 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Huff v. Roach2/10/2005
Brenda and Shurwin Huff filed a malpractice claim against their former attorney, Patrick T. Roach, nearly seven years after they discovered he had missed the Oregon statute of limitations in their underlying personal injury claims. Reasoning the legal negligence claim accrued upon discovery and was time barred, the trial court granted summary judgment dismissal. Mr. and Mrs. Huff contend their negligence claim did not accrue until they later suffered 'damages' when the statute of limitations defense was actually raised in their Oregon personal injury lawsuit. We find that the negligence claim accrued upon suffering injury, meaning damage. We further clarify that 'damages' are the monetary value of the injury or damage. We reject the proposal to extend the time limits until damages are known. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
The Huff family was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Oregon on February 13, 1993. Mr. and Mrs. Huff (the Huffs) and Forrest, the parties' minor son, allegedly were injured. The Huffs retained Washington attorney Patrick Roach, to represent them on February 25, 1993. When the Oregon two-year statute of limitations for the Huffs' claims for Forrest's medical expenses, passed on February 13, 1995, Mr. Roach had not filed a lawsuit on their behalf. As a minor, Forrest's personal claims were unaffected. On June 8, 1995, Mr. Roach received notice Mr. and Mrs. Huff had retained Carl A. Taylor Lopez to represent them. By June 24, 1995, the Huffs had notice, through their new attorney, that Mr. Roach had missed the statute of limitations in their personal injury case. The Huffs apparently chose to litigate their underlying claims instead of bringing a legal malpractice claim against Mr. Roach.
Mr. Lopez filed the underlying suit in Oregon on August 7, 1998. From the complaint, it was unclear whether Mr. and Mrs. Huff were seeking damages on their own behalf or solely for Forrest. Thus, the Oregon defendants did not raise the statute of limitations issue until it became apparent Mr. and Mrs. Huff were seeking damages for themselves as well as for Forrest. Then, Mr. and Mrs. Huff voluntarily dismissed their personal claims on September 25, 2000, and settled Forrest's claims.
On May 23, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Huff filed this legal malpractice suit against Mr. Roach. Mr. Roach successfully moved for summary judgment dismissal based upon his statute of limitations affirmative defense, arguing the claim was made nearly seven years after discovery. The trial court rejected the Huffs' argument that their malpractice case did not accrue until September 2000, when they dismissed their Oregon claims. The court partly reasoned the law did not require proof of a time-barred lawsuit or damages as a prerequisite to filing a legal malpractice claim. The Huffs appealed.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment dismissal of the Huffs' legal malpractice suit and concluding the action was time barred under the three-year statute of limitations based upon the discovery rule.
In reviewing summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Lavigne v. Chase, Haskell, Hayes & Kalamon, P.S., 112 Wn. App. 677, 682, 50 P.3d 306 (2002) (citing Huff v. Budbill, 141 Wn.2d 1, 7, 1 P.3d 1138 (2000)). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact exist, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. We review all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all issues of law de novo. Id. Here, the Huffs acknowledge no material fact issues exist. The statute of limitations for a legal malpra
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|