IN THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE FINDING THAT THE PHYSICIAN SUED BY A PATIENT FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY THE DEFENDANT-INSURER’S POLICY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division in this action for a declaratory judgment, determined the physician, Dr. Kolli, who was sued by a patient, was covered by defendant insurance carrier, Kaleida Health:

We agree with the lower courts that Dr. Kolli is covered pursuant to the unambiguous terms of Kaleida’s self-insurance plan (SIP) and Kaleida’s employment agreement with Dr. Kolli. Kaleida’s SIP expressly stated that physicians employed by Kaleida for the purpose of providing patient care are “covered persons” while “acting on behalf of, or at the direction of” Kaleida. And section 6 (a) of Dr. Kolli’s employment agreement with Kaleida unambiguously provided that he would be covered by Kaleida’s SIP when acting pursuant to the employment agreement, as he was when he treated the patient at a Kaleida facility pursuant to his duties as a Kaleida on-call physician. We agree with the lower courts that Kaleida’s proposed reading of section 6 (b) (ii) of the employment agreement is not reasonable because it would render other provisions of the employment agreement a nullity. Specifically, Kaleida’s proposed interpretation would mean that Dr. Kolli was never covered under the SIP, despite the unambiguous terms to the contrary in section 6 (a) of the employment agreement. Instead, we agree with the Appellate Division that the only reasonable interpretation of section 6 (b) (ii) is that it applied when Dr. Kolli treated his private practice patients at a Kaleida facility, as opposed to patients he treated for the first time while performing his on-call duties for Kaleida. Kolli v Kaleida Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 06167, Ct App 10-22-26