Take It to the Limit

TOUCH

About Our Issue

About Our IssueRead More

TOUCH

More Than Limits

More Than LimitsRead More

TOUCH

Beyond the Benchmark

Beyond the BenchmarkRead More

TOUCH

State PCFs

State PCFsRead More

TOUCH

Utah News

Utah NewsRead More

TOUCH

New Mexico Tort Reform

New Mexico Tort Reform Read More

TOUCH

Georgia Tort Reform

Georgia Tort ReformRead More

TOUCH

The Bind Order

The Bind OrderRead More

TOUCH

News & Updates

News & UpdatesRead More

TOUCH

Ties that Bind

Ties that Bind Read More

TOUCH

April 2026 Feature

April 2026 FeatureRead More

About Our Issue

Limits Have Limits

A Disciplined Approach to Excess Coverage in MPL

Excess limits, either above the common $1M/$3M primary, or excess of patient compensation limits, have been widely available for physicians and hospitals/facilities.

Historically, excess limits could be purchased for very modest additional premium. However, as verdicts and settlements have escalated in cost, many MPL insurers have become more disciplined about what limits they offer, and at what pricing. There may be reinsurance implications as well, since MPL reinsurers are looking to reduce volatility in their results, and reducing limits on their programs is in focus.

These days in the hospital space, some insurers that were providing $15M-$20M of excess limits five years ago are now only willing to provide $5M in limits. Additionally, there may be new sublimits or even complete exclusions on exposures like sexual abuse/molestation.

In many states excess limits are discoverable when a suit is filed. This can often trigger a “deep pockets” strategy by the plaintiff firm, as they may look to present the co-defendant with the most limits as the most culpable.

Patient compensation funds (PCFs) can certainly help to mitigate the impacts of claims severity. That said, large physician groups and hospitals may still seek excess coverage beyond the fund limits, especially if the state does not also have statutory damage caps.

At ProAssurance, we offer excess limits in response to clear demand from our agency partners and insureds. Yet we believe that limits management and adequate pricing for those higher limits are critical components to our overall underwriting strategies.

ShepTapasakwTitle

More Than Limits

Why Increasing Coverage Isn’t Always the Answer to Severity

The headlines are hard to ignore. An $80 million verdict here, a $15 million settlement there, and before long, your phone is ringing with clients who want to know why they aren’t carrying more coverage.

It’s a fair question, and one that agency partners in the medical malpractice space are fielding with increasing frequency. To help producers make sense of the landscape, Mike Severyn, SVP of Claims, and Shep Tapasak, Chief Underwriting Officer, unpack why the answer to “Can’t we just buy more coverage?” is a lot more complicated than it sounds.

How We Got Here

The $1M per claim/$3M aggregate structure did not emerge from thin air. “These became the most purchased insurance limits decades ago because of both state regulatory requirements and contractual requirements,” says Tapasak. “Most hospitals require physicians to carry at least $1M/$3M in limits.” That contractual dynamic has made the benchmark remarkably sticky—but Tapasak notes it isn’t entirely static. “In recent years, we are seeing contractual requirements for increased limits,” he says. Still, the $1M/$3M structure remains the foundation of the market, and for good reason: It is where the data is deepest, the pricing most credible, and the risk pool most stable.

What’s Changed and What’s Driving It

For years, outlier verdicts lived in a relatively predictable range. “Years ago, losses were in the range of $1M to $3M, with outliers in the $3M to $6M range,” says Severyn. “Now, when we do lose at trial as an industry, we are seeing more verdicts between $10M and $100M.”

What’s fueling that shift? Severyn points to a convergence of forces: economic inflation, social inflation, the erosion of tort reform, and a deepening societal skepticism toward the healthcare system. “Jurors nowadays are unfazed by large numbers due to large life care plan reports, publicized corporate profits, publicized athlete salaries, rapidly increasing costs of medical care, and publicized large verdicts,” he explains. Add to that what he describes as genuine frustration with the healthcare experience—long waits, rising costs, less physician interaction—and you have a jury pool that is not inclined toward sympathy for healthcare providers. “Higher limits will not change jury attitudes toward healthcare providers or their dislike of the healthcare system,” Severyn says.

The Target on Your Back

Here is where the conversation gets uncomfortable for clients who believe more coverage equals more protection. It can, in some cases, do the opposite. “Higher limits can make providers more of a target,” says Severyn. “Plaintiff attorneys will often focus on the weakest witnesses and those with the highest limits.” In multi-defendant cases, the co-defendant carrying the most coverage can become the most attractive target. And in many states, limits are discoverable the moment a suit is filed, handing plaintiff counsel that information early. “If higher limits, then higher settlements,” Severyn adds. “Often on concerning cases, plaintiff attorneys will not take anything less than policy limits.”

The litigation psychology runs deeper still. Higher limits do not neutralize the underlying drivers of large verdicts; they do not improve communication between providers and patients, resolve diagnostic errors, or change the willingness of plaintiff firms to take cases to trial chasing the next big number. “Higher limits will not decrease plaintiff attorneys’ willingness to take cases to trial hoping for the next large verdict,” Severyn says.

The Actuarial Reality

Even setting aside the litigation dynamics, pricing a $10M primary policy is not simply a matter of scaling up. “Actuaries require credible data in order to derive rates with a high degree of accuracy,” explains Tapasak. “They need to have a large enough pool of claims for the data to be credible.” The problem is that the overwhelming majority of claims in the industry pool fall below $1 million, which means the data thins out considerably as you move up the severity ladder, making accurate pricing at higher limits genuinely difficult.

When carriers do price excess layers, they use what are called increased limits factors—percentage multipliers applied to the base premium. “If the $1M/$3M per physician policy had a premium of $1M and the increased limits factor for a $3M/$3M group shared excess is 0.50, that would mean the premium including the excess would be $1.5M,” Tapasak illustrates. The math works in theory, but the confidence behind it weakens as limits climb and the underlying “large claims” data becomes increasingly sparse.

What the Reinsurance Market Is Telling Us

Carriers do not price and hold all of this risk alone. Reinsurance is a critical part of the equation, and the reinsurance market is sending clear signals. “Reinsurers have become more cautious about offering high excess limits in recent years,” says Tapasak, “This is mainly due to the significant increase in outsized verdicts across the nation.” Some reinsurers have pulled back from supporting MPL carriers with significant hospital books altogether. That contraction at the reinsurance level directly constrains what primary carriers can responsibly offer. It’s not simply a business decision, it’s a structural limitation of the market.

