July 10, 2024
An insurer can't escape a suit brought by a urologist and his practice seeking coverage for a proposed class action over a penile enlargement implant and procedure, a California federal court ruled Wednesday, saying it's too early to conclude that the underlying action doesn't assert potentially covered claims.
June 18, 2024
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 company told a California federal court, saying the underlying suit doesn't seek bodily injury damages that would trigger coverage.
March 11, 2024
A urologist's medical device company told a California federal court that two insurers must cover it, the doctor and his practice in an underlying class action alleging that a silicone implant invented for penile enlargement, and the procedure that went with it, left patients with permanent damage.