Third Party-Primary Purpose

Recent Illinois Case: Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Konow

Posted on Updated on

The Second District held that an attorney does not owe a duty to a non-client in a negligent misrepresentation case unless the Pelham test applicable to legal malpractice claims is satisfied. The court held: “This can be accomplished by synthesizing Pelham’s third-party-beneficiary model with the Penrod /Restatement rule so that information disseminated by an attorney in connection with a client matter is not for the ‘guidance’ of a third party unless the primary purpose of the attorney-client relationship was to guide or influence the third party.”

Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Konow, 2016 IL App (2d) 150823

(This is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.)

Baez v. Rosenberg, 409 Ill. App. 3d 525, 949 N.E.2d 250 (1st Dist. 2011)

Posted on Updated on

Baez v. Rosenberg, 409 Ill. App. 3d 525, 949 N.E.2d 250 (1st Dist. 2011) (Attorney retained by special administrator of estate to prosecute wrongful death action owes fiduciary duty to beneficiaries of estate; attorney who acts against interest of beneficiaries may be denied fees)