Should I Carry Malpractice (Liability) Insurance? - page 4

by sirI Admin

187,190 Views | 196 Comments

This question comes up frequently and is asked of me quite often, "should I carry malpractice insurance?" many nurses are covered under their own individual liability insurance carrier. Many more are not. i am.......... are you??... Read More


  1. 1
    SirI, I forgot to ask. It's been over a year since I graduated, but not over a year since I was licensed. Will I still qualify for the new grad rate, especially since I will soon be starting my first RN job?
    sirI likes this.
  2. 4
    Quote from WildcatFanRN
    One thing I was told by my last employer about malpractice insurance was that you HAVE to disclose this fact to your employer. IF you are named in a suit against the hospital and the families lawyer finds out you have your own insurance they can then name you directly. I don't know if this was bogus or not, but why would you have to disclose to the hospital that you do carry insurance? So they can cut you loose if something happens? I haven't gotten any yet, but it's on my list to do along with joining my state's nurses's association.
    I've been licensed for almost 25 years, in three different states, with more employers than I can count, and I've never heard this before (and I've never had an employer ask whether I had insurance). Attorneys will name you specifically in a suit if you are directly involved in an incident, regardless of whether or not you have insurance. (I've heard of suits being filed naming "Nurse A," "Nurse B," Nurse C," etc., before the attorneys even know which nurses, specifically, were involved -- they go back and fill in the names later). Your employer will cut you loose if they can find any justification whatsoever for doing so, regardless of whether you have your own insurance or not -- and if that happens and you don't already have your own coverage, you're just out of luck.
    talaxandra, lamazeteacher, VickyRN, and 1 other like this.
  3. 1
    Quote from elkpark
    I've been licensed for almost 25 years, in three different states, with more employers than I can count, and I've never heard this before (and I've never had an employer ask whether I had insurance). Attorneys will name you specifically in a suit if you are directly involved in an incident, regardless of whether or not you have insurance. (I've heard of suits being filed naming "Nurse A," "Nurse B," Nurse C," etc., before the attorneys even know which nurses, specifically, were involved -- they go back and fill in the names later). Your employer will cut you loose if they can find any justification whatsoever for doing so, regardless of whether you have your own insurance or not -- and if that happens and you don't already have your own coverage, you're just out of luck.
    I thought it sounded fishy. No where on any application I've ever filled out is there a section asking whether you have your own liability insurance or not. I wasn't able to afford to get any when I was an LPN and I'm going to darn well make sure I can now.
    sirI likes this.
  4. 2
    Quote from WildcatFanRN
    I thought it sounded fishy. No where on any application I've ever filled out is there a section asking whether you have your own liability insurance or not. I wasn't able to afford to get any when I was an LPN and I'm going to darn well make sure I can now.
    I have liability insurance thru the company siri mentioned and it's $99/yr for the highest coverage they offer. Nobody at work has ever asked me whether or not I have insurance....I just think it's the prudent thing to do!
    lamazeteacher and sirI like this.
  5. 1
    Quote from WildcatFanRN
    SirI, I forgot to ask. It's been over a year since I graduated, but not over a year since I was licensed. Will I still qualify for the new grad rate, especially since I will soon be starting my first RN job?
    Hello, WildcatFanRN,

    With NSO, the discount rates apply to those in their 1st year after graduation, not licensure, so you will not be able to enjoy that benefit.

    . Have you graduated from school within the previous 12 months?
    (fill out this quote to see above #7 question):

    https://www.nso.com/quick-quote/page1.jsf
    Last edit by sirI on May 17, '09
    SuesquatchRN likes this.
  6. 0
    Quote from sirI
    Hello, WildcatFanRN,

    With NSO, the discount rates apply to those in their 1st year after graduation, not licensure, so you will not be able to enjoy that benefit.



    (fill out this quote to see above #7 question):

