Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed summary judgments entered against Trudy Tush in her legal malpractice action against attorneys who represented her in an underlying landlord-tenant lawsuit. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning the attorneys’ duty to investigate and tender potential insurance coverage, whether State Farm would have denied coverage, and whether delayed notice prejudiced the insurer. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper on Pharr's duty to investigate insurance coverage.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on whether State Farm would have denied coverage due to misrepresentations or the intentional acts exclusion.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on whether the claim would have been deemed untimely.
Holdings
- Material facts were in dispute as to whether Pharr had a duty to investigate Tush's insurance, making summary judgment improper.
- Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether State Farm would have voided the policy ab initio due to misrepresentations, precluding summary judgment.
- Summary judgment was improper because at least one counterclaim alleged negligence and the policy explicitly covered wrongful eviction, which may be negligent or intentional.
- Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether State Farm would have denied the claim due to prejudice from delay, precluding summary judgment.
Key quotations
“Because the question of whether a tort duty exists is usually a question for the trier of fact and therefore not susceptible to summary adjudication, summary judgment on the question of a tort duty is only appropriate "when the undisputed facts support only one reasonable inference."” (1245)
“"As a general rule, an attorney is not required to investigate the truth or falsity of facts and information furnished by [a] client, and his failure to do so would not be negligence ... unless facts and circumstances of the particular legal problem would indicate otherwise."” (1246)
“The duty to defend is broader than the duty to provide coverage.” (1248)
Factual background
Trudy Tush, a real estate investor, was sued by a tenant. She hired attorney John C. Pharr, who failed to investigate her insurance coverage. A subsequent attorney, Tom Owens, also failed to tender the claim to State Farm. After a $1.6 million verdict against her, Tush sued the attorneys for malpractice, alleging they negligently failed to tender her insurance claim, which would have provided a defense and coverage.
Procedural history
Tush sued her attorneys for malpractice for failing to tender an insurance claim. The superior court granted summary judgment for defendants on four separate motions. Tush appealed.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings on all four summary judgment motions.