The federal district court dismissed a breach of fiduciary duty claim as duplicative of a malpractice claim. The court, however, refused to dismiss the malpractice claim in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in their representation during the underlying case and failed to give notice to the plaintiff’s excess insurer who refused to cover the plaintiff’s loss arising out of the underlying judgment.
The defendants argued that the malpractice claim was premature because the plaintiff/insured had not suffered any injury and would not unless and until the coverage dispute with the excess insurer was decided in favor of the insurer.
The Court rejected that argument holding that the “injury has occurred, and it will remain until some other party actually pays the judgment.” (Emphasis in original).
Landmark American Insurance Co. v. Deerfield Construction, Inc., 2016 WL 2977274
(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)