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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT