.

Legal Updates for Insurance Services

Insurers’ Actions as Legal Adversary Cannot Be the Basis for Bad Faith Claims

Legal Update for Insurance Services – April 25, 2023

April 25, 2023

by Christopher W. Woodward

In Gordon v. LM General Insurance Company, 2:23-cv-00479-MAK, 2023 WL 2975869 (E.D. Pa. April 17, 2023), the plaintiffs had originally filed a lawsuit against LM General Insurance Company, asserting a cause of action for breach of contract arising from their claim for underinsured motorist benefits and a cause of action for statutory bad faith. LM General filed a motion to dismiss the bad faith count, alleging that the Gordons had not pled sufficient facts to support their bad faith cause of action and, thus, had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Eastern District Court agreed and dismissed the Gordons’ bad faith count while granting them leave to file an amended complaint and attempt to reassert a bad faith claim with sufficient facts. The Gordons chose not to file that amended complaint, and the litigation proceeded as to the breach of contract/UIM claim only. A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict significantly above not only the offers extended by LM General, but above UIM policy limits as well.

The Gordons filed another lawsuit against LM General, purporting to reassert their bad faith claim in light of the jury verdict on the underlying litigation. LM General filed a motion to dismiss which the Eastern District Court granted, with prejudice. The court granted the motion on two bases. First, res judicata barred the Gordons from reasserting the bad faith count, as the dismissal without prejudice of their bad faith claim in the underlying litigation became a final order when they opted not to amend their complaint within the timeframe given to them by the court. The court further determined that, even if res judicata did not bar the bad faith litigation, the Gordons continued to allege only boilerplate legal conclusions without factual averments of bad faith on the part of LM General. The court also noted that the Gordons asserted that LM General acted in bad faith during its litigation of the underlying claim for breach of contract/UIM benefits. The court reiterated that an insurer’s actions as a legal adversary cannot be the basis for bad faith claims. Rather, the proper redress for an insurer’s actions as a legal adversary are found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 

Legal Update for Insurance Services, April 25, 2023, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. 
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Delaware Superior Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Legal Malpractice Claims

In the matter of Edelstein v. Kirschner, No. N25C-09-018 FJJ, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 45, at *1 (Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026), the plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $4,399.35. The former client asserted a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. More, specifically, the former client claimed that his lawyer committed malpractice be recommending that he settle an underlying lawsuit by entering into a stipulated judgment for an excessive amount with interest that was accruing at “an outlandish” interest rate. The law firm moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that its former client had not alleged facts reflecting that he could prove the case within the case. That is, facts reflecting that his attorneys caused him to lose the underlying case. The Superior Court held that while a legal malpractice plaintiff in cases arising from underlying litigation must prove the case within the case to survive a summary judgment motion, he does not need to plead facts reflecting as much in order to survive a motion to dismiss. While this case addresses the pleading requirements of a legal malpractice case in Delaware, it also serves as reminder that chasing unpaid legal fees from a former client can often give rise to a legal malpractice counterclaim. Attorneys seeking to collect unpaid legal fees should ensure that the fees they seek are for a significant amount, which would be recoverable if a judgment is obtained. Otherwise, the effort could backfire.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.