1 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE QUERREY & HARROW, LTD., SANDERS PIANOWSKI, LLP AND TRANSCONTINENTAL INS. CO. JAMES N. KOSMOND, AND ROBERT A. SANDERS GRETCHEN CEPEK Andrew A. Crosmer Edward W. Hearn Rubino, Ruman, Crosmer, Smith, Robert D. Brown Johnson & Bell, LTD Sersic & Polen Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C. Highland, Indiana Dyer, Indiana Merrillville, Indiana Gary A. Grasso James J. Stamos/George M. Hoffman Grasso, Bass & Williams, P.C. Stamos & Trucco, LLP Burr Ridge, Illinois Chicago, Illinois In the Indiana Supreme Court No. 45S CV-307 QUERREY & HARROW, LTD., JAMES N. KOSMOND, GRETCHEN CEPEK, SANDERS PIANOWSKI, LLP., AND ROBERT A. SANDERS, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants (Defendants below), TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Dickson, Justice. v. Appellee (Plaintiff below). Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, No. 45D CT-264 The Honorable Robert A. Pete, Judge On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A CV-36 May 13, 2008 Addressing an issue of first impression in Indiana, the Court of Appeals holds that an excess insurer may not bring an action for legal malpractice against the insured's attorneys. Querry
2 & Harrow v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 861 N.E.2d 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We agree and now adopt this opinion as to all issues addressed. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(1). The principal argument addressed by the Court of Appeals is whether or not to extend the availability of equitable subrogation to excess insurance policy carriers to enable them to sue the attorneys of its insured for legal malpractice. Emphasizing the paramount importance of a lawyer's duties of client loyalty and maintaining client confidentiality, the court considers Indiana decisions concerning the doctrine of equitable subrogation and the prohibition against assignments of legal malpractice actions. It also explores the decisions of various other jurisdictions that have considered the same or related issues. We find that the analysis and conclusion of the Court of Appeals are sound and proper. In a secondary issue, the Court of Appeals finds no material issue of fact existed indicating an attorney-client relationship between the insured's attorneys and the excess insurer. The court finds that communications between the insured's attorneys and the excess insurer fell "far short" of implying that the attorneys consented to represent their client, the insured, and the insured's excess insurer. We agree. We adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals. This cause is remanded for the entry of summary judgment in favor of the appellants-defendants. Shepard, C.J., and Rucker, J., concur. Boehm, J., concurs in result. Sullivan, J., dissents with separate opinion. 2
3 Sullivan, Justice, dissenting. In this case, an insurance company that had paid $3,740,000 as part of a settlement of a personal injury claim sued the law firms and lawyers for its insured on a theory of equitable subrogation, contending that the law firms and lawyers had committed professional negligence by not timely raising a non-party defense to the claim. The trial court denied the defendant law firms and attorneys motions for summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed. This Court has decided to adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals. There are a number of aspects of this case that suggest to me that the plaintiff insurance company would be unlikely to prevail the size of the settlement compared to the estimated value of the claim, the likelihood of sound strategic reasons for not raising a non-party defense, etc. But I do not agree with my colleagues that equitable subrogation is never available to enable an insurer to recover for losses it incurs that are caused by the malpractice of its insured s attorney. One who asserts a right of subrogation must step into the shoes of, or be substituted for, the one whose claim or debt he has paid and can only enforce those rights which the latter could enforce.... Consequently, in order for the insurer to assert a right of subrogation, (1) the insured must have a cause of action against the purported tortfeasor, and (2) it must be equitable to allow the insurer to enforce a right of subrogation. Nat l Union Ins. Co. v. Dowd & Dowd, P.C., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1021 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (quoting and citing Dix Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaFramboise, 597 N.E.2d 622, (Ill. 1992)). The plaintiff insurance company s relationship to the defendant law firms and lawyers tracks these elements. Its insured would clearly be entitled to assert a claim that these defendants committed malpractice. The question, then, is not whether the elements of an equitable subrogation claim are present here but whether, as a matter of policy, this State should recognize equitable subrogation under these circumstances. While I acknowledge that the majority of states that have looked at this question have reached the same result as the Court does today, some have not. In the National Union Insurance Co. case quoted above, National Union was the excess insurance carrier for Schneider National
