Personal malpractice insurance....yes or no?

Thanks J. Huffman.

If nurses will listen to experienced nurses for medical/nursing advice, why won't nurses listen to people experienced in the legal field?

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

What is that saying... "fool some of the people some of the time..."

I should definitely invest money in insurance companies...evidently fear + misleading info = money.

I think that's the beauty of the internet.

I can look (as I have) on the net, and find that -- statistically speaking -- nurses never get sued. And on the basis of that, I don't feel that 99% of nurses NEED malpractice insurance, even if it were not a lawyer magnet.

But malpractice insurance does attract the lawyers. I don't begrudge attorneys their living, I just think we have too many of them. So I am quite happy to do things -- like not buying malpractice insurance -- that will make sure that attorneys have to find more productive ways to make a living.

Insurance companies make their business from insuring against risk. And the higher the risk, the greater the insurance premium. So, given those 2 factors, why is malpractice insurance such a bargain? (Around $100 a year for most nurses).

The answer, of course, is because there is almost no risk. Statistically speaking, there's about the same amount of risk of your being hit by a meteor. And, statistically speaking, neither event (lawsuit or meteor hit) are going to happen.

Jim Huffman, RN

The very large facility I work for is a not-for-profit - and they actually are self-insured. How does this change the insurance issue? I know (after talking to the house attorney) that the max payout from the hospital is $25,000 (not-for-profit cap of some type). My thought about this would be that an individual with insurance would be even more appealing to a money-hunting attorney if an incident occured in this facility because of the lack of payout available from the institution. Is this a logical way of thinking? Moving forward with this logic, however, I question then if my assetts ($100,000 equity in my home) suddenly becomes more appealing as well when the facility can only produce $25,000. I tend to be of the 'no insurance' camp, but do admit that I am struggling with the possible reality vs. theoretical probability.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by rainbows4me

The very large facility I work for is a not-for-profit - and they actually are self-insured. How does this change the insurance issue? I know (after talking to the house attorney) that the max payout from the hospital is $25,000 (not-for-profit cap of some type). My thought about this would be that an individual with insurance would be even more appealing to a money-hunting attorney if an incident occured in this facility because of the lack of payout available from the institution. Is this a logical way of thinking? Moving forward with this logic, however, I question then if my assetts ($100,000 equity in my home) suddenly becomes more appealing as well when the facility can only produce $25,000. I tend to be of the 'no insurance' camp, but do admit that I am struggling with the possible reality vs. theoretical probability.

Many non-for-profit carry only the law-appointed amount of insurance in order to become less appealing. One of the first questions asked of potential clients is whether the facility was not-for-profit. Some had very definite cases of med/mal/neg, but couldn't find an attorney to take the case.

100,000$ equity in your home is nothing to worry about. It would take an attorney many years to get a judgement, along with thousands of his own money, and then what guarantees the attorney that he would get any judgement or money? There is no guarantee... this is why it just isn't done. Besides, you could go through the 100,000 defending yourself. Attorneys know this. If attorneys ran their firms with "maybe's", they would go bankrupt.

Remember, litigation continues regarding three mile island.

Yes. It's only $26. per year for excellent coverage. Surprisingly, nursing malpractice insurance was available as part of my homeowners' ins policy.

Originally Posted by Hellllllo Nurse

Yes. It's only $26. per year for excellent coverage. Surprisingly, nursing malpractice insurance was available as part of my homeowners' ins policy.

Not surprising. Insurance company is out to make $$$, they will clip on every extra that won't end up costing them anything.

30 years = 3,000 dollars. One case perfectly innocent lawyers fees= 2000+. I plan on getting it as soon as I am no longer a student.

I have carried NSO for 10 years, but just dropped it because it went up to $280.00 year from $87.00 year. My question is this - have any nurses out there been sued and would they tell us their story (in general - no details)?.

Amazing what some people here will write. Attorneys ignoring $100 K in home equity alone, never mind other potential sources of revenue streams. Ridiculous.

No doubt the folks here will use their common sense and protect themselves.

Originally Posted by LarryG

Amazing what some people here will write. Attorneys ignoring $100 K in home equity

No doubt you have very little to no experience in the legal field, or you would know what it costs to sue someone. Ridiculous? No.
Misinformation? Yes.
Other potential sources of revenue? So, an attorney would spend 75 thou or more on a civil action, WHICH he might not win, to obtain what amount of money? are you talking about wages? Ha. A person would just quit working. No law against that.
So many experts with no information.