AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A physician was convicted of multiple counts of criminal sexual assault against a minor patient, which included acts of sexual contact and coercion under the guise of medical treatment. The victim's mother filed a civil lawsuit for damages on behalf of her son. The physician's medical malpractice insurer sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether it was obligated to indemnify the physician under his malpractice insurance policies for liability arising from the sexual assault allegations (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• State v. LaMure, 115 N.M. 61, 846 P.2d 1070 (Ct.App. 1992): The physician's criminal conviction for sexual assault was affirmed (para 1, footnote 1).
• District Court of Chaves County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the physician's malpractice insurance did not cover liability for damages resulting from the sexual assault (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Physician): Argued that the allegations in the civil lawsuit constituted malpractice covered by his insurance policies. He also contended that the Medical Malpractice Act and public policy supported a finding of coverage (para 6).
• Intervenor (Victim's Mother): Asserted that the insurer should indemnify the physician, claiming that the sexual assault constituted malpractice and that public policy required coverage to ensure compensation for victims (paras 6, 18).
• Appellee (Insurer): Argued that the physician's acts did not constitute "rendering professional services" under the policy and were excluded from coverage due to the criminal acts exclusion. The insurer also maintained that public policy supported denying coverage for intentional criminal conduct (paras 7, 19).

Legal Issues

• Whether the physician's sexual assault of a patient constituted "rendering professional services" under the malpractice insurance policies.
• Whether the criminal acts exclusion in the insurance policies precluded coverage for liability arising from the physician's conduct.
• Whether public policy or the Medical Malpractice Act required the insurer to provide coverage for the physician's liability (paras 6-7).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the physician's malpractice insurance did not cover liability for the sexual assault (para 28).

Reasons

Per Frost J. (Ransom C.J. and Montgomery J. concurring):

• The court held that the physician's sexual assault did not constitute "rendering professional services" under the malpractice insurance policies. The assaults, even if initially occurring under the guise of medical treatment, were not acts requiring specialized medical knowledge or skill and thus fell outside the scope of professional services (paras 11-14).
• The criminal acts exclusion in the policies was clear, unambiguous, and enforceable. The exclusion applied because the physician's liability arose from intentional criminal conduct for which he was convicted (paras 17-19).
• The court rejected the argument that public policy or the Medical Malpractice Act required coverage. The Act did not modify the terms of the insurance policies, and public policy supported denying indemnification for intentional criminal acts to prevent shielding individuals from the consequences of their crimes (paras 18-24).
• The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the physician's conduct, as the evidence of his criminal conviction was properly admitted to establish the applicability of the criminal acts exclusion (paras 25-26).