Insurer Countersues In Penile Implant Coverage Dispute

By Hope Patti · June 18, 2024, 7:16 PM EDT

An insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify a urologist, his medical device company or his practice in a proposed class action over a penile enlargement implant and procedure, the...

To view the full article, register now.

Try a seven day FREE Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Documents

Case Information

Case Title

International Medical Devices, Inc. et al v. James River Insurance Company et al

Case Number

Court

California Central

Nature of Suit

Insurance

Date Filed

March 08, 2024

Recent Articles By Hope

October 28, 2024
HHS Says In-Home Evals Raised Insurers' Medicare Payments
October 17, 2024
Health Co. Must Face State Farm Settlement Interpretation Suit
September 18, 2024
No Excess Coverage For Atos' Trade Secrets Suit, Judge Says
July 30, 2024
PBMs Urge Justices To Reject Review Of Okla. Law Dispute
July 10, 2024
Insurer Must Face Claims In Penile Implant Coverage Suit
June 04, 2024
NM Cannabis Co. Says Insurers Can't Toss Medical Weed Row
March 01, 2024
Auto Coverage Hinges On Victim's Domicile, Mich. Panel Says
February 20, 2024
Eateries' Virus Losses Not Covered, Insurer Tells NC Justices
December 01, 2023
Insurer Gets COVID-19 Test Reimbursement Suit Tossed
November 17, 2023
Rehab's Abuse Suit Coverage Capped At $1M, Insurer Says