ILNews

Law firm can’t collect attorney fees from insurer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Relying on caselaw from 1892, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided that Ken Nunn Law Office may not collect attorney fees it says are owed by a former client from a third-party insurance company following a settlement.

Kenneth Henderson hired the Nunn Law Office in May 2009 on a contingency fee basis after he was involved in an accident with another driver, Joshua Beal. Beal was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The law firm filed a lawsuit against Beal in March 2010; two weeks later, Henderson fired the law firm because he was unhappy with how his case had been handled.

The law firm then sent a notice of lien for attorney fees to the court, Henderson and State Farm. In late April 2010, Henderson and State Farm settled for more than $12,000. State Farm paid Nunn Law Office the $541 in costs it requested in its lien, but no attorney fees.

The law office sued Henderson and the insurer, and the trial court ordered Henderson pay nearly $4,000 to the law firm after granting default judgment against him. In doing so, the judge also denied State Farm’s summary judgment motion. Nunn Law Office claimed that State Farm and Henderson had a duty and failed to protect the “quantum meriut attorney’s fee lien” of the firm. State Farm argued that it was not liable for attorney fees for services rendered to Henderson.

On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the Nunn Law Office has no claim for attorney fees through either an equitable lien or quantum meruit. The judges cited Hanna v. Island Coal Co., 5 Ind. App. 163, 31 N.E. 846, 847 (1892), which held that no lien can be acquired before judgment that would prevent the client from compromising and releasing his claim without the attorney’s consent, including in personal injury actions.

“We decline to expand upon this State’s previous articulations of the boundaries of the reach of an equitable lien for the protection of attorney fees where the proceeds of the compromise have been transferred to the attorney’s former client and thus decline to hold that a charging or equitable lien may be enforced against a party other than Nunn’s former client under these circumstances where prior to settlement Nunn was no longer counsel for Henderson and was paid its expenses,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote.

The law firm may not recover from State Farm under the theory of quantum meruit because State Farm was not a party to the fee agreement between Henderson and Nunn Law Office, any work done by the law firm was for the benefit of Henderson, not the insurer, and State Farm was not unjustly enriched by the legal services provided by the firm to Henderson, the judges held.

The case, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ken Nunn Law Office, 49A02-1202-CT-68, goes back to Marion Superior Court for further proceedings.

 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT