Some pharmacists have chosen not to fill contraceptive andabortion pill prescriptions based on their religious beliefs. Wouldthis open the individual pharmacist and/or his pharmacy business toa lawsuit, with a resulting liability claim being made against theliability insurance policy?

Setting aside the point that some state laws may protect thisindividual choice by proscribing lawsuits in this area, and that adruggist's professional liability policy may exclude coverage forsuch claims, how would a general liability policy address such aliability claim?

The commercial general liability coverage form promises to pay,“those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to paybecause of bodily injury or property damage to which this insuranceapplies.” So if a claim is made that a woman has suffered injurydue to the refusal of the pharmacist to fill a legal prescription,the CGL form will apply, right?

Not so fast. There are other factors to consider.

First, the claimant has to suffer bodily injury. Having theinsured pharmacist decline to fill a prescription most probably isnot going to be considered bodily injury as defined in the CGLform.

Furthermore, the CGL form states that an employee is not insuredfor bodily injury arising out of his providing or failing toprovide professional health-care services. This means the employeeis not going to have coverage, but if the requirements of theinsuring agreement are met, what about the named insuredemployer/pharmacy?

There are no exclusions in the CGL form that would preventcoverage for the named insured pharmacy, though one might point tothe expected or intended injury exclusion. (Applying that exclusionhas proven very problematic for insurers.)

ReadMore FC&S Blog Posts at the CoverageCafe!

Realistically, however, if the named insured pharmacy has a CGLform for its liability coverage, most insurers would attach anendorsement to the form pertaining to a professional health-careexposure.

For example, the ISO endorsement CG 22 36 outright excludesbodily injury arising out of the rendering or failure to renderprofessional services as a pharmacist. On the other hand, CG 22 69provides liability coverage for bodily injury arising out of therendering of or failure to render such professional services,except for some stated exclusions. Some insurers may have their ownmanuscripted endorsements to address the professional health-careservice exposure of the insured.

I am not aware of any lawsuits that have been filed over thismatter, but it might be interesting to know of any that exist andif any certain outcomes have resulted. If anyone knows of anylawsuits in this area, please share the information in the commentssection below.