ILNews

Justices asked to take legal malpractice case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court is being asked to take a legal malpractice case in which an Indianapolis law firm got hit with an $18 million verdict two years ago.

Attorneys representing law firm Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe filed a petition for transfer with the state's highest court Monday in Frederick W. Dennerline III, et al. v. Jim Atterholt, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0610-CV-557. This move comes following the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in May that upheld the verdict handed down by a Marion Circuit Court jury in August 2006.

The case stems from a failed health plan that left 8,200 Hoosiers with unpaid medical bills. The jury found the firm liable for failing to notify trustees about growing financial losses in the Indiana Construction Industry Trust, which was created by a dozen construction-related companies to cover non-union employees. During trial, partner Dennerline was shown to have knowledge of the financial woes and the jury determined that amounted to legal malpractice.

On appeal, the firm raised six issues that included preserving error about a legal malpractice expert's testimony, and whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on discovery motions and one of the four legal theories used relating to legal-malpractice liability. The majority affirmed on all the issues, but Judge Carr Darden dissented on one issue regarding the jury's finding on Dennerline's 100 percent fault. He noted the insurance department should not receive what he saw as a "windfall" but added the state agency should be able to collect any legal costs, including attorneys' fees and interest, for prosecuting this action and any unsettled claims.

The intermediate appellate court in mid-July denied a rehearing petition, and Hammond-based Eichhorn & Eichhorn, which represents Dennerline and the firm, sent the transfer petition to the appellate clerk's office by certified mail Monday. The clerk's office had not listed it on its docket by this afternoon.

In the 21-page petition obtained by Indiana Lawyer, attorneys urge the justices to consider four questions for transfer: whether the liability claim presented at trial and relied on by the Court of Appeals is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and unsupported by evidence; whether the judgment and non-party defendant settlements exceed the provable damages without statutory authorization; whether Dennerline's due process rights were violated by the use of a liquidation proceeding order in establishing the damages amount; and whether the trial court committed reversible error in prohibiting discovery and allowing a witness a week before trial.

Since the verdict, the 45-year-old firm has given the insurance commissioner rights to sue its legal malpractice carrier, ProAssurance and parent company ProNational Insurance, in a separate federal civil suit. Filed in June, that pending case accuses the company of refusing to settle the case and alleges bad faith and breach of contract. The insurance company has filed a motion to dismiss that case because the state courts' appellate review isn't complete and that document points out that a transfer request was coming in the state appeal; the federal judge hasn't issued a decision on that.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT