Est. of Robert H. Agnew v. Ross, D., 2017 Pa. LEXIS 129

Background

Decedent Robert Agnew retained attorney Daniel Ross to prepare estate documents; Ross drafted a 2010 Will (executed) and a 2010 Trust Amendment (not executed by Agnew).
The unexecuted 2010 Trust Amendment would have directed the residue of Agnew’s revocable trust to the plaintiffs (relatives of Agnew’s late wife).
After Agnew’s death, plaintiffs sued Ross for breach of the contract to provide legal services (third‑party beneficiary theory) and for legal malpractice in negligence; trial court dismissed negligence claims but allowed the breach claim to proceed.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Ross, holding an executed testamentary document naming the claimant is required for third‑party beneficiary standing; Superior Court reversed.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Superior Court, holding that an executed testamentary document naming the claimant is a prerequisite to third‑party beneficiary standing to sue a testator’s drafting attorney for breach of contract.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether non‑named or only‑named‑in‑an‑unexecuted draft beneficiaries have standing as intended third‑party beneficiaries to sue the testator’s attorney for breach of contract	Plaintiffs: Section 302 and Guy permit third‑party beneficiary suits where circumstances show intent to benefit them; unexecuted draft and contemporaneous evidence show intent.	Ross: Allowing suits based on unexecuted drafts would undermine testamentary formalities, invite fraud, and impose duties to non‑clients; only an executed document can establish the testator’s intent.	Held: No standing unless the claimant is identified in an executed testamentary instrument; unexecuted drafts are insufficient.
Whether the Superior Court properly relied on attorney’s (promisor’s) intent or testimony to create a triable issue of fact on standing	Plaintiffs: Promisor’s intent and admissions about oversight create a factual dispute about whether the attorney intended to confer benefits.	Ross: Promisor’s intent is irrelevant; the testator’s executed testamentary intent controls.	Held: Testator’s intent as reflected in executed testamentary documents governs; attorney’s intent alone cannot establish standing.
Whether Guy v. Liederbach requires expansion to include beneficiaries named only in unexecuted instruments	Plaintiffs: Guy’s footnote and Restatement §302 allow recognition of non‑named intended beneficiaries in appropriate cases.	Ross: Guy was narrow and premised on an executed will; its reasoning does not permit claims based on unsigned drafts.	Held: Guy is narrow and distinguishes executed from unexecuted instruments; it does not authorize suits for beneficiaries only named in unsigned drafts.
Whether public policy favors permitting third parties to sue based on unexecuted drafts	Plaintiffs: Policy should protect innocent would‑be beneficiaries injured by attorney malpractice.	Ross: Requiring execution protects testamentary formalities, prevents fraud, and preserves attorney‑client loyalty.	Held: Public policy favors requiring executed testamentary documents to prevent fraud and protect solemnity of wills and trusts.

Key Cases Cited

Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 593 Pa. 20, 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (summary judgment standard; view facts in light most favorable to non‑moving party)
Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47, 459 A.2d 744 (Pa. 1983) (approved Restatement §302; allowed named legatee to sue drafting attorney where executed will evidenced intent)
Gregg v. Lindsay, 437 Pa.Super. 206, 649 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (refused to extend Guy where will naming claimant was never executed)
Scarpitti v. Weborg, 530 Pa. 366, 609 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1992) (third‑party beneficiary recovery allowed where contract clearly intended to benefit non‑parties—distinguished on facts)
In re Sciutti’s Estate, 371 Pa. 536, 92 A.2d 188 (Pa. 1952) (unsigned will/trust instrument cannot be probated; execution required to give effect)