4 Carriers, Inc. 2 F. Supp. 2d at A Schneider driver was in a collision that resulted in a lawsuit against Schneider and the driver. Schneider retained Dowd & Dowd for the defense. A jury awarded the plaintiff a judgment that exceeded Schneider s self-insurance, and National Union paid the remainder of the judgment. National Union then brought a legal malpractice claim against Dowd & Dowd. Id. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that under Illinois law, National Union could pursue its legal malpractice claim against Dowd & Dowd under a theory of equitable subrogation. Id. at In so holding, the court considered general equitable principles and broader policy concerns as to the proper allocation of the cost of attorney malpractice, see id. at ( Malpracticing attorneys should not enjoy a windfall merely because the insured contracted for excess insurance coverage. ). The Michigan Supreme Court has also applied equitable subrogation to similar facts. In Atlanta International Insurance Co. v. Bell, Atlanta International Insurance filed a legal malpractice action against Bell & Hertler. 475 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Mich. 1991). Bell & Hertler had been hired by Atlanta International to defend Security Services, Inc., for whom Atlanta International was the primary insurer, against a lawsuit. A judgment was entered against Security Services that Atlanta International was required to pay. Id. Attorney Bell later admitted that Bell & Hertler should have raised comparative negligence as a defense. Id. at n.2. After holding that no attorney-client relationship existed between Atlanta International and Bell & Hertler, the court held that Atlanta International could pursue a claim under an equitable subrogation theory, which the court saw as a more flexible solution. Id. at Of equitable subrogation, the majority wrote: The doctrine is eminently applicable under the facts of this case. A rule of law expanding the parameters of the attorney-client relationship in the defense counsel-insurer context might well detract from the attorney s duty of loyalty to the client in a potentially conflict-ridden setting. Yet to completely absolve a negligent defense counsel from malpractice liability would not rationally advance the attorney-client relationship. Moreover, defense counsel s immunity from suit by the insurer would place the loss for the attorney s misconduct on the insurer. The only winner produced by an analysis precluding liability would be the malpracticing attorney. Equity cries out for application under such circumstances. Id. at
5 For the reasons discussed in these cases, I would allow an insurer to bring an action under equitable subrogation. (In a similar vein, I note that Judge Tinder predicted that our Court would allow an excess insurer to bring an action against a primary insurer under equitable subrogation for negligent defense of a claim against the insured. Phico Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am., 93 F. Supp. 2d 982, 990 (S.D. Ind. 2000).) Any claim that an insurance company would bring against its insured s attorney would have to be prosecuted without access to any confidential client information of any kind whatsoever. But I would not close the courthouse door to an insurance company that is willing and able to do so. 3
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: W. BRENT THRELKELD DEAN ARNOLD ASHLIE K. KEATON KATHERINE G. KARRES Threlkeld & Associates Ken Nunn Law Office Indianapolis, Indiana Bloomington,
An Overview of Important Insurance Coverage Issues for the Non-Coverage Lawyer John E. James, Walter J. Andrews, Anna M. Stafford August 2005 Conflicts of Interest and the Tripartite Relationship August
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Stefanski v. City of Chicago, 2015 IL App (1st) 132844 Appellate Court Caption District & No. Filed Rehearing denied NELLI STEFANSKI, Individually and on Behalf
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARJORIE KOSTER, Personal Representative of FOR PUBLICATION the Estate of DOUGLAS W. KOSTER, Deceased, December 26, 2000 and CLYDE MUNSELL, Personal Representative 9:40
