O'Connor v. MAG Mutual Insurance Company

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court held that MAG Mutual's 'limited regulatory defense' provision was triggered by the Board of Registration in Medicine's proceeding against Dr. O'Connor because the operative complaint alleged that he prescribed an addictive medication to a patient when her primary care physician would no longer do so, an allegation reasonably susceptible of interpretation as a 'professional service.' Applying duty-to-defend principles, the court concluded that regulatory defense coverage is assessed before the merits on the allegations of the operative complaint, uncertainties are resolved in favor of the insured, and a single potentially covered allegation triggers the duty as to the entire proceeding, while the criminal-conduct allegations (stalking, trespass, theft) were not professional services. The court vacated the judgment entered for the insurer and remanded for further proceedings.