ILNews

Settlement may be largest of its kind: State agency resolves federal lawsuit that began with legal malpractice claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Indianapolis law firm has been holding its breath for two years. Ever since getting hit with a potentially devastating $17.9 million jury verdict on a legal malpractice claim in state court, the 45-year-old law firm Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe hasn't been able to put the focus on its daily client business without acknowledging that dark storm cloud hovering overhead.

Now, the storm cloud has dissolved.

In what may be the state's largest-ever liquidation return of its kind, the Indiana Department of Insurance has reached a $16.5 million settlement with Alabama-based ProNational Insurance to end a fourmonth-old federal lawsuit alleging bad faith and breach of contract for how it handled the legal malpractice claim against Frederick Dennerline and the firm.

"This is a big relief," partner William Groth said about the settlement. "The last couple years have been pretty difficult from an emotional standpoint; there's been a lot of bitter tears and uncertainty. The judgment has been a big distraction, but that's now all concluded and that distraction is removed."

ProNational was the malpractice insurer for the law firm when a situation materialized. At the time, Fillenwarth Dennerline represented the failed Indiana Construction Industry Trust that had provided health-care coverage to 8,200 non-union construction workers before going bust in 2002. Those Hoosiers were left with unpaid medical bills, and the insurance commissioner went after all the defendants - including Dennerline, who'd served as outside counsel for the health plan and had knowledge of the failing trust.

About 80 other defendants settled with the state agency, but Dennerline proceeded to trial. ProNational declined to settle for the $1 million limit that Dennerline wanted. A jury in August 2006 found Dennerline and the firm liable and assessed a $17.9 million verdict that the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed this past spring.

Earlier this year, the law firm assigned its rights to the insurance commissioner and paid $50,000, releasing it from any obligation to pay the multi-million dollar verdict. The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, suit immediately followed in June.

The agreement came about 4:30 p.m. Oct. 10 in Jim Atterholt v. ProNational Insurance Co., No. 1:08-cv-0834-DFH-WTL, which accused ProNational of declining multiple opportunities to settle the state court claim. The suit claimed the company breached its obligation to pay the claims and engaged in a "malicious, willful, oppressive, and unfounded" manner in failing and refusing to settle.

Indianapolis attorney Joe Chapelle with Barnes & Thornburg, who represented ProNational, said he and the company are pleased with the $16.5 million settlement.

"This is not to be construed to mean that there was any finding by the department of bad faith," he said. "We are pleased with the outcome, and the company is pleased to be able to put this behind them."

He maintained that ProNational does not have a "no-settle" policy - a position made following the federal suit filing in the summer.

At that time, Chapelle said that his client insures about 1,000 attorneys or firms in Indiana and offers coverage up to $5 million. In the past five years, about 67 percent of the cases against attorneys have been resolved without any payments from dismissals, summary judgments, or defense verdicts, he said. About 27 percent have been settled, and about 7 percent have evaded judgment, he said. 

"We do not have a no-settle policy," he said. "That's something someone would throw out there on these types of complaints."

Of about 20 suits filed nationally in the past decade where ProNational was a defendant, federal dockets show that about six involved the insurer getting sued for medical malpractice claims. None of the others appear to involve legal malpractice, except for this current case and the previous one that was filed but dismissed in 2005 by Fillenwarth Dennerline. Records show most were dismissed, with some involving joint stipulation of dismissal from both parties following settlement. Some records were sealed or not available online.

Cohen & Malad attorney Irwin Levin, who represented the state insurance agency and was on the original legal malpractice action against the firm, said this federal settlement negotiation came down to balancing the trust fund needs with a potentially ongoing appeal and federal suit.

"We negotiated and took a tough stance, and it came down to how long we wanted to litigate," Levin said, noting this settlement ended the federal suit and a transfer request pending on the state legal malpractice claim before the Indiana Supreme Court.

Levin added that to his knowledge, this is the highest amount ever returned from a liquidation action without a guaranty fund in the state. An additional $7.7 million in settlements already paid by other defendants makes a combined total of more than $24 million to be paid into the trust.

The Department of Insurance described this recovery as remarkable, noting that it hadn't expected to recover this amount. The money will be used to reimburse about 80 percent of out-of-pocket expenses paid by member companies, their employees, and healthcare providers that should have been paid years ago by the trust. A payout date is set for Dec. 15; members, employees, and healthcare providers are able to submit reimbursement claims to a special deputy liquidator, Indiana Insolvency Inc.

In the meantime, Groth and others at the firm are just happy to be able to look past this suit that has been all engulfing. The firm's malpractice rates have dropped, the client base continues expanding from those loyal clients who endured the past two years, and Groth said the firm has more work than ever. The firm has changed insurance carriers and no longer goes with ProNational. 


Previous ProNational coverage:

"Justices asked to hear law firm case" - Sept. 3, 2008
 
"Suit filed against insurer" - July 9, 2008

"$18 million verdict clouds law firm's future" - Sept. 20, 2006"This was our only experience with ProNational, and it wasn't a pleasant one.We don't know if it's consistent to how they operate with everyone, but they didn't settle when we wanted them to," Groth said, adding that he hopes this $16.5 million amount will teach ProNational and other insurers a lesson.

"We hope this will cause them to put the insureds' interests ahead of their own financial interests," he said. "Maybe it'll make them pay more attention to the emotional and financial consequences of refusing to settle, particularly when that insured is a law firm and there's no cap on liability, as there is on medical professionals." •
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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT