Bishop v. Owens
152 Idaho 616
| Idaho | 2012Background
- Patricia Shelton filed legal malpractice and breach of contract claims arising from attorney Owens’s handling of a medical malpractice settlement.
- Shelton died during the lawsuit, and Lois Bishop, as her personal representative, sought to substitute as plaintiff.
- Owens argued the legal malpractice claim abated at Shelton’s death and the breach of contract claim failed as a matter of law.
- The district court denied the second motion for summary judgment and permitted substitution of Bishop as plaintiff.
- The supreme court reversed, holding that the legal malpractice claim abated and the breach of contract claim did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted; substitution was improper; and Bishop could not recover fees as the prevailing party.
- The case centers on whether legal malpractice claims abate, whether a contract claim can survive when labeled as tort, and whether substitution and fee awards were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Shelton's legal malpractice claims abate on death? | Shelton’s claim sounds in tort; survives per established rule. | Legal malpractice abates as a tort claim upon death. | Yes, abates; tort-based claim does not survive. |
| Does Shelton's breach of contract claim state a claim upon which relief can be granted? | Contract labeling preserves a valid contract claim. | Claim is actually tort-based; fails as contract claim. | No, fails to state a contract claim; treated as tort. |
| Is Shelton's legal malpractice claim barred by the economic loss rule? | Economic loss rule should limit recovery in tort. | Rule applicable; tort claim may be barred. | Not reached; abatement resolves the issue. |
| Was the substitution of Lois Bishop under I.R.C.P. 25(a)(1) improper? | Substitution allowed if claim not extinguished. | Abated claim means no surviving claim to substitute. | Improper substitution. |
| Are Bishop and the appellate party entitled to attorney’s fees? | Bishop seeks fees as personal representative. | Not prevailing party; fees denied. | Denied; Bishop not prevailing party. |
Key Cases Cited
- Helgeson v. Powell, 54 Idaho 667 (1934) (survival of contract-based claims; tort vs. contract generally distinct)
- Kloepfer v. Forch, 32 Idaho 415 (1919) (contract claims survive; tort claims abate)
- Rice v. Litster, 132 Idaho 897 (1999) (legal malpractice as tort; § 12-120(3) context)
- Fuller v. Wolters, 119 Idaho 415 (1991) (malpractice action tort despite commercial transaction)
- City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656 (2009) (commercial transactions may include legal malpractice tort actions)
- Soignier v. Fletcher, 151 Idaho 322 (2011) (malpractice actions sound in tort; § 12-120(3) requires general transaction)