The policyholders, who include doctors and medical providers, also argue that if the state takes the $110 million and the fund fails to retain enough reserves to pay claims, their costs would be driven up to cover the claims.
Kevin Fitzgerald, the policyholders' lawyer, argues that the constitution requires the state to pay compensation if it takes property, but that can't happen if the property is money.
"If the state takes $1, it has to pay $1 for it. At the end of the day, it can't take it," Fitzgerald said last week.
The state is arguing that it set up the fund, the Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association, in 1975 to fill a gap in the availability of malpractice insurance and did not give policyholders a vested interest in any surplus.
We've Moved- Please Come See Us
Check out the new home for New Hampshire Watchdog:
Thursday, October 15, 2009
NH Supreme Court hears JUA case
The Concord Monitor runs Norma Love's AP preview of today oral arguments in the JUA case at the New Hampshire Supreme Court.