Great American E&S Ins. Co. v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01063-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01063-COA2009-CT-01063-SCT2009-CT-01063-SCT2009-CT-01063-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-18-2011 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Legal malpractice - Attorney-client relationship - Excess insurer - Equitable subrogation Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Irving, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Barnes, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - LEGAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| 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 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Great American E&S Insurance Company |
MICHAEL A. HEILMAN, CHRISTOPHER THOMAS GRAHAM, JOHN WILLIAM NISBETT |
||
| Appellee: | Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. | DAVID A. BARFIELD, STEVEN LLOYD LACEY |
|
|
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 - Attorney-client relationship - Excess insurer - Equitable subrogation |
| Summary of the Facts: | A series of complaints involving nursing-home liability were filed against Shady Lawn Nursing Home and Vicksburg Convalescent Home. The law firm of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. was hired to defend Shady Lawn. Quintairos was hired by Royal Indemnity Company, Shady Lawn’s insurer. Shady Lawn also held a separate excess-coverage policy with Great American E&S Insurance Company, which provided insurance coverage for losses that exceeded the limits of the policy held by Royal. The lawsuits against Shady Lawn resulted in a settlement. The settlement exceeded the policy limits of the Royal insurance policy. Thus, the excess policy held through Great American was implicated. Great American filed a complaint against Royal and Quintairos asserting that their respective actions in mishandling the defense of Shady Lawn resulted in an unnecessarily large settlement against Shady Lawn. Great American asserted causes of action against Quintairos for legal malpractice, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent supervision. In the alternative, Great American sought recovery under the theory of equitable subrogation. Quintairos responded with a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and Great American appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue in this case is whether an excess-insurance carrier can pursue a legal-malpractice claim against an attorney retained by the primary-insurance carrier to represent the insured. In the alternative, if a direct action is not allowed, can the excess-insurance carrier recover through equitable subrogation? This issue has not yet been decided in Mississippi. The elements of a legal-malpractice claim are: an attorney-client relationship, negligence on the part of the lawyer in handling his client’s affairs entrusted to him, and proximate cause of the injury. It is undisputed that Quintairos and Great American did not have an attorney-client relationship. Great American argues that it has standing to pursue a direct claim of negligence despite the absence of an attorney-client relationship because it had detrimentally relied on representations made by Quintairos. No Mississippi case law exists abolishing the requirement of an attorney-client relationship in regard to an excess insurer; therefore, the Court does not have authority to sanction a direct action for legal malpractice. However, Great American can recover through equitable subrogation. Subrogation would permit Great American to enforce the existing duties of defense counsel to the insured and recover damages if negligence is found. It is logical that an excess-insurance carrier should be allowed to pursue a claim in the insured’s place. Shady Lawn had no incentive to pursue a legal-malpractice claim against Quintairos even if it believed Quintairos to be negligent because it had insurance in place to pay the settlement. Also, Royal had no incentive to pursue a claim if it believed the settlement value to be at or near the policy limits of the primary coverage regardless of the alleged malpractice. A fact question exists as to Quintairos’s negligence. Therefore, the judgment dismissing Great American’s claim against Quintairos is reversed, and this case is remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
