October 29, 2026 by matray

The American Medical Association has proposed a framework for determining liability when artificial intelligence used in clinical care causes patient harm, calling for responsibility to be allocated among physicians, technology developers and healthcare organizations according to their ability to prevent or mitigate risks.

The framework, announced Oct. 29 by the AMA's Center for Digital Health and AI, addresses concerns that existing medical liability standards were not designed for technologies in which multiple parties exercise varying degrees of control over clinical decisions and patient outcomes.

The AMA warned that physicians could face liability for AI-related risks they cannot reasonably identify or prevent, while patients harmed by the technology could encounter difficulties obtaining legal remedies.

“Patients must have meaningful avenues for recourse when clinical AI causes harm, and physicians must be able to use these technologies with confidence that responsibility reflects what they can reasonably know and control,” said AMA President Willie Underwood III, MD.

The proposed approach would establish distinct but complementary responsibilities for the parties involved in developing, deploying and using clinical AI systems.

Under the framework, developers and manufacturers would be responsible for demonstrating and maintaining the safety and effectiveness of their products, including addressing risks within their control.

Hospitals, health systems and other healthcare organizations would be accountable for selecting, implementing, governing and monitoring AI technologies in clinical settings.

Physicians, meanwhile, would remain responsible for exercising clinical judgment, but their liability would be tied to the degree of oversight they can meaningfully provide, considering an AI system's intended use, known limitations and the information available when making treatment decisions.

The AMA also emphasized that patients must retain meaningful opportunities to pursue remedies when injuries result from defective AI products or other failures for which a party may be held legally responsible.

The framework recognizes that multiple parties could share liability for an AI-related patient injury, rather than placing responsibility exclusively on the treating physician or the technology developer.

A central principle is that requiring physician oversight of AI does not automatically relieve developers or healthcare organizations of their own responsibilities. The AMA said clinical review cannot compensate for inadequate evidence supporting an AI system's safety, deficiencies in its design or circumstances that prevent physicians from exercising meaningful oversight.

“As AI assumes more clinical functions, developers, healthcare organizations and physicians each have important responsibilities,” Underwood said. “We need clear expectations that protect patients, support sound clinical judgment, and ensure accountability remains with those best positioned to prevent harm.”

The proposal reflects growing concern over how traditional medical malpractice and product liability principles should apply as AI technologies become more deeply integrated into patient care.

The AMA's framework outlines recommended principles for assigning responsibility rather than establishing binding legal standards. Its central recommendation is that liability should follow each party's authority over an AI system and its practical ability to identify, prevent or mitigate harm.

October 28, 2026 by matray

Corgi Insurance, a relatively new, venture-backed insurer specializing in AI-driven underwriting, has entered the medical professional liability market with the launch of coverage for physician practices, urgent care centers, dental offices and other healthcare providers.

October 28, 2026 by matray

The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of a medical malpractice lawsuit against a physician assistant, ruling that physicians and physician assistants practice in substantially similar fields under the state's certificate of merit requirements. The court held that an expert's qualifications depend on the field covered by their professional license, rather than their particular area of medical practice. The decision allows a surgeon's certificate of merit affidavit to support a malpractice claim against a physician assistant practicing in primary care.

Case: Davenport v. Fuller, No. 25–1183, 10/16/2026, published.

Facts: In March 2023, Joshua Davenport saw his primary care provider, physician assistant Nathaneal Fuller, twice in three days, complaining of abdominal pain and trouble urinating.

Fuller diagnosed Davenport with urinary retention secondary to a probable enlarged prostate and sent him home with medication.

A few days later, Davenport’s symptoms worsened, and he sought emergency care. Davenport was then diagnosed with acute diverticulitis. He suffered a perforated bowel, feculent peritonitis, and septic shock, requiring him to be hospitalized for several weeks.

Procedural history: Davenport filed a medical malpractice action against Fuller. He timely served Fuller with a certificate of merit affidavit signed by Dr. Cass Franklin.

After Davenport’s deadline to designate additional experts expired, Fuller moved to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to comply with Iowa’s certificate of merit affidavit requirements. Fuller argued that Franklin, as a surgeon, was not qualified to opine on the standard of care for a physician assistant practicing as a family medicine or primary care provider.

A trial judge agreed and granted the motion to dismiss.

Analysis: The Iowa Supreme Court explained that a medical malpractice expert must be “licensed to practice in the same or a substantially similar field as the defendant,” and have “actively practiced in the same or a substantially similar field” for the past five years.

The court said it has interpreted the term “field” as categorically distinguishing one type of healthcare provider from another, and that it has rejected the argument that “field” means a specific practice area.

An expert and defendant are therefore “licensed in and practice in the same field if they hold the same license and practice under the same license,” the court said.

Here, the court noted, the judge found Fuller practiced “mainly as a primary care provider in the practice of family medicine” and Franklin practiced “in the fields of general surgery, vascular access surgery, and transplant surgery” while working as a trauma surgeon in the emergency department.

The court said that “a healthcare provider’s field is coterminous with his license, not a specific area of practice within that license,” and so the judge erred in focusing on Fuller and Franklin’s respective areas of practice within their licenses to conclude they did not practice in the same or substantially similar fields.

While Fuller’s license as a physician assistant is not “the same” as Franklin’s license as a physician, the court said they are licensed and practice in substantially similar fields.

“Fields are substantially similar when they share a high degree of likeness in their core characteristics, although not identical, such that a practitioner licensed in one field would, by virtue of that license alone, possess the foundational knowledge and competence to evaluate and opine on the standard of care applicable to the other field,” the court said.

The court said it has identified seven nonexclusive factors relevant to assessing whether specialties are substantially similar: (1) the formal definitions of the specialties, (2) the certifying board structures, (3) the required education and training, (4) the scope of practice, (5) overlap in core and procedural competencies, (6) professional association overlap, and (7) hospital credentialing patterns.

The court determined “the respective definitions, scopes of practice, certifying board structures, and education and training requirements for physicians and physician assistants demonstrate that the two fields are substantially similar.”

Iowa defines both physician assistants and physicians based on a shared “practice of medicine, the court said. The specific medical services physician assistants can provide also indicates that their scope of practice is substantially similar to physicians, the court said, and there is licensure oversight by the board of medicine and mandatory physician participation on the board of physician assistants.

“The requirement for physician oversight before a physician assistant can practice medicine independently further supports a determination that the fields are substantially similar,” the court added.

In light of these considerations, the court concluded physicians and physician assistants are licensed to practice in substantially similar fields.

Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

To read the court’s decision, click here.

October 28, 2026 by matray

AM Best has upgraded the Financial Strength Rating of The Doctors Company Insurance Group to A+ (Superior) from A (Excellent), citing the medical professional liability insurer's strengthened market position following its acquisition of ProAssurance Corp. in June.

October 27, 2026 by matray

Specialty insurer CFC has expanded its affirmative artificial intelligence coverage to its eHealth and Professions insurance products, introducing policy language intended to clarify how coverage responds when AI contributes to an insured loss.

The company announced Oct. 27 that it has added affirmative AI language to its global eHealth product and U.S. Professions policy, with equivalent endorsements available for professional liability policies in other markets.

The eHealth enhancements address a range of AI-related exposures, including errors, algorithmic bias, AI hallucinations and failures involving technologies such as ambient clinical documentation tools and software supporting clinical trials. CFC said its entire suite of healthcare package products has been updated to include affirmative AI coverage.

The changes are intended to clarify coverage when AI is incorporated into an insured's business operations and contributes to a claim, an increasingly relevant issue as healthcare organizations adopt AI technologies for patient care, administrative functions and clinical research.

"Insurance policies must step up and clarify intent of coverage when it comes to AI related loss," said Ellie Saunders, CFC's head of healthcare and life sciences. "Our eHealth policy does exactly that, affirming our position where AI is used within an insured's business model that contributes to, or causes, loss."

Affirmative AI coverage expressly addresses AI-related exposures in policy language rather than leaving coverage questions to interpretation under existing provisions. The clarification is particularly relevant to healthcare organizations using AI-enabled technologies that may contribute to professional liability claims.

CFC also expanded its Professions product to clarify coverage for AI-related exposures arising from professional services firms' client-facing activities and routine business operations.

Ed Cole, CFC's professional liability, healthcare and life science development leader, said the growing use of AI creates risks alongside its potential benefits.

"Without the right governance, risk management and insurance protection in place, businesses may face significant exposure," Cole said. "By introducing affirmative AI coverage across our Professions policy, we're providing greater clarity around how cover responds to AI-related exposures."

The expansion is part of CFC's broader initiative to introduce affirmative AI coverage across its insurance portfolio. The company said its products now expressly address AI-related risks in media, intellectual property, financial services, cyber, healthcare and professional services.

October 26, 2026 by matray

AM Best has revised its outlook for Coverys Companies to stable from negative, citing improved operating performance, stronger earnings and surplus growth, while affirming the medical professional liability insurer's Financial Strength Rating of A (Excellent).

The rating agency also affirmed the Long-Term Issuer Credit Ratings of “a” (Excellent) for Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Co. and its affiliated companies, collectively known as Coverys, according to an Oct. 23 announcement.

The outlook revision reflects improved operating results in recent years and through the first half of 2026, along with AM Best's expectation that Coverys' future performance will generally align with medical professional liability insurers receiving an adequate operating performance assessment.

Although challenging conditions in the MPL market continue to pressure underwriting results, Coverys has benefited from consistent and growing net investment income, allowing the company to report positive pretax earnings in each of the past three years and through the first six months of 2026. Realized capital gains also have contributed significantly to earnings in recent years.

AM Best said these developments have improved the group's overall operating ratios and measures of profitability.

The rating agency assessed Coverys' balance sheet strength as very strong, its operating performance as adequate, its business profile as neutral and its enterprise risk management as appropriate.

Coverys continues to maintain the highest level of risk-adjusted capitalization, as measured by Best's Capital Adequacy Ratio. Improved operating results also have allowed the company to increase its surplus over the past three years and through the first half of 2026.

However, AM Best noted that persistent adverse development of prior-year loss reserves prompted it to lower Coverys' balance sheet strength assessment from strongest to very strong. The agency said it will continue monitoring the company's loss reserves and related developments.

Coverys ranked as the seventh-largest U.S. MPL insurer based on direct premiums written in 2025, according to AM Best.

The company's management remains focused on improving its core U.S. MPL business while diversifying operations through expansion of its accident and health insurance lines and international MPL presence.

AM Best also cited strengthened leadership across the organization and an established enterprise risk management framework as supporting the group's operations.

The ratings and revised outlooks apply to Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Co., ProSelect Insurance Co., Preferred Professional Insurance Co., Coverys Specialty Insurance Co., Coverys Risk Retention Group Inc., Coverys Limited and Coverys International Insurance Company Designated Activity Company.

October 22, 2026 by matray

Pennsylvania lawmakers have introduced legislation that would prohibit prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest and delay damages from accruing on periodic payments of future damages in medical malpractice cases before those payments become due.

House Bill 2842 would amend Section 509(b)(4) of Pennsylvania’s Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (Mcare) Act, which governs the payment of damages in medical professional liability cases.

Under existing law, interest does not accrue on periodic payments of future damages before the payments become due. The proposed amendment would expand the language to explicitly prohibit prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest and delay damages from accruing before a scheduled payment is due.

The legislation would retain the existing requirement that interest accrue at the legal rate beginning on the due date if a periodic payment is not made on time.

The proposed change could have financial implications for medical professional liability insurers and healthcare defendants by clarifying which additional damages may be assessed against future payments made periodically rather than in a lump sum.

Prejudgment interest generally compensates plaintiffs for the period before a judgment is entered, while postjudgment interest accrues after judgment. Delay damages are intended to compensate plaintiffs for delays in receiving compensation.

By expressly addressing all three categories, the legislation would clarify the treatment of interest and delay damages on scheduled future payments. The bill would not change the underlying damages awarded or eliminate interest on payments that become overdue.

HB 2842 was introduced Oct. 6 by Republican state Rep. Eric Nelson and three co-sponsors, Reps. David Rowe, Brian Verobish and Jamie Wallen. The measure was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 7.

If enacted, the legislation would take effect in 60 days.

October 22, 2026 by matray

The Lloyd's Market Association (LMA) and International Underwriting Association (IUA) have established a joint healthcare claims group to address emerging risks, evolving litigation trends and increasingly complex liability issues affecting healthcare insurers.

The Joint Healthcare Claims Group brings together claims specialists from the Lloyd's insurance marketplace and London's company insurance market to share expertise, identify emerging challenges and develop best practices for handling healthcare-related claims.

The initiative comes as healthcare insurers navigate changing legal and regulatory environments and shifting claims and litigation trends, according to the organizations.

The group will be co-chaired by Xanthe Boyle, chief claims officer at Coverys London, and Georgia Billington, casualty claims manager at Dale Underwriting Partners.

"Healthcare remains a specialised and continually evolving class of business," said Janine Powell, claims director at the LMA. "By creating a single forum for healthcare claims specialists from across the Lloyd's and company markets, we can help ensure the London market continues to provide innovative and effective solutions for clients."

The group's responsibilities include identifying and investigating significant healthcare claims issues, initiating projects to address emerging challenges and developing best practice solutions for the healthcare insurance market. It also will engage with industry stakeholders and provide technical expertise to relevant underwriting committees.

The initiative could provide a forum for examining issues affecting medical professional liability insurers, including complex malpractice litigation, claims severity and evolving liability exposures. However, the organizations have not identified specific research projects or announced whether U.S. medical malpractice litigation will be among the group's priorities.

Joe Shaw, director of claims at the IUA, said the initiative will encourage greater cooperation among insurers operating in London's two principal insurance markets.

"This new group provides an opportunity to bring together expertise from both associations, encourage greater collaboration between claims practitioners and support discussion on the issues most important to the sector," Shaw said.

The LMA represents managing agents operating in the Lloyd's marketplace, while the IUA represents companies providing international and wholesale insurance and reinsurance coverage through the London company market.

The new group is part of the organizations' broader efforts to strengthen technical expertise, encourage cooperation among claims professionals and promote best practices across the London insurance market.

October 22, 2026 by matray

AM Best maintained its negative ratings review for Curi Insurance Group, six months after downgrading the medical professional liability insurer’s ratings because of significant adverse loss reserve development, underwriting losses and declining surplus.

The rating agency announced Oct. 16 that the insurance group’s A- (Excellent) financial strength rating and “a-” (Excellent) long-term issuer credit ratings would remain under review with negative implications.

AM Best originally downgraded Curi’s financial strength rating from A (Excellent) to A- (Excellent) and its long-term issuer credit ratings from “a” (Excellent) to “a-” (Excellent) on April 9, placing both ratings under review with negative implications (see MLM, April 13, 2026).

At the time, AM Best attributed the downgrades to significant adverse loss reserve development that had produced substantial underwriting losses and materially reduced the group’s surplus. The deterioration also contributed to increasing loss reserve metrics, rising underwriting leverage and declining liquidity.

The rating agency said Curi’s risk-adjusted capitalization, as measured by Best’s Capital Adequacy Ratio, had declined to a level that no longer supported its highest balance sheet strength assessment.

AM Best also raised concerns about the group’s internal controls, due diligence and governance, as well as the adequacy of its pricing and underwriting practices and the possibility of additional reserve strengthening.

The agency said Curi was exploring strategies to address its ongoing issues while AM Best evaluated the group’s future capitalization and operational plans.

In its Oct. 16 announcement, AM Best acknowledged some recent improvement in Curi’s overall risk-adjusted capitalization but said the ratings would remain under review with negative implications as it continued gathering information about the group’s operational and capitalization plans through the end of 2026 and into 2027.

Despite its concerns, AM Best continues to assess Curi’s balance sheet strength as strong, its operating performance as adequate, its business profile as neutral and its enterprise risk management as appropriate.

The ratings review applies to five members of Curi Insurance Group: UMIA Insurance Inc., MMIC Insurance Inc., Medical Mutual Insurance Co. of North Carolina, Medical Security Insurance Co. and MMIC Risk Retention Group Inc.

October 22, 2026 by matray

Medical professional liability insurance rates increased an average of just 1.8% in 2026, despite mounting concerns about claim severity, underwriting profitability and other pressures facing the industry, according to the newly published Medical Liability Monitor Annual Rate Survey.

Now in its 36th year, the Annual Rate Survey provides a comprehensive examination of medical malpractice insurance pricing across the United States, comparing premiums by insurer, state, county and medical specialty.

The 1.8% national average increase was slightly below the 1.9% recorded in 2025, continuing a period of relatively modest rate changes even as insurers confront rising liability costs.

Approximately 38% of rates reported to the Survey increased in 2026, compared with 35% in 2025. Another 53% remained unchanged, while 9% decreased.

The findings come as the medical professional liability (MPL) insurance industry continues to face underwriting challenges. The industry's combined ratio deteriorated to 107.4% in 2025, marking its 12th consecutive year of underwriting losses.

At the same time, competition for market share has prompted some insurers to reduce premiums, raising questions about the sustainability of current pricing strategies.

The Survey's Executive Summary, titled "MPL Pricing: Meet the New Rates, Same as the Old Rates," examines the apparent disconnect between rising liability costs and restrained premium increases, exploring what current market conditions may signal for the industry's future.

What the 2026 Annual Rate Survey Covers

• Insurer competition and underwriting profitability
• Medical malpractice claim severity and social inflation
• Reinsurance pricing and market conditions
• The growing influence of artificial intelligence
• Regulatory rate filings and insurer pricing strategies
• Emerging pressures affecting the broader MPL marketplace

How to Purchase the 2026 Annual Rate Survey