Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01391/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01391-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Physicians National Risk Retention Group, Inc.
Appellee
Richard A. Price
Appellant

Document Text:

TENTH CIRCUIT 

PHYSICIANS NATIONAL RISK RETENTION 

GROUP, INC., a Louisiana corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RICHARD A. PRICE, M.D.; RICHARD A. 

PRICE, M.D., P.C. , 

Defendant-Counter-ClaimantsAppellants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JULO 71992 

ROBERT L. HOEC¥...ER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1391 

( D. C. No. 91-S-794) 

(Dist. of Colo.) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9 . The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Richard A. Price, M.D. (Dr. Price) and Richard A. Price, 

M.D., P.C., hereinafter collectively referred to as appellants, 

appeal from an order of the district granting summary judgment in 

favor of Physici ans National Risk Prevention Group, Inc . 

(Physicians National) . At all times relevant hereto, Dr. Price 

* This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1391 Document: 010110259087 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 1
was a physician licensed to practice medicine in Colorado and an 

insured under a professional liability insurance policy issued by 

Physicians National. The relevant, undisputed facts may be 

briefly summarized. 

Dr. Price conducted two post-operative gynecological exams on 

one Melody Martinez on April 16 and May 10, 1990. Martinez 

subsequently sued appellants alleging that Dr. Price's actions 

constituted rape by deception or crass malpractice under which a 

reasonable woman in the same or similar circumstances would have 

believed that she had been raped by her physician. Specifically, 

Martinez alleged eight causes of action, including malpractice, 

breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, deceit based upon 

fraud, negligent misrepresentation, extreme and outrageous 

conduct, wanton and reckless negligence, and assault and battery. 

Subsequent to the filing of Martinez's complaint, Physicians 

National agreed to defend Dr . Price, subject to a judicial 

determination of its duties to him under the terms of its policy. 

Physicians National then filed this action requesting an 

adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties under 

the policy. Appellants counterclaimed, alleging that Physicians 

National had breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. 

Physicians National moved for summary judgment, alleging 

that: it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify appellants; 

its policy covered damages only for injuries resulting from the 

rendering of or failure to render professional services by the 

insured; its policy specifically excluded coverage for any claim 

asserting sexual misconduct, physical abuse, or molestation by an 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1391 Document: 010110259087 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 2
insured. Appellants filed a cross motion for summary judgment 

alleging that Physicians National had a duty to defend and that 

the issue of indemnification was not ripe for adjudication. 

The district court granted Physicians National's motion for 

summary judgment and denied appellants' cross motion for summary 

judgment. In so doing, the district court found that coverage was 

not present under Physicians National's policy because there were 

no allegations in the complaint against Dr. Price which, assuming 

they were proved at trial, would give rise to coverage for 

professional services authorized by the licensing laws and 

regulations applicable to the medical profession. The court also 

found, after assuming for purposes of discussion that coverage was 

present, that it would nevertheless be excluded under VII of the 

policy which denies coverage for any claims asserting sexual 

misconduct, physical abuse, or molestation by an insured. 

On appeal, appellants contend that (1) disputed issues of 

material fact preclude granting summary judgment in favor of 

Physicians National, (2) Physicians National was under a duty to 

defend and indemnify appellants; and (3) summary judgment was 

inappropriate prior to a disposition of Martinez's claims in state 

court. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the 

same standard as the district court. Devery Implement Co. v. J.I. 

Case Company, 944 F.2d 724, 726 (10th Cir. 1991). In Devery 

Implement Co., we held: 

Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine 

issue to any material fact and ... the moving party is 

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1391 Document: 010110259087 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 3
Civ. P. 56(c). If the nonmoving party bears the burden 

at trial, the moving party need only point to those 

portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of 

a genuine issue of material fact as to the nonmovant's 

case. Celotex Corp. v . Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323, 

106 S. Ct. 2548. 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The 

nonmoving party must then "set forth specific facts 

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." 

Anderson v . Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 

S . Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L .Ed.2d 202 (1986). If the 

nonmoving party fails in this endeavor, and the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law given 

the operative facts, summary judgment will lie. Id. at 

256-57, 106 S. Ct. at 2514-15. See also Matsushita 

Elec. Indust. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 

106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). 

944 F.2d at 726-27. 

Applying these standards to the facts herein, we hold that 

the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in 

favor of Physicians National . 

Physicians National's professional liability insurance 

policy issued to Dr. Price provided coverage against damages for 

injuries "resulting from the rendering of or failure to render 

professional services by the Insured. " (Appendix at p . 9) . Here, 

Martinez ' s complaint was not predicated on the "rendering of or 

failure to render professional services." Rather the complaint 

was, as found by the district court, "without question and without 

any genuine issue of fact, that the allegations are that the 

doctor has, to put it in the terms of the complaint, [engaged in] 

procedures [which] constituted rape by deception, and that the 

doctor engaged in activities which constituted assault, battery 

and sexual assault." (Appendix at p. 110) . Moreover, assuming 

arguendo, that coverage was otherwise present, VII of the policy 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1391 Document: 010110259087 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 4
specifically excludes coverage for claims asserting sexual 

misconduct, physical abuse, or molestation by an insured. 

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the 

partial transcript of the district court proceedings of October 

4, 1991. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue f orthiwth. 

-5-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 91-1391 Document: 010110259087 Date Filed: 07/07/1992 Page: 5