Quantcast

Lackawanna County reiterates claims brought against prison medical care providers in insurance dispute

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Lackawanna County reiterates claims brought against prison medical care providers in insurance dispute

State Court
Johnlsiejk

Siejk | The Siejk Law Firm

SCRANTON – Lackawanna County has re-emphasized that one of its medical care providers allegedly refused to order and bind “tail insurance” coverage, relating to health care it provides to incarcerated individuals at Lackawanna County Prison.

Lackawanna County first filed suit in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 14 versus Correctional Care, Inc. and its President and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Edward J. Zaloga, both of Moosic.

In 2009, the parties entered into and executed a Health Services Agreement where the defendants would provide such services to inmates, detainees and prisoners at the Lackawanna County Prison.

A number of addendum agreements were approved over the following nine years to resolve certain obligations to “tail insurance” coverage, but Lackawanna County timely notified the defendants that it did not intend to extend the agreement after its expiration at 12 a.m. on Jan. 15, 2021 – however, in accordance with the agreement, will pay all costs associated with securing the coverage on behalf of CCI for three years from the expiration date of the agreement.

“Plaintiff is legally precluded from procuring and binding the ‘tail insurance’ coverage on behalf of defendant CCI, as only the First Named Insured listed in the existing malpractice policy declarations is capable of accomplishing this under the policy,” the suit stated.

“The defendants have refused to order and bind ‘tail insurance’ coverage as per the agreement and subsequent addendums thereto and despite the plaintiff’s repeated demands.”

Lackawanna County advised RSUI Group, Inc., its insurance carrier, advising them of the expiration of the agreement and that it stood ready to pay the entire premium for the ‘tail insurance’ coverage upon the defendants’ ordering and binding of the same.

“At all times relevant hereto, plaintiff has performed all of its obligations under the agreement and stands ready, willing and able to purchase said ‘tail insurance’ coverage on behalf of the defendants upon the event that the defendants perform their obligation to order and bind the same,” per the suit.

“To date however, the defendants have failed and/or refused to order and bind said ‘tail insurance’ despite repeated attempts by plaintiff to compel the same.”

The defendants filed preliminary objections on Feb. 17, first challenging the sufficiency of Count II of the complaint, simply titled “Damages”.

“Damages’ is not itself a separate, distinct and viable cause of action. This Count II contains but one paragraph and fails to state any claims for relief of which the defendants are aware,” the objections read.

The objections also took issue with Zaloga being a named defendant in the case, since he “never executed the agreement, nor any addenda or amendment thereto, in his personal and individual capacity.”

“Dr. Zaloga is a shareholder and officer of CCI, but he is not a party to the agreement with the County,” the objections stated.

UPDATE

Counsel for the plaintiff responded to the defendants’ preliminary objections on Feb. 24, denying them as conclusions of law to which no response was necessary and demanding strict proof of their veracity at trial.

“The averments contained in…defendants’ preliminary objections constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. Accordingly, said averment is denied, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(d). By way of further response, Dr. Zaloga is a proper party to this action,” the reply stated, in part.

For counts of specific performance and damages, the plaintiff is seeking judgment against Zaloga, ordering Zaloga to specifically perform the agreement by procuring and binding ‘tail insurance’ coverage for 36 months, costs of suit and such other relief as the Honorable Court deems equitable and just.

The plaintiff is represented by Lackawanna County Solicitor Frank J. Ruggiero, in Scranton.

The defendants are represented by John L. Siejk of The Siejk Law Farm, in Moosic.

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas case 2021-CV-00147

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News