Georgia: WALKER et al. v. CROMARTIE et al

Link for opinion: http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

In Walker v. Cromartie, 287 Ga. 511; 696 S.E.2d 654; 2010 Ga. LEXIS 487; 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2077, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the attorney’s did not commit malpractice towards the clients.

The Georgia Supreme Court stated that the clients, Walker, did not file an expert affidavit with their malpractice complaint, as required in O.C.G.A § 9-11-9.1, therefore making the claim invalid.

The lawyers were not held liable because the clients did not get a proper expert affidavit against the lawyers, therefore not upheld in court.

This case teaches the clients properly submit the proper documents required on time so that they have the possibility of having their malpractice case heard in a court of law.

Arizona Professional Negligence

Case: Webb v. Gittlen, 174 P. 3d 275 (Az. 2008)

Facts: In 2000, Neal and Gail Berliant purchased The Liquor Vault, a retail liquor store located in Scottsdale, Arizona. With the assistance of Victoria Gittlen, a licensed insurance agent, they purchased a business liability policy and a liability umbrella policy for their new business from Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (“Hartford”). The Berliants contend that Gittlen failed to inform them that they could also purchase separate liquor liability coverage.

Issue: In Webb v. Gittlen, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously held that claims against insurance agents for professional negligence are assignable to third parties. The decision overturned Premium Cigars International, Ltd. v. Farmer-Butler-Leavitt Insurance Agency, in which the Arizona Court of Appeals held such assignments invalid as contrary to public policy.

Rule of law: Insured’s assigned to plaintiff assignee their rights to sue defendants, an insurance agent and an insurer. The assignee sued defendants, the agent, the insurer, and an insurance agency, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. A trial court dismissed the claims. The Court of Appeals Division One, Arizona, affirmed. The instant court granted review to consider whether insured’s could assign claims against their insurance agent.

Holding: The decision of the court of appeals and the judgment of the trial court were reversed. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

After Webb v. Gittlen, Arizona joins the majority of jurisdictions that permit assignment of professional negligence claims against insurance agents. The relationship between insurance agents and their clients is personal, but it is not uniquely personal like the relationship between attorneys and their clients. Absent this uniquely personal relationship, the Arizona Supreme Court found no compelling justifications for maintaining the non-assignability rule that prevailed in Arizona for more than five years.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8305606056891876773&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2008/cv070127pr.pdf

North Carolina: Lawyer Charge with Professional Negligence

In Drake v. Hance, (N.C. Court of Appeals. 2009), the North Carolina Court of Appeals found the lawyer breached his duty of care to the plaintiff and caused proximate damages.
Plaintiff’s owned two lots, 3301 Chancellor Drive in Monroe County, North Carolina (Lot 15) and a vacant lot across the street, Lot 11. Hance contracted to purchases the vacant lot owned by the plaintiffs. The defendant served as an attorney to transfer the deed and close the sale. An error was made in the legal description of the transferred property. The description of the deed included both lots and a purchase prices for only one of them. A reformation was sought by plaintiffs to delete Lot 11 from the recorded deed. Hance appealed to the court and the decision to reform the deed stood. Plaintiffs are attempting to recover damages from the defendant with allegations of professional negligence.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision of the lower court because the plaintiff’s signing of the deed does not constitute contributory negligence on their part. In a negligence action, summary judgment is proper if evidence fails to establish negligence on the defendant’s part, contributory negligence on the plaintiff’s part, or the alleged negligent conduct was not the proximate cause of the injury. Cornelius, 120 N.C. App. 175-76, 461 S.E.2d at 340.
This case teaches the importance of the duty that a lawyer owes to his or her clients. When an “attorney-client relationship exists between the parties, a fiduciary duty to render professional services in a skillful and prudent manner. See also Cornelius v. Helms, 120 N.C. App. 172, 175, 461 S.E.2d 338, 340(1995). In addition, the N.C. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.3 states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”