Westport Insurance Corp. v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C.

Summary

The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Westport Insurance Corporation in a dispute over coverage for a legal malpractice claim. It held that the policy's exclusion applied because the insured attorneys could reasonably have foreseen that their client's attorney negligence might lead to a malpractice suit, notwithstanding the client's statement that she did not intend to sue. The court also declined to consider an equitable estoppel argument raised for the first time on appeal and upheld denial of Rule 60(b) relief.

Holdings

1. The exclusion barred coverage because, under any reasonable interpretation of the policy, the clear evidence of the attorney's breach of duty meant that a malpractice suit was reasonably foreseeable, even taking the client's assurance into account.
2. The court would not consider the equitable-estoppel argument because the appellants had not initially presented it to the district court.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration based on new arguments that the appellants had failed to raise in response to the summary-judgment motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the policy's prior-knowledge exclusion barred coverage for the malpractice lawsuit despite the client's statement that she did not intend to sue.
2. Whether the appellants could obtain appellate consideration of an equitable-estoppel argument that they had not presented to the district court.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the appellants' Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration based on arguments not raised in opposition to summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed