D. Eugene Thorne, a psychologist who has served with two controversial youth correction programs, has lost a federal suit in which he attacked his former insurance companies for not renewing his malpractice coverage.
Thorne recently has been a psychologist and attorney for the Challenger Foundation, Provo, which refused to tell the Deseret News on Wednesday whether he is still connected with the organization.In August, he was named as one of the defendants in a $20 million civil rights suit by a New York girl who said she was forced to enroll in Challenger.
Prior to that, Thorne was executive director of clinical programs for Provo Canyon School and owned an interest in the school. He was named as one of the defendants in a civil rights suit filed in 1987 by the parents of Jeff Rusak. The recent court action concerns ramifications from that suit and is not connected with the Challenger program.
Thorne and Consulting Psychological Services filed suit against his former malpractice insurance companies, American Home Assurance Co. and American Professional Agency Inc. (which was general agent for American Home). Between Feb. 1976 and May 1988, American Home, the exclusive carrier for members of the American Psychological Association, to which Thorne belongs, issued Thorne a series of malpractice policies.
In 1986, he let his policy lapse by failing to pay the premium when it was due, wrote U.S. District Judge David Sam.
American Home reinstated the policy "but informed Thorne that it would not renew the policy when it expired in May 1988 . . . American Home also placed Thorne on an `undesirable' list," the judge added.
The new policy was in effect from May 1, 1987, until May 1, 1988, Sam said. On May 2, 1987, Rusak's parents filed their civil rights suit, which involved incidents that happened in 1984 when the young Rusak was at Provo Canyon School.
Sam wrote that Thorne had asked for damages because he was harmed by American Home's refusal to renew the policy. Thorne asserted that his reputation was damaged when the company refused to renew his insurance and also that it prevented him from obtaining coverage from other malpractice carriers.
Sam wrote, "This argument is unsupported because Thorne has not attempted to obtain insurance, and there is no evidence American Home has released the information to another carrier."
The judge granted all motions filed by the insurance companies, dismissing the suit.