THE TRIAL OF A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE: SELECTED PRACTICAL ISSUES BY: DAVID C. PISHKO ELLIOT PISHKO MORGAN, P.A. WINSTON-SALEM, NC The trial of a legal malpractice action raises several practical issues
SETTLEMENT PITFALLS Presented and Prepared by: Maura Yusof firstname.lastname@example.org Chicago, Illinois 312.762.9235 Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen PEORIA SPRINGFIELD URBANA ROCKFORD EDWARDSVILLE CHICAGO 2011
HOW SUBROGATION AFFECTS YOUR CLIENT JULIA A. BEASLEY BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES INTRODUCTION How do you protect your client in negotiating personal injury settlements in view of Powell
MCLE ARTICLE AND SELF-ASSESSMENT TEST By reading this article and answering the accompanying test questions, you can earn one MCLE credit. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions on the test
Roberts v. Northland Insurance Co. (Ill. S.Ct.) Docket No. 84115-Agenda 19-May 1998. KIRK ROBERTS, Appellant, v. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 1998. JUSTICE HEIPLE
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: KENNETH J. ALLEN DAVID W. CONOVER WILLIAM LAZARUS Kenneth J. Allen & Associates, P.C. Valparaiso, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: EDWARD R. MOOR MICHAEL C. BRUCK
BRIDGING THE GAP : MAJOR CHANGES TO MINNESOTA S COLLATERAL SOURCE LAW IN SWANSON V. BREWSTER DAVID E. CAMAROTTO JANINE M. LUHTALA Consider this typical liability scenario: Plaintiff in a personal injury
Recovering Funds From a Third Party Contribution, Indemnity & Subrogation 95 percent of all lawsuits ultimately are resolved prior to verdict. The defendants in these cases, whether they be business owners,
INSURANCE LAW Wording and Interpretation Attorneys Fees as By Thomas R. Newman To help preclude obligations to defend or indemnify insureds for suits seeking awards of attorneys fees, insurers and their
Unsettling News: Recent Developments in Georgia Law and Issues Faced by Defendants in Making and Responding to Settlement Offers By: Martin A. Levinson, Chair, GDLA Premises Liability Committee Hawkins
SURVEY OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INSURANCE LAW R ICHARD K. SHOULTZ * LISA DILLMAN ** INTRODUCTION 1 During this survey period, the Indiana Supreme Court decided a case that had been the topic of many insurance
I. WHAT IS BAD FAITH? A. Basic Definition THE BASICS OF BAD FAITH First Party Insurance Refusal to pay a claim without a reasonable basis or even if insurer has a reasonable basis for denial, failing to
REVERSE, RENDER, and REMAND; and Opinion Filed August 20, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-10-01614-CV W. DAVID HOLLIDAY, Appellant V. GREG WEAVER AND WENDY WEAVER,
SURVEY OF ILLINOIS LAW: INSURANCE LAW David J. Roe * Contributing Authors: Nancy K. Caron, ** Robert H. Hanaford, *** Laura M. Kotelman, **** Steven R. McMannon, ***** Ronald Lee Ohren, ****** Ellen J.
INSURANCE ISSUES FOR LAWYERS: EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK Authored and Presented by: David D. Disiere Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom, L.L.P. 808 Travis, Suite 1800 Houston,
Case 111-cv-03111-AT Document 59 Filed 12/03/12 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JESUS CAMACHO, surviving spouse of Stacey Camacho,
HANDLING SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING MINORS Carlos E. Mahoney Glenn, Mills, Fisher & Mahoney, P.A. Durham, North Carolina I. INTRODUCTION Court approval is necessary to finalize a settlement involving a minor.
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT FINDS IN-HOUSE LAWYER NOT PROTECTED BY STATE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE, BUT COULD BE Adam B. Klarfeld I. INTRODUCTION... 983 II. BACKGROUND... 984 III. THE APPELLATE COURT S DECISION...
Professional Responsibilities of Co-Counsel: Joint Venturers or Scorpions in a Bottle? Douglas R. Richmond Introduction Maine lawyer Terrance Duddy surely thought that he had found gold in the Rockies.
W. JEFFREY ROBINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEVEN R. KUHN et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. G043752. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three. Filed May 24, 2011. W. Jeffrey
Ch24-A04438 9/18/06 1:46 PM Page 257 C H A P T E R 2 4 Medical Malpractice Defenses S. Sandy Sanbar, M.D., Ph.D., J.D. GOLDEN RULES 1. The physician should be knowledgeable of the general defense theories
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY Debrán L. O Neil D. Lance Currie Alex More The Survey period touched on a wide variety of professional liability issues, changing how these claims are prosecuted and resolved. In