R.W. v. Schrein, 264 Neb. 818

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nebraska, on rehearing, affirmed summary judgment for a medical professional liability insurer in garnishment proceedings arising from sexual abuse claims against a pediatrician. The court held that the alleged abuse did not constitute or arise from covered "professional services" under the insurance policy, adhering to Nebraska's majority-rule approach requiring a causal relationship between the alleged harm and legitimate medical treatment. The court also held that it could not rely on an affidavit whose admission and related objections were unclear from the record.

Holdings

1. When a party fails to insist on a ruling on an objection to evidence, the objection is waived. Because the record did not show that the district court ruled on the objections or received the affidavits into evidence, the appellate court could not rely on the affidavits.
2. Sexual abuse and molestation by a physician are not professional services covered by a medical professional liability policy when the conduct is not legitimate medical treatment and the damages are not caused by a medical act or service.
3. The policy's professional-services provision must be interpreted according to the parties' intent and does not extend to conduct merely because it occurred in a medical office or was committed by a medical professional.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's failure to rule expressly on objections to the Schriner affidavits prevented the appellate court from considering those affidavits.
2. Whether the appellants waived their objections by failing to insist on rulings before submission of the summary-judgment motions.
3. Whether the appellants waived their alternative requests for a continuance under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1335.
4. Whether alleged sexual abuse and molestation by a physician constituted professional services covered by the physician's medical professional liability insurance policy.
5. Whether the policy's professional-services coverage depended on a causal relationship between the alleged harm and a legitimate medical act or service.

Disposition

affirmed