Maybank failed to timely answer requests to admit served by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 36(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Maybank of the Maybank Law Firm to defend a trucking company Sentry Select insured in a personal injury lawsuit in state court. The district court requested we answer the following questions: (1) Whether an insurer may maintain a direct malpractice action against counsel hired to represent its insured where the insurance company has a duty to defend? (2) Whether a legal malpractice claim may be assigned to a third-party who is responsible for payment of legal fees and any judgment incurred as a result of the litigation in which the alleged malpractice arose? The answer to question one is "yes," under the limitations we will describe below. JUSTICE FEW: Sentry Select Insurance Company brought a legal malpractice lawsuit in federal district court against the lawyer it hired to defend its insured in an automobile accident case. Kropski all of Earhart Overstreet, LLC all of Charleston for Defendants. Hawkins, LLC, of Columbia, for Plaintiff. 27865 Heard Decem– Filed MaFIRST QUESTION ANSWERED Daryl G. Michelle Childs, United States District Court Judge Opinion No. 2016-001351 CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISCTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA J. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Sentry Select Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. The Supreme Court declined to answer the second question posed.
SENTRY SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY TRIAL
Whether there is any inconsistency between the client's and the insurer's interests in the circumstances of an individual case is a question of law to be answered by the trial court. If the interests of the client are the slightest bit inconsistent with the insurer's interests, there can be no liability of the attorney to the insurer, because the attorney's duty to the client would not be permitted to be affected by the interests of the insurance company.
Thus, the insurer may recover only for the attorney's breach of his duty to his client, when the insurer proves the breach is the proximate cause of damages to the insurer.
The Court responded in the affirmative to (1), reasserting an attorney would not be placed in conflict between his client's interests and the interests of the insurer. The district court requested the South Carolina Supreme Court answer whether, under South Carolina law: (1) an insurer may maintain a direct malpractice action against counsel hired to represent its insured where the insurance company had a duty to defend and (2) whether a legal malpractice claim be assigned to a third-party who is responsible for payment of legal fees and any judgment incurred as a result of the litigation in which the alleged malpractice arose. Sentry Select Insurance Company brought a legal malpractice lawsuit in federal district court against the lawyer it hired to defend an insured in an automobile accident case.
0 kommentar(er)
