Laurent v. Johnson
2017 IL App (3d) 160627
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Judith Laurent, executor of Thomas Laurent’s estate, sued attorney Kay Johnson for legal malpractice based on Johnson’s handling of an underlying breach-of-contract suit against Time Insurance and agent Gary Nohovig for unpaid medical bills accrued in Aug–Sep 2006.
- The Time policy had a $100,000 annual limit and a 3‑year suit limitation; Time paid the $100,000 limit but additional medical bills remained unpaid.
- Johnson filed the underlying breach-of-contract complaint in state court in Nov 2010 but did not attempt service until July–Aug 2011; Time removed the case to federal court in Sept 2011 and moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the policy’s limitations and lack of diligence in service.
- The federal magistrate recommended dismissal; the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the breach claim with prejudice in May 2012.
- In March 2012 (before the district court’s dismissal), Judith’s counsel emailed Nohovig’s counsel accepting a $9,000 settlement and asking for a release and dismissal; Judith executed a broad release that discharged Nohovig and related parties (including Time) for all claims prior to the agreement.
- Judith filed malpractice suit against Johnson in 2014 alleging Johnson’s delay caused loss of the underlying claim; Johnson moved for summary judgment arguing Judith could not prove proximate cause or damages because the underlying claim would not have succeeded and was released. The trial court granted summary judgment for Johnson; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine factual dispute exists about Nohovig’s agency (Time’s agent vs. Judith/Thomas’s agent) | Judith: factual dispute exists; if Nohovig was the buyers’ agent the discrepancy rule may not bar recovery | Johnson: pleadings and admissions treat Nohovig as Time’s agent; no triable issue on agency | Court: Nohovig was pled and admitted to be Time’s agent; no genuine issue; held as Time’s agent |
| Whether the discrepancy rule barred the underlying breach claim | Judith: rule shouldn’t apply if Nohovig acted for the insureds or both | Johnson: insureds failed to read/notify about the policy discrepancy, so the rule bars recovery | Court: insureds failed to read/notify; discrepancy rule bars the underlying claim |
| Whether any tort/respondeat superior claims against Nohovig/Time survived | Judith: tort claims for negligent procurement and respondeat superior could remain | Johnson: Judith did not plead torts in underlying case and later settlement/release extinguished all claims | Court: Judith did not plead torts and executed a broad release that discharged Nohovig and Time, extinguishing such claims |
| Whether Johnson’s alleged malpractice proximately caused damages | Judith: Johnson’s delay caused loss; settlement was compelled by court action and not voluntary | Johnson: underlying claim would have failed anyway and Judith voluntarily settled before dismissal; no causation or damages | Court: no proximate cause/damages—underlying claim barred by discrepancy rule and then released; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (2004) (summary judgment standard and de novo review on appeal)
- Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver, 222 Ill. 2d 218 (2006) (malpractice requires proof that but for attorney negligence the client would have prevailed in the underlying case)
- Floral Consultants, Ltd. v. Hanover Insurance Co., 128 Ill. App. 3d 173 (1984) (insured cannot recover for policy discrepancies if the insured failed to read and notify insurer of the error)
- Pagano v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 257 Ill. App. 3d 905 (1994) (plaintiff is held to the allegations and admissions in pleadings for summary judgment purposes)
- Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307 (2004) (appellate court may affirm summary judgment on any basis supported by the record)