Great Amer. E&S Ins. Co. v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-01063-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01063-COA ; 2009-CA-01063-COA ; 2009-CT-01063-SCT ; 2009-CT-01063-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-18-2012 Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J. Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part; Circuit court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-31-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Legal malpractice - Excess insurance carriers - Attorney-client relationship - Reasonably foreseeable third parties - Negligence - Negligent misrepresentation - Equitable subrogation Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., and Lamar, J. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Randolph, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - LEGAL MALPRACTICE Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-29-2009 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: GRANTED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Case Number: 06-0231-CI |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applies, and the excess carrier may, to the extent of its losses, pursue a claim against the lawyers to the same extent as the insured, and if further held that the excess carrier failed to allege a sufficient factual basis for a direct claim of professional negligence against the law firm. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO74068.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Great American E&S Insurance Company |
CHRISTOPHER THOMAS GRAHAM
MICHAEL A. HEILMAN
JOHN WILLIAM NISBETT |
|
|
| Appellee: | Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. | DAVID A. BARFIELD STEVEN LLOYD LACEY RICHARD D. GAMBLIN | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Legal malpractice - Excess insurance carriers - Attorney-client relationship - Reasonably foreseeable third parties - Negligence - Negligent misrepresentation - Equitable subrogation |
| Summary of the Facts: | The estate of Huldah Chase sued Shady Lawn Nursing Home and Vicksburg Convalescent Home, alleging that the home had provided Chase with negligent and inadequate health care. Shady Lawn’s primary insurance carrier, Royal Indemnity Company, hired counsel to defend the suit. Shady Lawn also had umbrella coverage through Great American E & S Insurance Services, Inc., the excess carrier, for claims that exceeded $1,000,000. Great American was not contractually obligated to defend Shady Lawn until the primary policy’s $1,000,000 limits had been exhausted, but it requested evaluations and assessments of the claim from defense counsel. Defense counsel provided Great American with status reports, including an evaluation and opinion that the case’s settlement value was between $150,000 and $400,000. The reports also stated that counsel would need to designate experts and that a physician expert had been contacted, but not yet retained. In November 2003, Royal reassigned the lawsuit to Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer P.A. The deadline for designating experts was December 15, 2003. The plaintiff timely designated two expert witnesses, but Quintairos failed to designate experts before the deadline. In January 2004, Quintairos sent Royal a status report noting it had not yet retained experts. In February 2004, Quintairos attempted to designate a physician as an expert witness, but the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the witness which the trial court granted. Because Shady Lawn was left with no expert witness, Quintairos provided an “updated lawsuit evaluation,” increasing the settlement value of the case from $500,000 to between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000. Because of the increase in settlement value, this “updated lawsuit evaluation” was Great American’s first notice that its excess coverage was in play. Great American then retained its own counsel to protect its interests and the interests of its insureds. Royal immediately tendered its policy limits, leaving Great American responsible for the case, and for any excess verdict at trial. After Great American paid an undisclosed sum to settle the case, it filed suit against the Quintairos firm for legal malpractice, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent supervision. Great American also claimed it was entitled to recover under a theory of equitable subrogation. Quintairos filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Great American properly had alleged claims for negligence and equitable subrogation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Great American clearly pleaded a sufficient factual basis to establish that Quintairos was negligent and committed legal malpractice. When lawyers breach the duty they owe to their clients, excess insurance carriers who pay the damage on behalf of the clients, may pursue the same claim the client could have pursued. In pleading legal malpractice, a plaintiff must provide sufficient facts to establish an attorney-client relationship; the attorney’s negligence in handling the client’s affairs; and proximate cause of the injury. Although the Court of Appeals held that Great American sufficiently pleaded an attorney-client relationship, Great American’s amended complaint says nothing about its relationship with Quintairos. Great American relies on the case-status reports sent to it by Quintairos. However, without more, the case status reports are insufficient to establish an attorney-client relationship. Great American also argues that an attorney is liable to all reasonably foreseeable third parties who rely on the attorney’s work. However, that is only true in claims involving “title work,” because lawyers who perform title work are fully aware that their work will be relied upon by subsequent purchasers and lienors of property. That is not the case in the liability-insurance carrier context. Thus, the trial court’s dismissal of any direct legal-malpractice claim against Quintairos is affirmed. Great American’s claims for ordinary negligence, gross negligence, and negligent supervision all allege that Quintairos breached its duty in providing legal services to Shady Lawn. A plaintiff must allege something other than professional negligence to establish an ordinary negligence claim. In this case, Great American has alleged nothing more than professional negligence. Great American also alleged in its complaint that Quintairos misrepresented the value of the cases. To establish negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation or omission of fact; that the representation or omission is material or significant; that the person/entity charged with the negligence failed to exercise that degree of diligence and expertise the public is entitled to expect of such persons/entities; that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon the misrepresentation or omission; and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of such reasonable reliance. Here, Quintairos’s case valuations provided opinions. Great American has alleged no facts in its complaint that suggest that the opinions expressed by Quintairos were misrepresented. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
