Fandray, N. v. Baum, A.
199 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 17, 2016Background
- Nita Fandray, an attorney, owned A Bright Future Adoptions, Inc.; both were insured by ProAssurance.
- In 2009 the Hannons sued Adoption Related Services, Bright Future, and Fandray; ProAssurance assigned Alan Baum to defend Fandray and Bright Future under a reservation of rights.
- Baum entered appearance Sept. 21, 2010, filed an Answer asserting absolute defenses (immunity, privilege, statute of limitations, truth, corporate veil), engaged in discovery, and filed (then later withdrew at Fandray’s request) a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- In mid‑June 2011 ProAssurance, without Fandray’s consent, settled the Hannons’ claim for $62,000 (within policy limits); Fandray later sued Baum for legal malpractice and ProAssurance for breach of contract and bad faith.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for both Baum and ProAssurance; the Superior Court affirmed, finding Plaintiffs failed to show breach or causation against Baum and that ProAssurance lawfully exercised its policy right and duty to settle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baum committed malpractice by failing to timely secure dismissal before insurer settled | Baum failed to timely prosecute absolute defenses and thus breached standard of care, causing damages when insurer settled | Baum raised the defenses, participated in discovery and motions; no evidence he breached standard of care or proximately caused the settlement | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; Plaintiffs did not prove breach or causation — summary judgment for Baum affirmed |
| Whether ProAssurance breached contract or acted in bad faith by settling without insured’s consent | Insurer settled needlessly in bad faith, depriving Plaintiffs of a defense and causing ruin | Policy granted insurer the right and duty to investigate and settle; insurer acted within policy and in good faith by settling within limits | Court: No reasonable juror could find bad faith; insurer had authority to settle — summary judgment for ProAssurance affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Englert v. Fazio Mechanical Services, Inc., 932 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2007) (summary judgment standard reviewed plenarily)
- Strausser v. Pramco, III, 944 A.2d 761 (Pa. Super. 2008) (multiple final judgments in piecemeal appeals)
- Epstein v. Saul Ewing LLP, 7 A.3d 303 (Pa. Super. 2010) (elements required to establish legal malpractice)
- Myers v. Robert Lewis Seigle, P.C., 751 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2000) (legal malpractice principles)