    https://www.nso.com/quick-quote/page1.jsf
    I can get the discounted rate, IF I somehow get the money for it before May 23rd. It's $50.
  7. 0
    Not sure if this has been covered but it you stay within your Standard of Practice you are OK without an individual policy. Another reason is usually you have much deeper pockets standing in front of you. A malpractice lawyer is more apt to sue the doctor or medical institution where you practice
  8. 0
    Quote from elkpark
    your employer will cut you loose if they can find any justification whatsoever for doing so, regardless of whether you have your own insurance or not -- and if that happens and you don't already have your own coverage, you're just out of luck.
    ok...to clarify this for all of us. do you mean that if we have functioned outside of our scope of practice or we have violated of soc's or the hospitals policies then the nurse can be named and not covered under the hospitals malpractice coverage? does that mean the hospital cant be held legally responsible finicially for any negligent actions of the nurse/md/ etc etc etc? bc....if that is so then alot of the hospitals could not be held legally accountable for the malpractice actions of the nurse . and that isnt right either. i mean....if my child suffered an anoxic brain injury d/t a nurses negligence...or a doctors negligence that violated soc's then that lets the hospital off scot free....or does it? see this is where alot of nurses get confused. bc we always kinda think that all malpractice litigation has no factual premise. but in reality according to all kinds of studies like "to err is human ", and others,....the reality is that there are so many people each day that die d/t a medical or nursing error....and that very very few of those deaths / disabilities result in any type of legal action. i think one study said the number of pt deaths d/t medical and nsg error is the equivilant to a loaded /packed jumbo jet full of people crashing every day or every few days. and that is reality. so alot of healthcare personell are fearful of attaining malpractice insurance for fear that they will not be covered under their facilities malpractice insurance . so....to clarify are you saying if they violated the soc's or p&p's for that facility that the nurse/md is not covered under the facilities umbrella malpractice policy...or does it just potentially give rise to the possibilty they could legally hang the nurse out to dry for their actions?
  9. 7
    Quote from tnnurse

    ok...to clarify this for all of us. do you mean that if we have functioned outside of our scope of practice or we have violated of soc's or the hospitals policies then the nurse can be named and not covered under the hospitals malpractice coverage? does that mean the hospital cant be held legally responsible finicially for any negligent actions of the nurse/md/ etc etc etc? bc....if that is so then alot of the hospitals could not be held legally accountable for the malpractice actions of the nurse . and that isnt right either. i mean....if my child suffered an anoxic brain injury d/t a nurses negligence...or a doctors negligence that violated soc's then that lets the hospital off scot free....or does it? see this is where alot of nurses get confused. bc we always kinda think that all malpractice litigation has no factual premise. but in reality according to all kinds of studies like "to err is human ", and others,....the reality is that there are so many people each day that die d/t a medical or nursing error....and that very very few of those deaths / disabilities result in any type of legal action. i think one study said the number of pt deaths d/t medical and nsg error is the equivilant to a loaded /packed jumbo jet full of people crashing every day or every few days. and that is reality. so alot of healthcare personell are fearful of attaining malpractice insurance for fear that they will not be covered under their facilities malpractice insurance . so....to clarify are you saying if they violated the soc's or p&p's for that facility that the nurse/md is not covered under the facilities umbrella malpractice policy...or does it just potentially give rise to the possibilty they could legally hang the nurse out to dry for their actions?
    as soon as any incident occcurs that might end up being a lawsuit, the hospital's attorneys start looking for ways to reduce the hospital's liability (i'm not saying this means they're evil, or anything -- that's their job), and one of the ways they can argue in court that the hospital is less responsible is if they can identify someone else and blame that person/persons. i have seen this happen many times, myself, in real life (i've seen it happen to other people, that is). the hospital doesn't have to cover you under their insurance if they are making the argument that you acted improperly and that's the cause of the incident/negative outcome, and they will look very hard for any reason to say that this is someone else's fault.. how sure are you that you always, 100%, follow every detail of your hospital's policy, exactly the way it's written in the manual, for every procedure you do??? can you prove it, if the hospital chooses to claim that you didn't??

    and, keep in mind that, if you choose to take your chances with the hospital (relying on their liability coverage), the lawyers advising you on what to do and how to testify in court will be the same lawyers who are looking to protect the hospital ... do you really trust that they are also looking out for your best interests??

    it's not that the hospitals "get off scot free," it's that they will argue in court that they're not completely responsible, and the problem is mostly someone else's responsibility. obviously, if the hospital has decided to blame you and argue in court that the incident was your fault, their attorneys cannot then turn around and defend you, so the hospital will cut you loose. and, as we've said earlier, if that happens, it's too late for you to get your own coverage, and you will have to pay for any necessary legal representation out of your own pocket.

    to me, what it boils down to is, are you prepared to stake your entire future career (and future economic status) on your employer protecting your interests? i know that i'm not. again, i don't mean to imply that means they're evil or anything -- it's just simple reality that, if something bad happens, the hospital/facility management and attorneys will do whatever they need to do to protect the facility, and, if that means throwing you under the bus, rest assured they won't hesitate to throw you under the bus.
    talaxandra, Ginger80, Eishouse, and 4 others like this.
  10. 0
    Hmmm...this is actually very eye opening. I mean that is usually the whole premise of litigation. That the nurse/ MD etc violated a standard of care or the hospitals policy thus the injury occurred. I cant help but wonder HOW successful the hospitals are at arguing this?BC ...at the end of the day is the hospital hadnt employed that nurse/MD then the pt wouldnt have been exposed to the injury in the first place. So...out of curiousity.....how successful has this legal tactic been?


Top