Hillbroom v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 154
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Hillblom died in 1995, estate valued around $353 million, probate in CNMI; GSA settled interests between Qualified Heir Claimants (QHCs) and charitable trust, Escrow Agent became successor to estate’s refunds.
- Escrow Agreement directed Jenner and PwC to pursue refund claims for the QHCs; May 2000 email from Jenner suggested delaying additional claims and banking the first claim.
- In 1999-2000, IRS deficiency and later overpayment were identified; a Refund Claim Memorandum claimed a refund of $5.7 million due to administrative expenses.
- Estate counsel’s informal refund claim and possible protective claim were pursued; later a settlement with IRS in 2007 reduced recoveries to about $4.5 million plus interest.
- Appellants filed suit on June 22, 2009 asserting professional negligence, breach of contract, and fiduciary duties for failure to timely file formal refund claims.
- Trial court dismissed under a three-year statute of limitations; court found injury and accrual by December 2002 when new counsel was hired and deadlines lapsed, rejecting tolling for minor QHCs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the action accrue? | Accrual occurred when injury was ascertainable, not when new counsel engaged or deadlines lapsed. | Accrual by December 2002 at latest, when deadlines passed and new counsel was hired. | Remand required; accrual timing unresolved on record. |
| Did the minor QHCs toll the limitations period? | D.C. Code § 12-302(a) tolls for minors via proper representatives. | Beneficiary/Trustee framework governs tolling; guardians’ appointment unclear for tolling. | Record insufficient; tolling issue requires development. |
| Is there a separate injury from attorney’s fees incurred after retaining new counsel? | Injury from alleged negligence existed before filing suit; fees may be damages. | Fees may relate to later efforts, not initial injury; not clearly cognizable at accrual. | Not decided on current record; remand for further development. |
| Should the IRS position disputing the refunds affect accrual? | IRS stance clarified claims and timing; accrual could align with dispute resolution. | IRS position does not fix accrual without a clear record; timing uncertain. | Remand; need fuller record on IRS timeline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Sellinger, 847 A.2d 1151 (D.C. 2004) (injury may be uncertain until resolution of underlying suit)
- Weisberg v. Williams, Connolly & Califano, 390 A.2d 992 (D.C. 1978) (statute of limitations defenses can trigger accrual context)
- Bleck v. Power, 955 A.2d 712 (D.C. 2008) (injury from passing limitation deadline can occur when claim is legally subject to dismissal)
- Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005) (tolling and accrual considerations require development of record)
- Ideal Elec. Sec. Co. v. Brown, 817 A.2d 806 (D.C. 2003) (accrual in professional malpractice may occur when actionable injury is received or communicated)