Labair Ex Rel. Labair v. Carey
2012 MT 312
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Labairs lost their newborn in 2003 and consulted Carey about a potential medical malpractice claim against Dr. Baumgartner.
- Carey failed to file an MMLP application before the statute of limitations expired, leading to dismissal of the underlying medical malpractice case.
- Labairs filed a legal malpractice action in 2010 alleging Carey’s negligence caused the loss of their medical malpractice claim and potential damages.
- District Court granted Carey summary judgment, relying on lack of admissible medical causation and damages evidence and the so-called ‘suit within a suit’ framework.
- Court reverses, clarifies causation in legal malpractice post-Busta, rejects the mandatory proof of underlying success at summary judgment, and remands for trial with damages to be proven.
- On remand, Labairs must prove, by a preponderance, that but-for Carey’s negligence they would have secured a settlement or verdict, and quantify lost value.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation framework post-Busta | Labairs: causation follows uninterrupted chain; no intervening cause. | Carey: causation requires proof of loss in underlying case and damages via ‘suit within a suit’. | Causation framework clarified; no proximate-cause burden at this stage. |
| Sufficiency of expert proof on underlying medical causation/damages | Labairs provided sufficient medical and legal expert testimony to raise a fact issue regarding underlying causation and damages. | Carey contends Labairs lacked admissible expert medical testimony to prove the medical claim and damages. | Labairs presented sufficient expert evidence to survive summary judgment. |
| Proper burden at summary judgment for the ‘suit within a suit’ | Labairs should not be forced to prove underlying success at summary judgment; must show loss of a viable claim would have withstood summary judgment. | Carey relied on underlying success as a prerequisite to damages via the ‘suit within a suit’ concept. | The Court rejects requiring proof of underlying success at summary judgment; Labairs may proceed to trial to prove probable outcomes. |
| Damage measure and remand procedure | Damages consist of lost opportunity to settle or win; value must be proven with credible evidence on remand. | Damages may be speculative if not tied to a viable underlying outcome. | Damages must be proven on remand with credible, non-speculative evidence of probable outcomes and lost value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Busta v. Columbus Hosp., 276 Mont. 342 (Mont. 1996) (causation framework: cause-in-fact, no proximate cause unless intervening)
- Fisher v. Swift Transp. Co., 342 Mont. 335 (Mont. 2008) (uninterrupted chain; but-for causation; intervening causes analyzed)
- Stott v. Fox, 246 Mont. 301 (Mont. 1990) ('suit within a suit' concept in legal malpractice damages)
- Lorash v. Epstein, 236 Mont. 21 (Mont. 1989) (but-for causation in legal malpractice)
- Merzlak v. Purcell, 252 Mont. 527 (Mont. 1992) (elements of professional negligence; damages framework)
- Estate of Willson, 2011 MT 179 (Mont. 2011) (medical malpractice causation elements; summary judgment standard)
- Lieberman v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 419 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1980) (suit-within-a-suit; flexibility in proving damages)
- Babcock Place P’ship v. Berg, Lilly, Andriolo & Tollefson, P.C., 315 Mont. 364 (Mont. 2003) (acknowledges Busta/Fisher framework; prior Montana authority)