Osborne v. Keeney
399 S.W.3d 1
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Osborne sued Keeney for legal malpractice alleging he failed to file suit against Quesenberry before the statute expired, causing damages.
- A federal summary-judgment dismissal against Osborne occurred in the underlying case, and Keeney did not inform Osborne of it.
- At trial, Osborne introduced evidence of the underlying negligence of Quesenberry and Keeney’s inadequate representation, resulting in substantial damages and punitive awards against Keeney.
- The Court of Appeals partially affirmed but remanded on several damages issues, including emotional-distress damages lacking physical impact and punitive damages questions.
- This Court reaffirmed the suit-within-a-suit framework for legal malpractice, held the physical-impact rule obsolete for emotional distress, and held lost punitive damages are not recoverable against an attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suit-within-a-suit remains proper | Osborne | Keeney | Yes; remanded for proper instructions on underlying negligence |
| Whether the physical impact rule governs emotional distress claims | Osborne | Keeney | No; replaced by general negligence with requirement of severe emotional injury supported by expert proof |
| Whether lost punitive damages are recoverable in legal malpractice | Osborne | Keeney | No; lost punitive damages not recoverable against an attorney |
Key Cases Cited
- Daugherty v. Runner, 581 S.W.2d 12 (Ky.App. 1978) (suit-within-a-suit instruction for causation in legal malpractice)
- Deutsch v. Shein, 597 S.W.2d 141 (Ky. 1980) (impact rule discussion and minimal physical contact standards)
- Wilhoite v. Cobb, 761 S.W.2d 625 (Ky.App. 1988) (emotional distress without sufficient impact considerations)
- Congleton, 234 S.W.3d 920 (Ky. 2007) (recognizes evolving approaches to emotional distress and negligence principles)
- KRS 411.184, N/A (N/A) (punitive-damages statute governing recovery against wrongdoer)