 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pollard v. Hunt11/10/2005
firm's June 13, 1995 renewal application to OBLIC indicated that the firm did not know of any circumstance, act, or omission which could result in a professional liability claim. In June 1995, Hunt transferred his files to the Pollards without keeping a copy of them. He indicated that he would have kept a copy of his file if he felt that he had made a mistake and needed to protect himself. In sum, upon review of the record, OBLIC had substantial grounds to attack Hunt's credibility based on the chronology of events and could reasonably argue that Hunt had lied.
{ } Finally, the Pollards complain that OBLIC's counsel improperly asserted that Hunt, the Pollards, and the Pollards' counsel had colluded to manufacture a viable claim against OBLIC. During closing argument, OBLIC's counsel asserted that the Pollards had settled with Hunt so that they could proceed against OBLIC and that Hunt needed to ensure that the Pollards had a claim in order to benefit from the settlement. OBLIC's counsel explicitly stated that " hey had to come up somehow in some way with a claim by the Pollards against OBLIC. The only way they could do that is the bogus -- to boogie up the idea that Hunt made a call in June or July of 1995." To clarify, OBLIC's counsel indicated that the Pollards' counsel presented Hunt with a second affidavit (after Hunt had previously provided an affidavit for OBLIC indicating that he had provided notice sometime before October 2000), which indicated that he had given oral notice in June or July of 1995, i.e., within the policy period. Specifically, OBLIC's counsel argued:
{ } "This is not a case where OBLIC made a mistake and is trying to cover up for its mistake. This is a case where Mr. Hunt either made a mistake -- I'll give him the benefit of the doubt -- or in order to get his deal to get him dismissed from the case that was pending against him, agreed to say certain things; and how in the world do you prove that other than with circumstantial evidence?
{ } "What was the reason that the Pollards cut a deal with Hunt with the attorneys sitting here? So that Hunt, the alleged person who did something wrong -- although he didn't think so -- so they can proceed against OBLIC in this case. What was the reason? Well, they have to come up somehow -- follow this. They had to come up somehow in some way with a claim by the Pollards against OBLIC. The only way they could do that is the bogus -- to boogie up the idea that Hunt made a call in June or July of 1995. Just follow it along.
{ } *
{ } "The record is clean and clear of no notice by Hunt during the policy period of 6/7/94 to 6/7/96. Now we're all the way, there's nothing up to that time. Now we're all the way down to 2001. * Now we're involved in litigation with the Pollards so then the affidavits start coming. And start, Hunt starts the embellishment which brings us to you, ladies and gentleman of the jury, for decision; and by embellishment, what I'm talking about, I mean, when we went to Hunt after there was a deposition -- and there were depositions before this, where people give statements under oath. Then we try to present the issue to the court. That was how these affidavits were generated.
{ } "So the first affidavit you see, remember April. The assignment was April of '01. Never before was there anything in the record about the issues you are trying to answer today. Never, nothing. So finally once we get sued, we get into discovery. The best Hunt can do on December 19 of 2001, remember he's got off the notice, he does this. Pollards have no claims because it is not within the policy period, the period we're talking about. He's got to do this if the Pollards can go forward. In
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|