25 Cal. App. 5th 1075
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Dagny Knutson, a former elite swimmer, retained attorney Richard Foster to negotiate with USA Swimming after an oral promise by its coach (Schubert) to fund her through 2016; Foster had undisclosed close ties to USA Swimming and prior dealings with Schubert.
- Foster negotiated a settlement that provided limited tuition/support through 2012 and contingent payments 2013–2016 only if Knutson met onerous performance markers (top 25 world or top 3 U.S. ranking); Foster failed to disclose conflicts, withheld communications, and forwarded privileged material.
- Knutson signed the agreement, later suffered emotional harm, sought NCAA reinstatement (unsuccessful), and ultimately stopped competitive swimming.
- She sued Foster for fraudulent concealment and intentional breach of fiduciary duty; a jury awarded economic and noneconomic damages.
- The trial court granted Foster a new trial, finding insufficient causation and that noneconomic damages lacked substantial evidentiary support.
- The appellate court reversed: it held intentional attorney torts use the substantial-factor causation standard (not the "but for"/trial-within-a-trial malpractice standard) and that a plaintiff’s own testimony can suffice for emotional-distress damages in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper causation standard for attorney fraudulent concealment and intentional breach of fiduciary duty | Knutson: intentional torts require substantial-factor causation; no need to prove a "better result" but-for showing | Foster: plaintiff must show she would have obtained a better result absent the misconduct (malpractice-style but-for proof) | Held: Substantial-factor causation applies to intentional torts (fraud and intentional breach). |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Foster's misconduct caused Knutson's damages | Knutson: concealed conflicts, misled re: litigation prospects, withheld communications and privileged materials — these were substantial factors inducing the settlement and resulting harms | Foster: without proof she would have gotten a better outcome with another attorney/if fully informed, causation is speculative | Held: Sufficient evidence supported that Foster's concealment and breaches were substantial factors causing economic and noneconomic harm. |
| Admissibility/necessity of expert testimony to prove emotional distress damages | Knutson: her testimony about anxiety, shame, betrayal, and impact on relationships suffices | Foster: emotional-distress award unsupported absent expert linkage or more evidence | Held: Lay testimony from plaintiff can be sufficient for emotional-distress damages where harm is within common experience; expert not required here. |
| Remedy and disposition | Knutson: judgment should be reinstated | Foster: new trial or JNOV appropriate | Held: Reversed order granting new trial; judgment reinstated and matter remanded to reinstate judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viner v. Sweet, 30 Cal.4th 1232 (2003) (but-for/"better result" proof described as method for negligence malpractice; causation requirement distinct from proof method)
- Stanley v. Richmond, 35 Cal.App.4th 1070 (1995) (intentional breach of fiduciary duty may require different causation; substantial-factor test applicable)
- Oakland Raiders v. National Football League, 41 Cal.4th 624 (2007) (standards and limits governing trial court authority to grant new trials)
- Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal.App.4th 740 (2007) (elements of fraud by concealment)
- Williams v. Wraxall, 33 Cal.App.4th 120 (1995) (causation in fraud requires defendant conduct be a "substantial factor")
- McLaughlin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 23 Cal.App.4th 1132 (1994) (plaintiffs' testimony can support emotional-distress damages)
- Little v. Stuyvesant Life Ins. Co., 67 Cal.App.3d 451 (1977) (emotional-distress awards upheld on plaintiff's testimony alone)
- Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles, 75 Cal.App.4th 803 (1999) (affirming large emotional-distress award based on plaintiff lay testimony)