The E&S Market and What Brokers Should Know

For limits above the standard primary layer, the excess and surplus market plays a significant role, particularly in the hospital and facilities space. “E&S is the dominant form of coverage in the hospitals and facilities space,” says Tapasak. For physicians, E&S comes into play as well, especially for higher-risk specialties. “Emergency medicine, radiology, OB, and others are more prone to higher verdicts and settlements, so there is often a need for rates significantly higher than admitted filings,” he adds. Brokers placing E&S coverage should also be aware that defense costs are sometimes inside the overall policy limits—a structural difference from admitted coverage that can have real consequences when a significant claim develops.

Who Should Be Having This Conversation Now

Not every client needs a proactive limits conversation, but some absolutely do, and agents shouldn’t wait for them to ask. Severyn is direct about which specialties warrant closer attention: “Ob-gyn, radiology, emergency medicine, and surgical specialties are specialties that may want to consider higher limits.” He also notes a market dynamic worth flagging to clients. “Some hospital systems have been pushing to have providers carry higher limits if they want to be on staff at certain hospitals,” he says. That credentialing pressure is only likely to grow as verdict sizes continue to climb.

On the flip side, Severyn’s experience reveals the wide range of risk tolerance that exists even within the same specialty. “In Michigan, for example, some ob-gyns carry $100,000 or $200,000 in limits. No kidding. Others carry $1M.” That variance, he notes, often comes down to individual financial condition, personal risk tolerance, and whether the provider believes their personal assets are genuinely at risk.

As an agency partner, understanding where your client sits on that spectrum is essential to having a productive conversation.

Rethinking ‘Good’ Venues

Tapasak has a candid message for producers who push back on excess limit pricing in what they consider favorable venues. “Most MPL specialists realize that excess limits may be very costly due to concerns around outsized verdicts,” he says. “Sometimes we do get pushback for our pricing in the ‘good venues.’” His response is grounded in experience: “We have learned over the past several years that even conservative venues and those with damage caps can be problematic.”

Geography is no longer the reliable buffer it once was, and pricing that reflects that reality is not a carrier being difficult—it’s a carrier being honest.

The bottom line for agents and brokers is this: When a client calls rattled by a headline verdict and asking for a $10M policy, the job isn’t to simply find them more limits. It’s to help them understand what more limits actually does (and does not) accomplish. As Severyn and Tapasak make clear, the market has its constraints and the litigation environment has its logic, and the right answer for your clients lives somewhere in the nuance between the two.

Beyond the Benchmark

States that Break the $1M/$3M Norm

Most physicians carry $1M/$3M in malpractice coverage. It’s the industry standard—used by insurers for pricing, hospitals for credentialing, and physicians as a baseline for protection. But that “standard” only tells part of the story.

In reality, medical malpractice exposure varies widely by state. The same $1M/$3M limit that works for a small private practice in one state may be insufficient for a large physician group, outpatient surgery center, or high-risk specialty.

The variation is largely driven by three factors: (1) legislative tort reform efforts; (2) court rulings affecting (and occasionally undoing) damages caps; and (3) patient compensation funds (PCFs). Note that in some states, there may be multiple issues—for example, in Indiana, the physician or hospital must participate in the PCF in order to avail themselves of the statutory caps.

These dynamics affect providers across the board, from hospitals and group practices to independent physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and ambulatory care providers. Each may face different coverage expectations depending on the state.

States Driving Higher Coverage Needs

Some states effectively push providers above the $1M/$3M benchmark through uncapped liability environments, statutory frameworks, or market-driven expectations.

State	Key Drivers	Potential Impact
Colorado	Increasing statutory caps with inflation adjustments¹	Gradual upward pressure on limits over time
New Jersey	No damages cap; insurance required for licensure²	Open-ended exposure; higher limits common in practice
New York	No cap; excess layers required to be available³	Multi-layered coverage structures common
Virginia	Rising total damages cap (~$2.7M+)⁴	Coverage often aligned with cap

In these states, the $1M/$3M standard often serves as a baseline rather than a practical ceiling. Legislative changes, regulatory requirements, and market expectations can all contribute to higher effective coverage levels, particularly for hospital-affiliated physicians and higher-risk specialties. Even where minimum requirements remain unchanged, increasing caps or the availability of excess layers can shift how providers and organizations think about total limits.

Over time, this creates a gradual but meaningful divergence from the traditional benchmark. As a result, coverage decisions are often driven less by minimum standards and more by how risk accumulates across layers, entities, and practice settings.

States Without Effective Damages Caps

In some states, damages caps have been struck down or were never enacted, leaving no defined ceiling on jury awards. In contrast, others—such as South Carolina—cap only non-economic damages, while economic damages (including medical costs and lost wages) remain uncapped, resulting in potentially significant exposure.

States	Key Consideration
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming⁵	Greater variability in outcomes; higher limits often considered

In these environments, the $1M/$3M benchmark can function more as a starting point than a sufficient level of protection. Without a statutory cap, claim severity is driven by jury outcomes, which can vary significantly based on venue, case specifics, and broader litigation trends.

This creates a wider range of potential exposure—not just for hospitals, but for physician groups, outpatient facilities, and individual providers. As a result, coverage decisions in these states are often less about meeting a standard threshold and more about evaluating risk tolerance, specialty, and practice setting. In many cases, providers and healthcare organizations reassess whether baseline limits align with the realities of an uncapped liability environment.

PCF Model States

Several states use PCFs or similar structures, where providers carry primary coverage and the state provides excess liability protection. Primary limits vary by state and statute, and participation requirements differ by provider type.

While some of these states allow for lower primary limits, the overall exposure is shaped by how the fund layers on top of that coverage. In this sense, the benchmark isn’t just the primary policy but the combined structure of primary plus excess protection. For providers, this can create a different risk profile—one that depends not only on individual coverage decisions but also on the statutory framework and stability of the fund itself.

What This Means in Practice

Coverage needs vary significantly based on both jurisdiction and practice structure. Providers in PCF states may operate with lower primary limits where permitted, while those in no-cap states often evaluate higher limits based on exposure, specialty, and practice setting.

Healthcare systems frequently standardize coverage levels across states, while independent practices may rely more directly on state-specific frameworks. Advanced practice clinicians may share limits or carry separate coverage depending on supervision requirements and scope-of-practice rules.

Specialty is also a key consideration. Higher-risk specialties such as obstetrics and neurosurgery may evaluate higher limits relative to primary care, particularly in jurisdictions without damages caps.

