.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability - RESULTS & THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – August 2023

August 1, 2023

RESULTS*

Aaron Moore (Philadelphia, PA & Wilmington, DE) obtained a unanimous jury verdict in favor of our clients, a lawyer and his law firm in a legal malpractice case arising out of the lawyer’s drafting of a postnuptial agreement. The postnuptial agreement was invalidated by a family court judge, causing the husband to lose approximately $1.2 million as part of a subsequent property separation agreement. The jury considered testimony from the plaintiff’s ex-wife which reflected that she had signed the agreement under duress, and concluded that the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the postnuptial agreement was invalidated as a result of anything the lawyer did.

Aaron Moore (Philadelphia, PA & Wilmington, DE) and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) obtained a unanimous defense jury verdict in Philadelphia on a legal malpractice claim. The plaintiffs had hired our attorney client to represent them in a property damage case against contractors and an insurance company after, as they claimed, the roof of their property was left open and water damage was sustained. The plaintiffs argued that their attorney failed to faithfully represent them and caused them to lose their claims against the contractors. After a week-long trial, we successfully proved that our attorney client did not cause the plaintiffs to lose the underlying claims, and we obtained a unanimous defense verdict in favor of the attorney defendant and his law firm.

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) obtained summary judgment on an alleged fraud case arising out of the sale of an oil and gas lease. The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations. 

Michele Frisbie (King of Prussia, PA) obtained a transfer and dismissal, with prejudice, on a motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice action. Michele argued that the plaintiff’s claim that her daughter’s court-appointed guardian ad litem’s negligence led to the award of custody to the father following a dependency hearing. The custody award, the plaintiff alleged, put her at a disadvantage in the divorce and damaged her and the child. First, Michele successfully argued for the transfer of the matter from the county of the mother’s residence to the county of the dependency hearing. She then successfully argued that the plaintiff had no right to bring a cause of action for herself or the child.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) successfully handled the following matters:

  • Finding for defendants in an arbitration involving a wrongful use of civil proceedings claim arising out of an underlying wrongful use of civil proceedings claim, which, in turn, arose out of an alleged copyright violation.
  • Received dismissal of a disciplinary complaint in a matter involving alleged conflicts of interest and an alleged failure by an attorney to explain the relationship between two attorneys in the matter.
  • Representing a prominent Philadelphia criminal defense firm in a legal malpractice action, Josh had preliminary objections sustained and the legal malpractice complaint dismissed with prejudice in Lehigh County. The court sustained Josh’s preliminary objections on the basis that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by the gist of the action doctrine and the statute of limitations had expired on any potential negligence claim.
  • The Superior Court affirmed an order of the trial court sustaining preliminary objections. Josh successfully argued that the wrongful use of civil proceedings claim (Dragonetti), which arose out of an underlying wrongful use of civil proceedings claim, was barred as a matter of law by the applicable statute of limitations.
  • Josh was part of a multi-state team of lawyers who participated in a three-day bench trial in Arapahoe County, Colorado, and successfully argued that an underlying client had the capacity to execute a retention agreement with a forum selection clause requiring any legal malpractice action be brought in Pennsylvania. The legal malpractice claims alleged multimillions of dollars of damages and involved representation of a billionaire oil investor who had been involved in a multiyear battle with his family over control of his businesses. An order and opinion enforcing the forum selection clause was entered on March 17, 2023. Enforcement of the forum selection clause effectively bars the legal malpractice claims due to the operation of the statute of limitations.
  • Achieved an informal admonition, the lowest form of discipline which is non-public, for his client in a matter that involved alleged failures to appropriately represent clients and timely file appeals in six different criminal matters.
  • Received a dismissal of a disciplinary complaint for his client in a matter involving allegations of failures to communicate with clients and prosecute a case over a six-year period. The letter requesting information from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel was 99 paragraphs long, the response took 106 single-spaced pages with 176 exhibits.
  • Achieved dismissal of a 99-paragraph disciplinary complaint that alleged lack of communications with clients over the course of a 12-year-long underlying matter. The response to the disciplinary complaint was over 100 single-spaced pages setting forth the details of the underlying matter and included more than 150 exhibits.

Nicholas Chrysanthem (New York, NY) was successful on a pre-answer motion to dismiss with respect to four of five causes of action relating to fraud and intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment and piercing the corporate veil.

Nicholas Chrysanthem (New York, NY) and Tim Raveica (Melville, NY) were successful in convincing the judge to dismiss the complaint against their client on a pre-answer motion based on the statute of limitations.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) were successful on pretrial motions in obtaining orders in the Superior Court Burlington County, striking the plaintiff’s expert reports and barring the plaintiff’s liability and damages experts from testifying at trial in a complex legal malpractice case. This matter, where the damages exceeded $1 million, arose out of the plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination by his employer. The case had resulted in two trials, an appeal and a remand. The plaintiff holds an MBA from Harvard and claimed that, as a result of the termination, he was unable to market and sell his intellectual property.

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) won summary judgment on behalf of a law firm in an alleged fraud case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The case arose out the firm’s representation of a party to the sale of an oil and gas lease in McKean County, Pennsylvania. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s action was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations based upon the plaintiff’s principal’s deposition testimony regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the alleged harm. The court applied the “sham affidavit” doctrine to disregard the plaintiff’s subsequent contradictory affidavits.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome
 

 

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

On June 6, 2023, Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) presented on a panel discussion, “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and in connection with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The presentation was a live broadcast to several hundred attorneys across Pennsylvania.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) spoke to the Monroe County Bar Association on June 15, 2023, on legal malpractice avoidance.

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) spoke to the Westmoreland County Bar Association on June 16th on legal malpractice avoidance. 

Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) spoke to a law firm client on legal malpractice avoidance on June 20, 2023.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) spoke at the Camden County Bar Association webinar “Mediation Process & Techniques in Civil & Chancery Disputes: Producing the Best Results for Your Client.”
 

 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – August 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter