Oral surgeon's practical joke is covered under professional-liability policy

(Continued - Page 2)

Woo settled Alberts for $250,000. He then sued Fireman’s for coverage and bad faith. Woo and Fireman’s cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court held that Fireman’s had breached its duty to defend. At the ensuing trial, the jury found that Fireman’s committed bad faith and awarded Woo $750,000 in damages.

Fireman’s appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding any duty to defend. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed that ruling, and directed that the judgment on the jury’s verdict be vacated and the action dismissed.

The Supreme Court accepted Woo’s petition for review. The Court concluded that the professional-services provision of Fireman’s policy did cover Woo for the Alberts action. Inserting boar-tusk flippers was “intertwined with Woo’s dental practice because it involved interaction with an employee.” The Court rejected Fireman’s argument that this practical joke interrupted the dental-surgery procedure because it was “integrated into and inseparable from the overall procedure.”

The Woo Court also held that Fireman’s had a duty to defend under its general-liability coverage, as the facts that Alberts alleged could trigger coverage for unintended bodily injury and personal injury.

Justice James Johnson dissented. Justice Johnson asserted that no reasonable person would define Woo’s actions as a dental procedure. He said that the $750,000 “reward” of “Woo’s unethical and intentional behavior will likely be perceived as an abuse of the tort system” and that after he is awarded attorney fees, Woo “will receive a million dollars more than the amount that his traumatized ex-employee was compensated for this cruel ‘joke.’”

Justice Charles Johnson also dissented, saying simply that the Court should have adopted the Court of Appeals’ decision.