MB Industries, LLC v. CNA Insurance Co.
2011 La. LEXIS 2594
La.2011Background
- MBI sued attorneys Durio and Weinstein for legal malpractice after an adverse unde rlying judgment in a bankruptcy-related suit; the underlying matter involved non-compete and trade-secret claims against Massey and Lavergne.
- The non-appeal of the December 2, 2003 judgment became a central issue for whether MBI could pursue malpractice liability.
- MBI alleged defendants lost and mishandled documents, failed to elicit key testimony, and withdrew from representation before trial.
- Weinstein withdrew before trial; Durio enrolled later and allegedly failed to meet pretrial deadlines and to protect privileged materials.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Third Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court of Louisiana reinstated the trial court judgment.
- The court held that failure to appeal does not per se waive a malpractice claim, but expert proof is generally required unless the malpractice is so egregious a lay jury could infer a breach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver by not appealing underlying judgment | MBI should not be barred by non-appeal | Equitable estoppel or waiver applies | Not per se; analysis depends on reasonable prudence and case facts |
| Necessity of expert testimony on standard of care | Expert not always required; obvious malpractice possible | Expert testimony required to prove standard of care | Generally requires expert testimony unless obvious gross error or nosed case |
| Material facts via summary judgment | Evidence shows potential malpractice | No genuine issues; undisputed facts show no breach | No genuine issue; summary judgment proper on record |
| Causation and damages connection | Negligence caused loss in trial outcome | No proven causal link from alleged acts to outcome | Not proven; no prima facie causation established |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Gilsbar, 834 So.2d 669 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2002) (equitable estoppel arguments rejected; not per se rule)
- Gross v. Pieno, 892 So.2d 662 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2004) (settlement did not bar malpractice action; mitigation context)
- American Reliable Ins. Co. v. Navratil, 445 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2006) (settlement not per se waiver of malpractice claim; reasonable-mitigation standard)
- Ramp v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 269 So.2d 239 (La. 1972) (expert testimony not always necessary for obvious malpractice)
- Unverzagt v. Young Builders, Inc., 215 So.2d 823 (La. 1968) (duty to mitigate damages; reasonable prudent man standard)