Legal Malpractice

A Very Rare Legal Malpractice - Defamation Insurance Case

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

Here is a rare case in which attorney represents farm owners on a wrongful death case, which does not settle within policy limits.  Instead of settling for $ 300,000 there is a verdict of $ 4.2 million.  Afterwards, everything turns upside down.  The farmer's insurance company approached the attorney's legal malpractice carrier and from there on in the versions diverge:

"After the trial ended, Claverack approached Zurich with six "contemporaneous memorializations" of phone conversations among Mr. Roche and Ms. Hess and Ms. Buckley purporting to show that Mr. Roche had ignored Claverack's instructions and fumbled the case. Claverack requested that Zurich, as holder of the attorney's professional liability insurance policy, contribute to the judgment.

Mr. Roche argued that Ms. Hess and Ms. Buckley misstated their conversations with him and that the memos are defamatory fakes.

According to Claverack's brief before the appellate court, Zurich eventually paid $193,750 toward the verdict and then canceled its policy with Mr. Roche.

Spencertown attorney David Seth Michaels said the dispute between Mr. Roche and Claverack ended a 25-year relationship in which Mr. Roche represented Claverack's insureds. Of the panel's ruling, Mr. Michaels said, "I am delighted and so is my client."

Mr. Roche's action does not specify the damages he is seeking.
After the trial ended, Claverack approached Zurich with six "contemporaneous memorializations" of phone conversations among Mr. Roche and Ms. Hess and Ms. Buckley purporting to show that Mr. Roche had ignored Claverack's instructions and fumbled the case. Claverack requested that Zurich, as holder of the attorney's professional liability insurance policy, contribute to the judgment.

Mr. Roche argued that Ms. Hess and Ms. Buckley misstated their conversations with him and that the memos are defamatory fakes.

According to Claverack's brief before the appellate court, Zurich eventually paid $193,750 toward the verdict and then canceled its policy with Mr. Roche.

Spencertown attorney David Seth Michaels said the dispute between Mr. Roche and Claverack ended a 25-year relationship in which Mr. Roche represented Claverack's insureds. Of the panel's ruling, Mr. Michaels said, "I am delighted and so is my client."

Mr. Roche's action does not specify the damages he is seeking."
 

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on March 02, 2009 (boomark / email).