Knopick v. Connelly
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7554
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Knopick and Dolly separated; PSA allocated $60,000 to Dolly from Knopick's retirement plan.
- Divorce proceedings followed; Dolly claimed Knopick failed to disclose assets, including $2 million in stock encumbered by a loan.
- Knopick retained the Connelly Defendants (2004) for the PSA matter; they advised the PSA was valid and its set-aside would be costly for Dolly.
- PSA hearing on August 2, 2004; Connelly Defendants did not call Knopick’s listed witnesses; Knopick received assurances the hearing went well.
- Judge Morrow later set aside the PSA, triggering an equitable distribution hearing; Knopick later settled for a substantial sum.
- Downey (2006–2007) was retained to pursue a legal malpractice claim against the Connelly Defendants; district court granted Downey summary judgment based on the occurrence rule for statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations for legal malpractice. | Knopick: discovery rule should apply to toll start. | Downey: occurrence rule governs start date. | Issue remanded; court disagreed with sole occurrence-rule start. |
| Whether the discovery rule, not occurrence, should apply to Knopick’s claim against Connelly Defendants. | Discovery rule should apply to injury from witness non-testimony. | Occurrence rule suffices; start at hearing date. | Discovery rule applies; factual dispute as to when injury was discovered. |
| Whether the plaintiff’s alleged attorney-client relationship with Downey affects the start of the limitations period. | Relationship began before limitations expired. | Not resolved; case remanded on other grounds. | Not resolved on this record; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Ferretti, 935 A.2d 565 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (discovery rule tolls when plaintiff cannot discover injury or cause)
- Beausang v. Glenbrook Leasing Co., 839 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (discovery rule applied to legal malpractice in a contract context)
- Robbins v. Geisenberger, 674 A.2d 244 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (discovery rule applied in medical malpractice-related legal action context)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (discovery rule and fraudulent concealment in medical context; informs civil malpractice)
- Pocono Int'l Raceway v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 468 A.2d 471 (Pa. 1983) (discovery rule origins; when discovery possible)
- Beausang v. Glenbrook Leasing Co., 839 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (discovery rule applied to non-attorney action for malpractice)