Zanni v. Voccola
13 A.3d 1068
R.I.2011Background
- Plaintiff Zanni was injured while mowing at a federal prison in 1996, sustaining serious injuries requiring hospitalization.
- Post-release, Zanni, with attorney Landry, discussed potential claims including a products liability suit against the mower manufacturer.
- Landry, not licensed in Pennsylvania, had Zanni sign the complaint as a pro se litigant and engaged a Pennsylvania attorney to file it.
- By 1999, counsel Baldys advised that the manufacturer would seek dismissal due to misidentified parties, threatening a bar on the claim; Zanni understood the case was nearing dismissal.
- In 2005, Zanni sued Landry and Voccola for legal malpractice; the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, appellate review followed.
- The issue is whether the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice, and the discovery rule, began before March 2002, such that the suit was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery rule applies to toll the statute for legal malpractice. | Zanni argues discovery could occur later, making suit timely. | Defendants contend discovery rule does not extend beyond when facts placed on notice exist. | No; discovery rule did not save timeliness; facts showed notice earlier. |
| When did the statute of limitations begin for Zanni’s malpractice claim? | Asks for later accrual based on discovery of malpractice. | Accrual occurred no later than end of 1999/early 2000 upon dismissal notice. | The clock began by late 1999 or early 2000; claim expired before 2005. |
| Did dismissal of the Pennsylvania case for misidentification of party put Zanni on notice of potential malpractice? | Dismissal notice could signal malpractice and trigger discovery. | Notice to potential malpractice not proven to be discovery date. | Yes, dismissal served as a red flag putting Zanni on notice. |
| Did end of attorney-client relationship mark accrual point for malpractice claim? | End of relationship establishes knowledge of potential malpractice. | Accrual fixed earlier by dismissal notice and other facts. | End of relationship supports earlier accrual; statute expired prior to filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canavan v. Lovett, Schefrin and Harnett, 862 A.2d 778 (R.I. 2004) (discovery rule begins when facts place a reasonable person on notice of a potential claim)
- Rocchio v. Moretti, 694 A.2d 704 (R.I. 1997) (undisputed facts may show expiration before suit)
- Guay v. Dolan, 685 A.2d 269 (R.I. 1996) (client must use reasonable diligence; late discovery not favored)
- Ciambrone v. Coia & Lepore, Ltd., 819 A.2d 207 (R.I. 2003) (end of attorney-client relationship signals potential malpractice accrual)
- Harvey v. Snow, 281 F.Supp.2d 376 (D.R.I. 2003) (dismissal as red flag indicating potential malpractice)