The Bigger Trend

The broader trend is toward greater variability and, in many cases, increased exposure. Several states have seen damages caps modified or invalidated over time, which may contribute to changes in coverage expectations, premium levels, and market participation.

At the same time, some states continue to adjust caps through legislation, often with inflation indexing, which may incrementally increase exposure over time. Of course, nuclear verdicts continue to wreak havoc on loss experience in certain states. Along with ongoing changes in tort reform, these trends continue to shape coverage considerations across providers.

PCF states present a different dynamic. While some allow lower primary limits, overall exposure depends on the structure and stability of the fund. Changes to statutory limits or participation requirements may affect how risk is distributed between providers and the state.

The $1M/$3M benchmark remains a common starting point—but actual coverage decisions often reflect a combination of regulatory requirements, market conditions, and individual risk factors. We work closely with agents and their clients to help evaluate these considerations and align coverage strategies accordingly.

SOURCES 1. Colorado General Assembly, “HB24-1472: Medical Malpractice Damages,” State of Colorado, 2024. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1472.
2. New Jersey Statutes § 45:9-19.17, “Medical Malpractice Liability Insurance Requirement,” State of New Jersey. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-45/section-45-9-19-17/.
3. New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, “Availability of Excess Coverage (11 NYCRR § 70.7),” New York State Department of Financial Services. https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/11-NYCRR-70.7.
4. Virginia General Assembly, “Code of Virginia § 8.01-581.15,” Commonwealth of Virginia. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter21/section8.01-581.15/.
5. American Medical Association, “State Laws Chart I: Liability Reforms (2026).” https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/mlr-state-laws-chart-I.pdf.

State Patient Compensation Funds:

What You Need to Know

A patient compensation fund (PCF), as the name suggests, helps to ensure reasonable compensation for patients who have been injured due to medical negligence. These funds were legislative responses to the medical malpractice crisis of the 1970s that saw several cascading factors threatening instability in the medical liability market. As state tort laws became more favorable to plaintiffs, plaintiff attorneys recognized the opportunities presented by medical malpractice lawsuits, especially in an environment of increasingly complex medicine.¹

These factors contributed to a rapidly diminishing market for providers seeking liability insurance which, at the time, was sold as a separate line by traditional commercial carriers. Out of this crisis came the legislative response of PCFs and new companies specializing in medical malpractice insurance—the industry we now know as medical professional liability insurance.¹

The compensation available under a PCF is in excess of underlying coverage obtained by eligible healthcare providers from their liability insurers. The funds also generally limit a provider’s liability to a specific amount. At the time the funds were created, they were seen as an effective way of increasing accessibility to medical malpractice insurance at a reasonable cost.²

Which States Operate Patient Compensation Funds?

Seven states currently operate patient compensation funds, with many funded by surcharges on the underlying coverage. They vary by state on features such as provider eligibility, coverage details, surcharges, residency requirements, requirements for underlying coverage, and more. Provider participation in these funds also varies by state. It is mostly voluntary in Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, and New Mexico, while in Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin participation is largely mandatory for most providers.

The table below provides a general state-by-state summary of the key details of these funds.

The information here is for general understanding only and is focused on individual providers, rather than hospitals. Visit the fund website for specific details about a fund.

Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund

Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund

Mandatory or Voluntary? Voluntary for most entities and individuals practicing in IN (residents and non-residents)

Fund Limits*: Total cap of $1,650,000 for act of malpractice between 6/30/17 and 7/1/19; $1,800,000 thereafter. Provider capped at $400,000 from 6/30/17 to 7/1/19; $500,000 thereafter

Coverage Type: Claims Made or Occurrence

Does Fund coverage extend outside of the Fund state? No

Who submits information to the Fund? Carrier

🔗 - Compensation Fund

Kansas Health Care Stabilization Fund

Kansas Health Care Stabilization Fund 

Mandatory or Voluntary? Mandatory for most healthcare providers practicing in KS (residents and non-residents) 

Fund Limits*: Multiple options available

Coverage Type: Claims Made 

Does Fund coverage extend outside of the Fund state? If KS resident, yes. Coverage is worldwide. If contributing as a non-resident, coverage is limited to KS. 

Who submits information to the Fund? Carrier

🔗 - Compensation Fund

Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund

Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund

Mandatory or Voluntary? Voluntary for providers practicing in LA (residents and non-residents)

Fund Limits*: Total cap on damages is $500,000 (exclusive of medical costs, which are paid by the fund); provider only liable for $100,000

Coverage Type: Claims Made or Occurrence

Does Fund coverage extend outside of the Fund state? No

Who submits information to the Fund? Carrier

🔗 - Compensation Fund

Nebraska Excess Liability Fund

Nebraska Excess Liability Fund

Mandatory or Voluntary? Voluntary for providers practicing in NE (residents and non-residents)

Fund Limits*: $2,250,000 total cap

Coverage Type: Claims Made or Occurrence based on underlying coverage

Does Fund coverage extend outside of the Fund state? No

Who submits information to the Fund? Insured

🔗 - Liability Fund

New Mexico Patient’s Compensation Fund

New Mexico Patient’s Compensation Fund

Mandatory or Voluntary? Voluntary for covered providers practicing in NM (residents and non-residents)

Fund Limits*: $750,000 total cap for individual providers who belong to the fund, except for medical care and punitive damages. Provider capped at $250,000

Coverage Type: Occurrence

Does Fund coverage extend outside of the Fund state? No

Who submits information to the Fund? Insured

🔗 - Compensation Fund

Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund

Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund

Mandatory or Voluntary? Mandatory for most providers practicing in PA (residents and non-residents)

Fund Limits*: $500,000/$1,500,000 for individual providers

Coverage Type: Underlying coverage may be Claims Made or Occurrence, but MCARE coverage is occurrence only.

Does Fund coverage extend outside of the Fund state? Yes, it follows the physician if they have incidental coverage in another state covered by their PA policy.

Who submits information to the Fund? Carrier

🔗 - Availability and Reduction of Error Fund

Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund

Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund

Mandatory or Voluntary? Mandatory for most providers who practice in WI >240 hrs/yr and most providers who are WI residents but practice in MI; voluntary for other providers

Fund Limits*: No limit. The Fund indemnifies its participants for any amount over $1,000,000

Coverage Type: Occurrence

Does Fund coverage extend outside of the Fund state? Yes, if the primary practice is in WI.

Who submits information to the Fund? Carrier

🔗 - Compensation Fund

* Limits are in excess of underlying coverage.

