Robert B. Taylor v. Alonso, Cersonsky & Garcia, P.C., James A. Cersonsky, John Causey, and Hope and Causey, P.C.
395 S.W.3d 178
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Taylor sues his former attorneys for legal malpractice, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty after a car accident settlement exceeding policy limits.
- Fullen, the accident victim, suffered severe brain injury and will require ongoing care, with estimated costs near $20 million.
- Cersonsky initially represented Taylor; he withdrew in July 2006 and Causey thereafter took over representation.
- Before mediation, a settlement was reached where Taylor paid $3 million to resolve claims; Allstate had offered $250,000.
- Taylor alleged the attorneys failed to investigate and pursue seat-belt defenses and otherwise acted to protect Allstate's interests.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, and Taylor appealed challenging causation and fiduciary-duty theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cersonsky's withdrawal broke the causation chain | Taylor contends Cersonsky's acts harmed later defense. | Cersonsky's withdrawal cannot cause harm absent interference with Causey's later representation. | Summary judgment proper; no fact issue on causation against Cersonsky. |
| Whether Causey's conduct causally harmed Taylor | Donato would show seat-belt defense and other actions would yield a defense verdict within policy limits. | Donato's affidavit is conclusory and fails to connect to actual outcomes; no fact issue on causation. | Summary judgment proper; Donato's affidavit insufficient to raise fact issue. |
| Whether breach of fiduciary duty claims survive given causation | Taylor asserts divided loyalties and undisclosed fee arrangements constitute fiduciary breach. | Claims merely restate malpractice and require causation proof. | Causation lacking defeats fiduciary-duty claims as well; summary judgment upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greathouse v. McConnell, 982 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. 1998) (suit-within-a-suit causation standard for malpractice)
- Finger v. Ray, 326 S.W.3d 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (requires causation proof in fiduciary-duty context)
- Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (conclusory expert testimony insufficient to prove causation)
- Pollock v. City of San Antonio, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (conclusory opinion not probative in summary judgment)
- Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. 2010) (experts must tie causation to specific facts)
- Blake v. Lewis, 886 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (withdrawal of prior attorney not actionable without hindering successor)
- Medrano v. Reyes, 902 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1995) (when prior attorney withdraws, later representation must be hampered to cause harm)