.

Case Law Alerts

A Default Judgment Is Not Always the End

Tormax USA, LLC v. Kennedy Contractors, Inc., FL 4th DCA, No. 4D2023-1867, July 24, 2024

October 1, 2024

by Lindsay G. McCormick

Far too often in our line of business, we are informed of litigation after a default has already been entered against our client or insured. Ideally, and in most cases, we are able to negotiate for the default to be set aside or vacated. However, in some cases, due to a variety of reasons, the court will refuse to vacate the default, and then you are left with a question of what to do next. However, it is a mistake to believe we are stuck and there is nothing that can be done after a standing default. We still must address the issue of damages.

In Tormax USA, LLC v. Kennedy Contractors, Inc., there was a dispute relating to the delivery of garage doors by Tormax, which Kennedy Contractors had paid for in full. After Tormax’s failure to deliver the garage doors, Kennedy Contractors filed suit and obtained a default against Tormax. Despite attempts by Tormax to set aside the default, the court rejected the efforts. Thereafter, Kennedy Contractors sought summary judgment as to the amount of damages to be awarded. Despite the default judgment, Tormax continued to oppose the summary judgment efforts and the amount of damages sought. The trial court rejected Tormax’s arguments; but on appeal, the District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case to the trial court on the issue of damages.

This matter serves as a reminder that a default is not always the end for carriers and clients. We must continue to be vigilant on issues of damages and use our defenses and legal arguments to limit damages as much as possible. 


Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

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.