EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEUROMONITORING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al
Case Number:
1:18-cv-11497
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
-
March 21, 2023
Insurer Can Recoup $1.1M Benefit From Medical Imaging Co.
A medical imaging company must pay back $1.1 million to its insurer that accused the company of wrongfully accepting the settlement money related to a malpractice suit, a New Jersey federal judge ruled in final judgment.
-
February 01, 2023
Insurer Gets Partial Win In $1.1M Malpractice Coverage Suit
A New Jersey federal judge doled out summary judgment wins to both a medical imaging company and its insurer, finding that while the insurer didn't have to cover the company in underlying litigation involving a patient who died after surgery, the company didn't breach its contract.
-
August 10, 2022
Medical Co. Denies Lying To Insurer In $1.1M Suit
A medical imaging company had no reason to believe it would be sued for an employee's involvement in a surgery death, it said, slamming an insurer's claim that it lied on insurance applications about the possibility of a claim.
-
August 03, 2022
Insurer Says Medical Co. Must Return $1.1M Suit Payment
The insurer for a medical imaging firm told a New Jersey federal court that the settlement payment of a malpractice suit on behalf of the firm "can hardly be viewed as 'voluntary'" because the firm "unrelentingly pressured" it by threatening bad faith litigation.
-
June 27, 2022
Insurer Can't Recoup $1.1M Malpractice Payment, Co. Says
A medical imaging firm's insurer cannot recoup a $1.1 million medical malpractice settlement because it can't claw back a voluntarily made payment and it had not proven the firm knowingly made misrepresentations in its insurance application, the firm told a New Jersey federal court.
-
June 24, 2022
Insurer Seeks To Recoup $1.1M Over Malpractice Settlement
An Illinois-based insurer urged a New Jersey federal court on Friday to let it recoup the $1.1 million that it paid to settle a medical malpractice case, after it said its policyholder falsely stated in insurance applications that the medical imaging firm knew of no circumstances that could result in such a claim.