Crist v. Loyacono
65 So. 3d 837
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Sixteen former clients sued two lawyers for breach of fiduciary duty in a mass-tort settlement scheme against American Home Products (Fen-Phen).
- Plaintiffs produced a witness who described Morgan’s settlements and showed a settlement matrix he prepared; the matrix was partly based on another attorney’s work.
- The trial court excluded Morgan’s matrix and testimony as hearsay and granted summary judgment that plaintiffs could not prove they would have won the underlying Fen-Phen case.
- The court held that proving success in the underlying action is not required to pursue fiduciary-duty claims; proximate causation can be established without showing a larger underlying award.
- Morgan’s in-court testimony about the settlement process and the matrix were challenged as hearsay, improper expert opinion, or improper lay opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does fiduciary-duty malpractice require proof of success in the underlying case? | Loyacono/Verhine argue yes; Morgan’s testimony shows enlarged settlements. | Loyacono/Verhine argue no, rule requires success in underlying action. | No; fiduciary claims do not require proving underlying success. |
| Was the Morgan settlement matrix and testimony admissible evidence? | Matrix and testimony were based on Morgan’s personal knowledge and not hearsay. | Matrix was hearsay and testimony required expert qualification. | Morgan’s testimony about the settlement process was admissible; matrix exclusion reversed to the extent based on hearsay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Lane, 873 So.2d 92 (Miss. 2004) (no requirement of expert proof to go to jury on fiduciary-duty breaches)
- Foster v. Foster, 528 So.2d 255 (Miss. 1988) (dissenting views cited on fiduciary duty vs. standard of care)
- Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626 (Miss. 1987) (fiduciary-duty standards in legal malpractice)
- Hutchinson v. Smith, 417 So.2d 926 (Miss. 1982) (foundational rules on malpractice claims)
- Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc., 186 So.2d 756 (Miss. 1966) (historical foundation for malpractice distinctions)
- Channel v. Loyacono, 954 So.2d 415 (Miss. 2007) (statute-of-limitations and timeliness in legal-malpractice claims)
- Duckworth v. Warren, 10 So.3d 433 (Miss. 2009) (recitation of standard evidentiary considerations)