Birth Injury Funds

Three states—Florida, New York, and Virginia—have another type of compensation fund focusing on birth-related neurological injuries. These funds and PCFs have elements in common, such as compensation outside the healthcare insurance and malpractice tort system but function differently than PCFs. Information about the funds here is sourced from the linked websites.

Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA)

NICA is a no-fault alternative to medical malpractice litigation. Participating providers are protected from tort action in cases that are accepted into the NICA program. The fund helps “birth-injured children and adults [receive] the care they need while reducing the financial burden on medical providers and families.” A statutory organization, it manages state funds to pay for the lifetime support and care of adults and children born with certain birth-related neurological injuries occurring in a Florida hospital when the obstetrical services were provided by participating providers. Admitted cases are removed from the tort system on a no-fault basis. Families receive an initial lump sum payment and lifetime payments for medically necessary and reasonable expenses for eligible injuries. Provider participation is voluntary for providers practicing in Florida but, generally, all providers are required to inform obstetrical patients of their participation status. Participating physicians and certified nurse midwives (under the supervision of a participating physician) pay an annual assessment. Certain other providers are not required to pay the assessment.

New York Medical Indemnity Fund (MIF)

The New York MIF provides a funding source for certain future healthcare costs of individuals with birth-related neurological injuries as the result of medical malpractice during a delivery admission. Costs are paid throughout the lifetime of an eligible plaintiff after a court-approved settlement or judgment. The fund generally pays for care in excess of health insurance coverage and other programs (except Medicare and Medicaid) but in lieu of the corresponding portion of a court settlement or judgment. Non-domestic providers are eligible for reimbursement of covered expenses under the fund.

Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program

For admitted children born with serious birth-related neurological injuries, this fund covers their care including “medically necessary expenses such as medical expenses, hospital expenses, rehabilitation expenses, in-home nursing care” and other costs. Benefits are provided to children with a qualifying birth injury who were delivered by a participating provider (physician/midwife) or at a participating hospital. Children admitted into the program are not eligible for compensation from a medical malpractice lawsuit. The program is funded without general state funds through fees paid by participating providers and hospitals as well as assessments on liability insurance carriers operating in Virginia and non-participating physicians practicing in Virginia. Except those receiving an exemption, all physicians practicing in Virginia (regardless of specialty) are required to participate in the fund or pay the non-participating assessment and are obligated to inform obstetrical patients of their participation status.

Utah News

State Law Protects Personal Assets of Physicians from Malpractice

By Jim Dahle

Originally published on The White Coat Investor (April 2025). Reprinted with permission. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ProAssurance or its affiliates.

Like many states, the Utah government is completely dominated by a single political party: in this case, it’s the Republicans. That can sometimes result in the consideration and passage of some weird laws, but in 2025, the Utah legislature and governor have really done doctors a solid. They have amended Utah's malpractice laws in such a way that doctors are dramatically less likely to lose personal assets in a medical malpractice lawsuit.

While this is actually an extremely rare occurrence anyway (as noted in everything I’ve ever written about asset protection, including The White Coat Investor's Guide to Asset Protection), it is now nearly impossible for malpractice lawsuits in Utah.

Protection of Personal Assets for Physicians in Utah

Here is how the new law reads:

“A plaintiff may not pursue, collect, or execute on a judgment against an individual health care provider’s personal income or assets, unless the court finds that: (a) the provider’s conduct was willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent; or (b) the defendant provider failed to maintain an insurance policy with a policy limit of at least $1,000,000.”

So, get your $1 million/$3 million policy (as most Utah doctors carry) and don’t hurt anyone intentionally or fraudulently, and you're now playing this game only with “house money.” You’re now truly only a defense witness for the insurance company if you get sued. You’ll still be drug through the ringer for five years. You’re still going to lose a few nights of sleep. You still may feel terrible about one of your patients who had a terrible outcome. But you’re not going to lose your house, your non-retirement investments, your cars, and more, and you won’t have to declare bankruptcy. At most, there will be a policy limits payout, and you'll be reported to the National Practitioner Database. If that happens a few times, you’ll have a much harder time getting a job, but you no longer have to worry about losing everything you have worked so hard to obtain over decades.

A particularly nice side benefit of this law is that doctors in Utah will now feel more empowered to defend their good care. The incentive to settle is now dramatically lower for the doctor. Why settle if you’re not going to lose your personal assets to some runaway malpractice verdict anyway? A settlement will be reported to the database just as much as a judgment. The only incentive to settle now is that you might be able to quit messing around with the case a couple of years earlier.

Previous plaintiffs and attorneys were not thrilled about the law, arguing that this, in effect, puts a $1 million cap on damages, even though the true economic damages might be far more than that. This is true, and it is really the biggest issue with using the adversarial legal system to compensate injured patients instead of a much better (but less profitable for attorneys) no-fault compensation system, such as the one that exists in Virginia for birth injuries. In that system, doctors in the state all pay into a fund annually (OBs pay a lot more) that is used to compensate the families of babies with neurologic injuries during birth.

What if a no-fault compensation system was how all injured patients were dealt with? It would be pretty awesome! Most malpractice isn’t prosecuted, and most of what is prosecuted isn’t malpractice. The whole current system is incredibly unfair to all involved.

What Else Did Utah’s H.B. 503 Law Do?

This wasn’t the only reform to the Utah malpractice laws. There were several other provisions in the bill.

NO MORE PAINTING DOCTORS RICH

I thought this provision was interesting:

“(5) Prior to any award of damages to a plaintiff, a plaintiff may not make allegations that the court finds: (a) are irrelevant to the adjudication of the claims at issue; (b) are made primarily to coerce or induce settlement in an individual defendant provider; and (c) pertain to a provider's personal income or assets.”

Basically, you can’t tell the jury about the doctor’s three houses until after a judgment is made, and you can't just make wild allegations to get a settlement. Seems reasonable.

INDEXED NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES TO INFLATION

Utah used to have a $450,000 cap (originally $250,000) on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages, but it was never indexed to inflation. Now it is.

“78B-3-410. Limitation of award of noneconomic damages and economic damages in malpractice actions. (1) In a malpractice action against a health care provider, an injured plaintiff may recover noneconomic losses Subject to Subsection (3), an injured plaintiff in a malpractice action against a health care provider may only recover noneconomic losses to compensate for pain, suffering, and inconvenience. The amount of damages awarded for noneconomic loss may not exceed . . . (d) for a cause of action arising on or after May 15, 2010, $450,000. (2)(a) Beginning July 1, 2002 and each July 1 thereafter until July 1, 2009, the limit for damages under Subsection (1)(c) shall be adjusted for inflation by the state treasurer Administrative Office of the Courts . . . (3) As used in this section, ‘inflation’ means the seasonally adjusted consumer price index for all urban consumers as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.”

