament the “lawsuit lottery,” which provides windfalls for some patients, but no compensation for the vast majority of patients injured by medical care. 1 , 2 Within the health care industry, there is a nearly universal belief that malpractice litigation has long since surpassed sensible levels and that major tort reform is overdue. Yet the drive to litigate continues. Plaintiffs' attorneys and some consumer groups interpret providers' grievances as . . .

The current malpractice crisis has been called the \"perfect storm\". Doctors are finding practice costs unsustainable. Patients are finding access to care jeopardized. Cost of care is escalating. The system does not deter medical error, compensate most injured victims, produce any result quickly. These factors are creating enough of a crisis to urgently address and merit prompt solution. However, if history is any guide, the debate over malpractice will continue to rage. Reforms will likely be slow. Thus the practicing gastroenterologist, while working for or supporting efforts toward a solution, is well advised to keep up to date with the practice of gastroenterology, but also understand the medical legal matters and have a risk management strategy that will hopefully help keep the malpractice crisis a theoretical rather than personal concern. The following articles in this series are intended to help.

Environmental pollution liability insurance was officially introduced in China only in 2006, as part of new market-based approaches for managing environmental risks. By 2012, trial applications of pollution insurance had been launched in 14 provinces and cities. More than ten insurance companies have entered the pollution insurance market with their own products and contracts. Companies in environmentally sensitive sectors and high-risk industries bought pollution insurance, and a few successful compensation cases have been reported. Still, pollution insurance faces a number of challenges in China. The absence of a national law weakens the legal basis of pollution insurance, and poor technical support stagnates further implementation. Moreover, current pollution insurance products have limited risk coverage, high premium rates, and low loss ratios, which make them fairly unattractive to polluters. Meanwhile, low awareness of environmental and social liabilities leads to limited demand for pollution insurance products by industrial companies. Hence, the pollution insurance market is not yet flourishing in China. To improve this situation, this economic instrument needs stronger backing by the Chinese state.