Marx v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company
1968 Neb. LEXIS 484, 157 N.W.2d 870, 183 Neb. 12 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Malpractice insurance policies covering injury 'arising out of professional services' are limited to acts that exact the use of special learning or intellectual attainments, rather than routine or manual tasks performed in a professional setting.
Facts:
- Louis E. Marx and Paul E. Marx (the plaintiffs) were insured under a malpractice policy issued by Hartford.
- An employee technician of the plaintiffs was refilling a hot water sterilizer in the dental office.
- The employee mistakenly poured benzine instead of water into the sterilization container.
- The benzine fumes exploded, causing a fire and extensive damage to the plaintiffs' offices.
- No patient was present or being treated at the time of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis E. Marx and Paul E. Marx (plaintiffs) initiated a declaratory judgment action against Hartford (their malpractice insurer) in a district court (trial court).
- The district court entered judgment for Louis E. Marx and Paul E. Marx against Hartford, finding Hartford liable for fire damage and ordering Hartford to assume the defense of a landlord's action for damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does fire damage caused by a dental technician mistakenly pouring benzine instead of water into a sterilizer arise out of the rendering or failure to render professional services within the terms of a malpractice insurance policy?
Opinions:
Majority - White, C. J.
No, the fire damage did not arise out of the rendering or failure to render professional services. The court held that the term 'professional services' in an insurance policy implies intellectual skill and specialized knowledge or attainments, distinguishing it from mere proficiency or physical tasks. An act is considered 'professional' if it requires the use or application of special learning or skills that are predominantly mental or intellectual. The act of boiling water for sterilization was deemed a routine equipment cleaning task that did not require professional knowledge or training, and was not part of any patient's treatment. Therefore, the negligent act did not constitute 'rendering or failing to render professional services,' and Hartford was not liable under the policy. The court also noted that an insurer's obligation to defend is no broader than the insuring agreement itself.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of 'professional services' within malpractice insurance, distinguishing between core professional activities requiring specialized intellectual skill and routine tasks performed within a professional environment. It emphasizes that the nature of the act itself, not the professional title of the person performing it or the setting in which it occurs, dictates whether it falls under 'professional services.' This precedent could lead to challenges in other professional fields where administrative or routine support tasks, if negligently performed, cause damage but are not directly linked to the application of specialized professional judgment.