Good for plaintiffs, bad for doctors. But I always think it’s silly not to peg things like this to inflation. Interestingly, they didn’t peg the $1 million malpractice requirement to inflation. It would be a pain to have that amount change every year, but adjusting it by $100,000 every five years wouldn’t be so bad and seems more fair.

PLAINTIFFS HAVE TO PAY ATTORNEY FEES IF THE PRE-LITIGATION PANEL RETURNS A JUDGEMENT OF NON-MERIT

In Utah, we have non-binding, pre-litigation panels. The plaintiff and their attorney have to take the case to a panel that includes an attorney; relevant, uninvolved healthcare providers (who have to serve or pay a $5,000 fine); and a responsible citizen to see if the case has merit before they can proceed with a lawsuit. Most of the time, the lawsuit is found to be non-meritorious and often just goes away at that point, especially if the attorney is experienced.

I suspect the attorneys sometimes use the panels to convince the plaintiff that they don’t even really have a good case or, particularly in the case of inexperienced attorneys, just do it to “throw stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.” But the few times that the case is found to be meritorious, I suspect the doctor is far more likely to just settle at that point rather than go through more years of pain. As a new disincentive against frivolous lawsuits, the legislature now indicates that the plaintiff may have to pay the doctor's attorney fees if the case is non-meritorious.

“78B-3-418.5. Attorney fees. (1) The court may award attorney fees and costs to a respondent provider if: (a)(i) a prelitigation review panel renders an opinion under Subsection 78B-3-418(2)(a) that a claimant’s claim or cause of action has no merit . . . and (c) the court finds that the claimant did not substantially prevail. (2) A claimant in a malpractice action against a health care provider, or the claimant's attorney, is liable to any respondent for the reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by the respondent, or by the respondent's insurer, in connection with any filing, submission, panel review, arbitration, or judicial proceeding under this part for which a claimant files or submits an affidavit containing an allegation that the court or arbitrator finds that the claimant knew, or should have known, to be baseless or false at the time the affidavit was signed, filed, or submitted.”

There is now an additional disincentive even to call a pre-litigation panel and an additional way in which the doctor can fight back against bogus lawsuits. Defending a lawsuit can easily cost $100,000 or more in defense attorney fees, so now the plaintiff has some skin in the game, too. Yes, they might get a $1 million judgment, but they also might lose $100,000. Making baseless or false claims carries the same potential penalty.

THE PRE-LITIGATIONPANEL IS NO LONGER REQUIRED

The pre-litigation panel USED to be mandatory, but no longer.

“(2)(a) A claimant may proceed to litigate and pursue a judicial remedy regardless of whether: (i) the claimant has obtained or filed an affidavit of merit under this section; (ii) a review panel deemed the claimant's claims to have merit; or (iii) the claimant participated in a review panel.”

I don’t know how much I like this, but given that there is now a potential penalty for the pre-litigation panel (attorney costs), I’m not sure why a plaintiff would bother. That’s good in that I will have to serve on fewer of them (I’ve only had to be on one in 15 years) but probably bad in that fewer cases will end at the pre-litigation panel.

New Mexico Tort Reform

By Laura Ekery, John Alexander and Kaelin O’Reilly

In early March, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed off on several bills that will impact medical malpractice, healthcare affordability, hospital funding, and billing transparency in the state.

House Bill 99 – Damage caps in medical malpractice

Medical malpractice reform bill HB 99 applies to providers and facilities enrolled in the patient compensation fund (PCF). It places—for the first time—tiered caps on punitive damages in medical malpractice cases based on the type of healthcare provider:

$1 million for independent providers
$6 million for locally owned hospitals
$15 million for large hospital systems

HB 99 clarifies definitions for “health care provider,” “hospital,” and “independent provider,” and it raises the evidentiary standard from preponderance of evidence to “clear and convincing” for malicious or reckless conduct, requiring judicial approval before punitive damage claims can proceed. The bill also mandates that payments for medical expenses or other related benefits paid by the PCF are made as those expenses are incurred, rather than in a lump sum.

HB 99 is the result of legislative efforts supported by the Governor to reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance for providers and remedy the physician shortage in New Mexico by bringing more physicians to practice in that state. A survey by the Legislative Finance Committee revealed that two-thirds of New Mexico physicians considered leaving the state, and that the most common reason was punitive damages related to medical malpractice.

House Bill 4 – Health Care Affordability Fund distributions

HB 4 will increase distributions into the Health Care Affordability Fund following cuts to Medicaid and federal healthcare programs, and the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits at the end of 2025. House Democrats say these funds, generated through surcharges imposed on health insurance providers, are critical in helping the state offset federal cuts and cover the expired credits. New Mexico is the only state in the U.S. to fully fund the expired tax credits. The fund was introduced in 2021 to help lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for New Mexicans purchasing health insurance through the BeWell exchange.

Democrats argue that these efforts make access to health insurance possible for citizens, including working families, in the private market. Enrollment in health insurance has dropped nationwide in 2026, with ACA plan premiums rising an average of 21.7 percent. However, the Health Care Authority reported enrollment in New Mexico increased by 17 percent and that this is because of the Health Care Affordability Fund. The approved budget for Fiscal Year 2027 includes $294.4 million for healthcare affordability programs and is projected to protect coverage for up to 46,600 New Mexicans and reduce costs for up to 122,000 citizens across the state.

Senate Bill 101 – Protection of funding for hospitals serving Medicaid patients

SB 101 will repeal a clause in the Health Care Delivery Act and ensure continuing financial support for eligible hospitals that care for Medicaid patients. The Act had been created to support both urban and rural hospitals using federal funding, but changes enacted in July 2025 reduced funding for hospital programs nationwide. SB 101, which was passed unanimously by both chambers, protects this program from future federal changes. New Mexico leads the nation with the highest per-capita enrollment in Medicaid.

House Bill 306 – Fewer surprise bills for patients

This bill reduces unexpected charges for routine outpatient services like preventive vaccinations and telehealth services. It prohibits hospitals and health systems from charging facility fees for these services directly to patients and preserves facility fees for inpatient and emergency care. HB 306 also strengthens patient notice requirements and standardizes billing so that patients know what they can expect to pay before receiving care.

Georgia Tort Reform

By 2025, Georgia was a state ripe for tort reform.

The amount the average Georgian incurred from excessive tort costs, according to the American Tort Reform Association, was an estimated $1,415 per resident in 2025. In addition, there was an estimated 134,898 jobs lost across the state each year. Furthermore, record-breaking jury verdicts¹ landed the state on the Judicial Hellholes® list for six years running, topping the list twice.² In this context, the state passed several reforms to their civil litigation procedure. Signed into law on April 21, 2025, the reforms were aimed at fairness and a “dose of reality” in their tort system.¹ The reforms were enough to drop Georgia off the Judicial Hellholes list, although they remain on the watch list.

In a statement after signing the legislation, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp characterized it as “historic legislation delivering commonsense, meaningful tort reform,” citing lofty claims that the legislation:³

... levels the playing field in our courtrooms, bans hostile foreign powers from taking advantage of consumers and legal proceedings, aims to stabilize insurance costs for businesses and consumers, [and] increases transparency and fairness.

The legislation included wide-ranging reforms in areas as varied as seatbelt evidence and negligent security, as well as general changes that could potentially impact medical malpractice:

Motions to Dismiss¹

A defendant filing a motion to dismiss is no longer required to file an answer until 15 days after the court denies the motion or announces it will rule on the motion at trial. Discovery is also stayed until the court decides on the motion, and the court is required to rule on the motion within 90 days after briefing on the motion. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12)

Voluntary Dismissals¹

Plaintiffs can no longer voluntarily dismiss the complaint before the first witness is sworn at trial. All parties must now stipulate to the voluntary dismissal or else the plaintiff must obtain a court order to dismiss the complaint more than 60 days after the opposing party filed an answer. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-41)

Damages Model^1,3

The collateral source rule is removed from the special damages model in personal injury cases, resulting in a “truth-in-damages” model. Special damages are limited to the reasonable value of medically necessary care, and juries may consider amounts paid by health insurance or workers’ compensation. (New O.C.G.A. § 51-12-1.1)

Plaintiff counsel’s argument for noneconomic damages must be rationally related to actual evidence of the plaintiff’s pain and suffering. This is in contrast to the tactic known as anchoring, wherein counsel asserts artificial benchmarks with values having no rational connection to the facts of the case. (Amendment to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184)

Reforming and Bringing Transparency to Third Party Litigation Funding³

Litigation funders are prohibited from having input into trial strategy or taking the plaintiff’s full recovery. Additional provisions aim to ensure that plaintiffs are aware of their rights, and others increase transparency for all parties—the courts, opposing litigants, and plaintiffs. (New O.C.G.A. § § 7-10-1 to 7-10-11)

Additional reforms addressed that potentially impact medical malpractice cases include:^1,3

Election by any party of a bifurcated or trifurcated trial
Elimination of double recovery of attorney’s fees

REFERENCES

1. “Michael P. Manfredi, “Georgia’s Tort Reform Legislation: Key Procedural Changes,” National Law Review, May 16, 2025.

2. American Tort Reform Foundation, Judicial Hellholes Reports (Judicial Hellhole Reports 2019-2020 through 2024-2025).

3. Georgia.gov, Office of the Governor, “Gov. Kemp Signs Historic Legislation Delivering Commonsense, Meaningful Tort Reform,” Press Release, April 21, 2025.

ADDITIONAL LINKED REFERENCES

American Tort Reform Association, “Georgia Legislature Passes Landmark Tort Reform Bill,” Press Release, 3/21/2025.

American Tort Reform Foundation. Judicial Hellholes 2025/2026.

SOLO PHYSICIANS

RADIOLOGY
Kansas
Limits: $500k/$1.5M
Admitted
Premium: $18,000

INTERNAL MEDICINE
Florida
Limits: $250k/$750k
Admitted
Premium: $15,000

CONCIERGE MEDICINE
California
Limits: $1M/$3M
Admitted
Premium: $7,500

PEDIATRICS
Indiana
Limits: $500k/$1.5M
Admitted
Premium: $2,500

CONCIERGE MEDICINE
Virginia
Limits: $2.7M/$8.1M
Admitted
Premium: $1,900

GENERAL SURGERY
Indiana
Limits: $500k/$1.5M
Admitted
Premium: $23,000

PLASTIC SURGERY
Florida
Limits: $250k/$750k
Admitted
Premium: $9,500

PODIATRIC SURGERY
California
Limits: $1M/$3M
Admitted
Premium: $2,100

ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY
Florida
Limits: $250k/$750k
Admitted
Premium: $13,000

INTERNAL MEDICINE
Pennsylvania
Limits: $500k/$1.5M
Admitted
Premium: $4,300

ANESTHESIOLOGY
Indiana
Limits: $500k/$1.5M
Admitted
Premium: $4,600

INTERNAL MEDICINE
Connecticut
Limits: $1M/$4M
Admitted
Premium: $8,300

MISCELLANEOUS MEDICAL

LABORATORIES
Alabama
Limits: $1M/$3M
E&S
Premium: $16,000

AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER
Texas
Limits: $1M/$3M
E&S
Premium: $65,000

SENIOR CARE FACILITIES

ASSISTED LIVING
Utah
Limits: $1M/$3M
E&S
Premium: $13,000

MEDICAL GROUP

INSURED ORGANIZATION
North Carolina
Limits: $1M/$3M
E&S
Premium: $18,000

New Business Submissions

Our standard business intake address for submissions is Submissions@ProAssurance.com. For specialty lines of business, please use one of the following: CustomPhysicians@ProAssurance.com, Hospitals@ProAssurance.com, MiscMedSubs@ProAssurance.com, and SeniorCare@ProAssurance.com. Visit our Producer Guide for additional information on our specialty lines of business.

The types of business and premium amounts are illustrative of where we have written new business and not intended to reflect actual pricing or specific appetites.

Get all past editions of The Bind Order on our Marketing Materials page.

Verisk, APCIA See “Reset” Rather Than New Normal in Stellar ’25 Results

In a joint report of U.S. property/casualty insurance industry financial results, Verisk and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association revealed the same eye-popping level of underwriting profit improvement that AM Best did earlier this year: 176%. (Carrier Management)

Read here →

Up to 1 in 4 Patients Experience Complications After Major Surgery, Analysis Shows

Complications following major inpatient surgery affect approximately 1 in 4 patients, according to the results of a multicenter analysis comprising more than 1 million patients. The investigators said the results not only confirm findings of previous research but also demonstrate the need to develop realistic pathways that reduce inpatient morbidity. (Anesthesiology News)

Read more →

Hospital Ads Can Increase ED Visits, Medicare Spending, New Penn Study Finds

The January 2026 study used Nielsen’s “Ad Intel” database and traditional Medicare claims nationally, excluding Alaska, from January 2015 through November 2016. Since the dataset applied to ads ran during the 2016 presidential election, researchers found political advertising “modestly suppresses” Medicare hospital care spending due to the “negative impact on hospitals’ own advertising.” (Fierce Healthcare)

Read more →

Hospital Finances Reckon With Volume Drop, Persistent Costs to Start 2026

Hospitals began 2026 in a bind as costs remained elevated and fewer patients walked through the door, translating to increased financial pressure, according to Kaufman Hall’s latest National Hospital Flash Report.

Based on data from more than 1,300 U.S. hospitals, the analysis revealed that the monthly operating margin index for January was 2.1%, inclusive of all allocations for the cost of shared services received from health systems. Comparatively, that figure was 4.9% for December. (Health Leaders Media)

Read more →

Public-Health Group Launches Data-Sharing Initiative

The Public Health Data Consortium was launched last month by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) with two technology partners, Veritas Data Research and HealthVerity. The consortium is intended to make data both more accessible and more secure. (Associations Now)

Read more →

Beyond Policy Limits

April26TTBQuote

You spend time with clients discussing limits. I’m referring to policy limits, of course, but there are other limits that matter when interacting with HCPs and other healthcare stakeholders. Specifically, decision limits.

Consider the HCP’s job. It’s all about decisions: life-and-death decisions, and others that affect their careers, practices, liability, and finances. It’s a lot.

Decision fatigue weighs on physicians and other HCPs constantly while they’re at work. But you’ll often encounter a different person outside of their normal practice setting, like at an industry meeting. Away from the clinical chaos, they can think strategically rather than merely moment to moment. And they’re usually more open to new ideas.

Once back in the hospital or clinic, everything changes. That same physician is moving from room to room and patient to patient, completing documentation and directing staff. This is where new variables are avoided, such as switching vendors, adjusting policy limits, or reconsidering coverage. What may have sounded sensible outside the practice now feels like additional risk, not because the product is wrong, but because they’ve reached their decision limit.

Outside the Practice

During my days as an orthopedic sales representative, I attended the AAOS (the largest orthopedic meeting of the year) to connect with surgeons in a calmer setting.

One of those surgeons was Dr. Michael, a high-volume total joint surgeon. We had a friendly relationship. He always greeted me enthusiastically and looked at whatever I was selling. The problem was that he never pulled the trigger. He was always too busy.

At one AAOS meeting, I walked him through a sawbones workshop on a total knee (polymer bones that simulate cutting and preparing real bone). He put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Mace, I like what I’ve seen. When we return home, I’m going to switch all my business over to you. Come see me.”

It felt like the biggest win of my career.

Arriving Home

The following week, I called his office to schedule a meeting. His medical assistant said she’d check with him and get back to me. She didn’t. My follow-ups were blocked or ignored. He was back to his old knee system—and his hectic schedule.

My instinct was to corner him in the OR or doctor’s lounge and pretend everything was the same as it had been at the meeting. “I’m here. When are we starting?” But then it occurred to me that adding pressure to an overloaded decision-maker wasn’t smart. Pressure wouldn’t break the stalemate …

Clarity would.

When I saw Dr. Michael walking into the hospital, I smiled and spoke in a relaxed tone.

“Dr. Michael, last time we talked, you were reconsidering your total knee business. I’m trying to determine whether that’s still on the table ... or if I should assume nothing’s changing.”

He paused, looked down at the ground, and said, “Mace, my intentions were sincere, and they still are. I just haven’t had time to think about it. Let me find a patient for my first case with your system. I’ll have my office call you. And I apologize for not getting back to you.”

Selling Within the Limits

Physicians don’t fear change; they fear disruption—to their workflows, their staff, and anything that’s already working (and yes ... making decisions they might regret later).

Effective healthcare conversations don’t try to push limits; they respect them. Inside the hospital or clinic, when pressure is high and attention is fragmented, decisions that aren’t urgent simply get set aside—no matter how reasonable they seemed elsewhere.

Making progress with HCPs comes from understanding and respecting limits, whether they’re defined by a policy or shaped by the moment.

Written by Mace Horoff of Medical Sales Performance.

Mace Horoff is a representative of Sales Pilot. He helps sales teams and individual representatives who sell medical devices, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, healthcare services, and other healthcare-related products to sell more and earn more by employing a specialized healthcare system.

Have a topic you’d like to see covered? Email your suggestions to AskMarketing@ProAssurance.com.

Our 50th Year

From ’76 to 6-7: Turn and Face the Strange – Changes

Fifty years. It’s a milestone that deserves more than a single moment of celebration. It deserves a whole year of reflection, gratitude, and storytelling. Each month, we'll be pulling back the curtain on how we got here: the early days and big dreams, the people who shaped our culture, the pivots and breakthroughs, and the countless moments that made us who we are today. Here’s to 50 years—and to everything still ahead. This month we are reminiscing with employees who joined the company with Mutual Assurance.

Then ➡️ Now
Anita Hamilton
Director, Customer Experience and Engagement
Celebrating 35 years in 2026

Then ➡️ Now
Lisa Mongolf, CISR, CIC
Director, Agency Operations
Celebrating 35 years in 2026

DeAnna Mayfield [not pictured]
Complex Litigation Specialist, Claims Department/Complex Litigation Team
Celebrating 35 years in 2026

Tell us about your favorite ProAssurance memory or a moment you will never forget.

There are so many I could talk about, but I was a part of a small group that did a flash dance during a Christmas party one year, which included Dr. Whiteside [former ProAssurance Chief Medical Officer]. I loved the look on everyone’s faces. It was so much fun. Lots of wonderful memories at ProAssurance. – Anita

It is absolutely impossible to name a favorite memory or moment. I do remember having a wedding shower and my coworkers arranged for my mother to be there and I had no idea. It is the extra things that the people at ProAssurance always did for each other.

I do remember when someone ran over Dr. Crowe’s [former ProAssurance CEO] motorcycle at the front of the building. – DeAnna

In the early days we were small in numbers, and that kind of closeness happened naturally across all departments, not just the ones that you worked with on a daily basis. Everyone knew each other’s stories, celebrated milestones together (marriage, baby) and gave support during hard times (surgery or loss of a loved one) without hesitation with a visit, card, call, meal, or gift.

As the company grew with acquisitions and inevitably became less intimate due to growth of employee count, the foundation of encouragement, understanding, and support still remains strong. – Lisa

What has been the most rewarding part of your time at ProAssurance?

Working with so many wonderful team members, whether learning from them or mentoring them, and being able to assist our insureds and agents have been some of the most rewarding parts of my career. – Anita

Definitely the people—the family created. It has made it so much more enjoyable to work with the ones you love because we all were/are working toward the same goal of representing ProAssurance. I have gained so much in myself and who I am today learning from and working with the many talented and devoted people I have come in contact with during my years here at ProAssurance. – DeAnna

[I enjoy] watching my coworkers and team excel in their careers. I love mentoring and training team members who have moved into other positions at ProAssurance or other companies. I love supporting them 110 percent in their career decisions and know that I was able to provide them their insurance base knowledge with different insurance products. – Lisa

What is one thing that has changed significantly in your position or in the Company since your early days?

Over the course of my career, one of the most significant changes has been in communication. What was once largely personal—conversations with insureds and agents by phone or face-to-face—has become predominantly digital. Email and text now drive most interactions, with fewer opportunities for real-time connection. I miss that personal connection, but I also recognize the efficiencies these changes provide. – Anita

Our computer system. When I started, Mutual Assurance had WANG. We could not look at WordPerfect and our claims system at the same time. Everything in WANG was a code, and we had manuals that contained sheets that deciphered those codes. We had receptionists in every department, and they took handwritten messages because we did not have voicemail. – DeAnna

I started out as agency secretary and now I am the director where I get to mentor and give my knowledge to the team members and watch them excel. When the light bulb turns on and they understand, it is so rewarding. – Lisa

Please share any advice or words of wisdom for new team members starting their journey at ProAssurance.

My advice for new team members: Although it can be challenging in a virtual environment, make an effort to connect with your colleagues both personally and professionally. Actively participate in meetings, and don’t hesitate to speak up or ask questions—there’s no need to feel embarrassed. Depending on your role, you need to adopt a mindset focused on service rather than perfection. – Anita

Build the relationships—respect and learn from your coworkers, have patience, and be kind. (-: It takes a village and be thankful to be a part of that village. – DeAnna

Make sure you enjoy what you do, as life is too short. Some days can be stressful, but maintaining a positive outlook helps you push through challenging times. Overall, I love what I do and working at ProAssurance. Surround yourself with team members who are smarter in various areas; diverse expertise is incredibly valuable and helps drive everyone toward success. Each team member brings unique strengths and is truly an asset. Don’t hesitate to reach out to others and seek mentorship—it can open doors to new perspectives and growth opportunities. – Lisa

One way you might celebrate your 30+ years?

While I’m grateful for a nearly 35-year career at ProAssurance and extremely proud of what I’ve accomplished, I’ve always preferred to keep things simple. For me, the real reward has been the work itself, not the recognition, and I’m perfectly content to let the accomplishment stand on its own. – Anita

Reflect—remember the people and the tasks that got me here today. – DeAnna

November will be 35 years with ProAssurance. I will continue to do my part to help the Agency and the company be successful and watch my team continue to grow their knowledge and confidence. – Lisa

About Mutual Assurance

In the beginning, [ProAssurance] was known as the Mutual Assurance Society of Alabama. The acronym was also “MASA”—in an effort to link it with the strong body of organized medicine in the state. The company was approved by the Insurance Department of the State of Alabama in 1976 and wrote its first policy in 1977, insuring Norton Cowart, a Huntsville physician who would later become Chairman of the Board for a time.

The company’s dedication to strict underwriting, adequate pricing, and passionate defense not only revolutionized the medical/legal climate in Alabama, it set the stage for remarkable financial success that would extend far beyond Alabama.

The company continued to grow and evolve—offering new products and expanding via acquisitions—to become the nationwide insurance carrier serving thousands of healthcare professionals nationwide we know today.

Adapted from The Newcomen Society of Alabama honors ProAssurance and CEO W. Stancil Starnes, presented and published 2017.

Submit Your Pictures of Agent Meetings Past

As part of our 50th year celebration, we are seeking out photos of our past agent events. Whether you attended Leadership Circle, Elite, Leadership Elite, or a variation much further in the past, we would love to share your memories as part of our roundup. The older the better!

Email photos to AskMarketing@ProAssurance.com. If possible, please include the location, year, and attendees present in the photos.

Risk Management Updates

NEW RISK OFFERING:
Resident Rundown Podcast

This podcast series, hosted by Barbara Hunyady, JD, CPHRM, covers the medical malpractice insurance concerns on the minds of residents, fellows, and other early-in-career doctors. These six episodes cover topics such as when and how to get malpractice insurance, how premiums are calculated, what happens when you’re in a lawsuit, how to protect your personal assets, and how to avoid getting sued in the first place.

Episodes are available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and iHeartRadio. You can also browse all of the episodes on the Risk Management website.

TOUCH

March Podcast Episode Beyond Blame: How Aviation Reshaped Patient Safety

March Podcast EpisodeBeyond Blame: How Aviation Reshaped Patient Safety

In this episode, Dr. David Nelson explores the evolution of patient safety, drawing on powerful lessons from aviation disasters that reshaped how high-risk industries approach error and accountability. Events like the Tenerife Airport Disaster and the United Airlines Flight 173 crash revealed how communication breakdowns, hierarchical barriers, and cognitive fixation—not lack of expertise—can lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Listen now

TOUCH

Malpractice Case Study Ob-Gyn Case Study: Failure to Appropriately Manage Post-Partum Hemorrhage Resulting in Maternal Death

Malpractice Case StudyOb-Gyn Case Study: Failure to Appropriately Manage Post-Partum Hemorrhage Resulting in Maternal Death

The deceased maternal patient’s family alleged that the labor and delivery team failed to appropriately manage a post-partum hemorrhage which caused the patient’s death.

Read the issue

TOUCH

February Claims Rx Avoiding Allegations of Sexual Misconduct: Ethical Standards, Legal Consequences, and Best Practices

February Claims RxAvoiding Allegations of Sexual Misconduct: Ethical Standards, Legal Consequences, and Best Practices

Amid rising reports and legal claims, physician sexual misconduct remains a serious challenge. Upholding ethics is essential, and doctors must navigate increasing scrutiny while maintaining trust and compassionate care for patients.

Read the issue