Editors note: This is the first in a three-part series. Bruce Bellingham drafted the appellees Supreme Court brief in Ohio Casualty v. Ingerman Construction.
Can a party that claims it was forced by its attorneys negligence to settle a case during trial for $5 million seek to recover its loss in a malpractice action when it won a zero-damages verdict when the case went to the jury because of non-settling defendants? That was the issue in a Supreme Court appeal captioned Ingerman Affordable Housing v. Margolis Edelstein, No. 65 EAP 2011, 33 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2011) (appeal granted), No. 65 EAP 2011, 53 A.3d 1315(Pa. 2012) (appeal dismissed as improvidently granted). Additional complicating factors were that the prevailing client involved in the appeal, and the primary insurer that hired counsel, were satisfied. The action was brought by the clients excess carrier that required its insureds to assign it all claims as a condition of acknowledging coverage. The carrier alleged that it was forced to proffer its policy limits to avoid a perceived risk of a runaway verdict against its insured and the fact that the lawyer later won a zero-damages verdict for his client was irrelevant hindsight.
