Call Us 866.940.1101 ☰ ˟
866.940.1101
Logo
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Employee Directory
    • Partners Page
    • Event Calendar
    • Refer a Friend
  • Get A Quote
  • Products
    • Lawyers Malpractice Insurance
    • Professional Liability Coverage For Attorneys
    • Accountants Professional Liability
    • Dentist Malpractice Insurance
    • Business Owners Policy
    • Cyber Liability Insurance
    • Workers Compensation Insurance
    • Title Agents E&O Insurance
    • Paralegal Malpractice Insurance
  • Testimonials
  • Common Terms
    • Common Terms
    • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Areas We Serve
    • Grand Rapids, MI
    • Detroit, MI
    • Lansing, MI
    • Kalamazoo, MI
Home > Blog > Florida Court Holds Insurer Lacks Standing to Sue Defense Counsel for Legal Malpractice
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2019

Florida Court Holds Insurer Lacks Standing to Sue Defense Counsel for Legal Malpractice

March 1, 2019

By Robert M Buchholz and Terrence P McAvoy Hinshaw & Culbertson LLC

Lawyers for the Profession®

Arch Ins. Co. v. Kubicki Draper, LLP, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 886 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2019)

Brief Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an insurer does not have standing to sue defense counsel for legal malpractice in connection with representation of an insured in an underlying matter, because defense counsel and the insurer are not in privity. Specifically, the Court concluded that the insurer is not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between defense counsel and the insured.

Complete Summary

The plaintiff, Arch Insurance Company (the "insurer"), engaged the defendant ("defense counsel") to defend the insurer's insured in an underlying lawsuit. After the underlying suit settled within the insured's policy limits, the insurer sued defense counsel for legal malpractice. The insurer alleged that defense counsel's delay in asserting a statute of limitations defense resulted in a settlement with the insurer's funds, which would have been avoided—in whole or in part—if defense counsel had raised the defense at an earlier time. Defense counsel moved for summary judgment on the basis that the insurer lacked standing because defense counsel and the insurer were not in privity with each other, and the insurer was not an intended third-party beneficiary. The trial court granted the motion concluding that "there is no privity between [the insurer] and [defense counsel], and none of the recognized exceptions to the strict privity requirement apply in the instant action."

The insurer appealed, but the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court held that the insurer and defense counsel were not in privity, and the insurer was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the relationship between defense counsel and the insured. Although the Court acknowledged the insurer's policy arguments in favor of allowing it to sue defense counsel, the Court concluded that it was bound by the Florida Supreme Court's existing precedent. The insurer alleged that it paid the law firm's fees, was an intended third-party beneficiary of the relationship between defense counsel and the insured, and that privity of contract was unnecessary, but the Court rejected that argument and held that none of the recognized exceptions to the strict privity requirement in Florida applied. In short, because the Florida Supreme Court has not specifically held that an insurer is an intended third-party beneficiary, the appellate court here declined "to expand the field of privity exceptions" to apply to this case.

Significance of Decision

It appears that until the Florida Supreme Court holds otherwise, an insurer has no recourse against retained defense counsel if the insurer suffers a loss as a result of defense counsel's negligence. One should note, however, that other federal and state courts across the country have relaxed the strict privity requirement and allowed insurers to sue defense counsel. See, e.g., Hartford Insurance Co. of Midwest v. Koeppel, 629 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Nova Casualty Co. v. Santa Lucia, No. 8:09-cv-1351-T-30AEP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106321, 2010 WL 3942875 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2010).

Posted 4:00 PM

Tags: legal liability, fl defense counsel can't be sued by their insurers
Share |


No Comments


Post a Comment
Required
Required (Not Displayed)
Required


All comments are moderated and stripped of HTML.

NOTICE: This blog and website are made available by the publisher for educational and informational purposes only. It is not be used as a substitute for competent insurance, legal, or tax advice from a licensed professional in your state. By using this blog site you understand that there is no broker client relationship between you and the blog and website publisher.
Blog Archive
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2013
  • 2011

  • lawyers professional liability insurance(429)
  • attorney malpractice insurance(400)
  • attorney malpractice(337)
  • legal malpractice(225)
  • legal liability(134)
  • cyber insurance(106)
  • data breach(92)
  • ethics(87)
  • erp(57)
  • malpractice insurance(55)
  • claims(39)
  • title agency e&o(36)
  • accountant e&o(34)
  • extended reporting period endorsement(30)
  • tail(29)
  • phishing(25)
  • legal malpractice insurance(23)
  • prior acts(22)
  • claims made coverage(21)
  • extended reporting period(21)
  • cyber security(20)
  • cyber liability(18)
  • accountant errors & omissions(18)
  • claims reporting(18)
  • crime insurance(16)
  • ransomware(16)
  • claim prevention(16)
  • attorney protective cle(14)
  • the hartford weekly newsletter(14)
  • attorney protective cle webinar(14)
  • 2022 mcgowan pro cpe webinar for accountants(13)
  • professional liability insurance(13)
  • mcgowan webinar series for cpas 2021(12)
  • retirement tail(12)
  • attpro tip of the month(12)
  • business owners insurance(11)
  • legal liability insurance(11)
  • fee suits(10)
  • full prior acts(10)
  • cyber crime(10)
  • accountant errors & omissions insurance(10)
  • prior acts date(9)
  • step rating(9)
  • non-practicing erp(9)
  • bop(9)
  • cyber liability insurance(9)
  • title agent errors & omissions(9)
  • claims made(9)
  • coverage(8)
  • webinar(8)

View Mobile Version
Logo
Quick Links
Home Our Products Customer Service Payment Options Common Terms
About Us Refer A Friend Our Carriers Blog Contact Us
Location
2430 Camelot Ct SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49546

Local: 616.940.1101
Toll Free: 866.940.1101
Email: info@L2ins.com
Facebook Twitter Social LinkedIn
© Copyright. All rights reserved.
Powered by Insurance Website Builder