ILNews

Justices rule on lawyer liablity coverage case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Questions exist as to whether the professional liability coverage carrier for a disbarred attorney misled two former clients about helping them collect on legal malpractice claims. In a ruling on Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case of Michael Ashby and Randy O’Brien v. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company and C. Bruce Davidson, Jr., No. 49S04-1011-CV-635, for further proceedings.

The case involves ex-Indianapolis lawyer, Clifton Bruce Davidson Jr., a former police officer-turned-attorney who deserted his law practice in 2003 and went on a multi-state bank robbing spree before eventually ending up in federal prison and being disbarred by the Indiana Supreme Court in August 2004. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company issued a policy to Davidson in 2003 without being informed of any existing issues, such as malpractice allegations by two prisoner clients, Michael Ashby and Randy O’Brien, who Davidson represented prior to leaving his practice.

The clients tried to collect through the insurance carrier, but the Bar Plan refused to indemnify Davidson because he hadn’t complied with the contract requirements. Under the policy secured before he abandoned his practice, Davidson was supposed to provide written notice of any claim. In this case, he was running from the law during the relevant time period and did not do that. Instead, Ashby and O’Brien notified the Bar Plan of their claims. The insurer argued that was not sufficient to meet the policy requirements.

Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly granted summary judgment for the Bar Plan, but the Indiana Court of Appeals last summer reversed that judgment and remanded for trial proceedings on grounds that the clients’ actual notice was sufficient. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in November, and the justices have unanimously found enough issues exist for further proceedings.

On the question of coverage, the justices held the Bar Plan has established no genuine issues of fact exist about Davidson’s failure to comply with the policy condition requiring personal notification of a claim; he didn’t and that’s clear, the justices determined. But that isn’t dispositive because Ashby and O’Brien also argued against summary judgment on grounds of waiver and estoppel.

Written communications between the clients and the Bar Plan don’t make it clear the insurer wasn’t implying coverage, the court determined.

“Conspicuously absent was any caution about possible non-coverage due to the absence of written notice from Davidson, the insured,” Justice Brent Dickson wrote. “From the designated materials, we find genuine issues of fact as to whether Ashby and O’Brien, and their counsel, were misled to believe that the Bar Plan provided professional liability coverage for Davidson with respect to their claims.”

As a result of that, it’s unclear at this point whether Ashby and O’Brien might have detrimentally relied on that belief and that is something that should be examined at the trial level, the justices found.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT