Failure to Report, Acknowledge and Make Claim to Your Client’s Insurer is Legal Malpractice
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfK8iDSD and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKHi-KkG and at https://lnkd.in/guFuPbAS and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
David Quaknine and several of his companies sued their former attorney and his law firm for alleged malpractice connected to a 2014 suit. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It ruled that the two-year limitations period, which at the latest began to run in September 2019, expired before the plaintiffs sued in December 2021. In Concepts Design Furniture, Inc., et al. v. Fisherbroyles, LLP and Alastair J. Warr, No. 22-2303, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (March 31, 2023) the Seventh Circuit resolved the dispute.
FACTS
The parties called Comptoir, which did business from Quebec, Canada, were sued for intellectual-property infringement in 2014. Over a year later, Comptoir hired Alastair Warr and his law firm to negotiate a settlement or, failing that, represent Comptoir in court. Comptoir told Warr that it had a policy with Intact Insurance Company that potentially could cover defense costs and indemnify it for claims. Warr did not advise Comptoir to submit a claim to Intact nor did it do so on its own.
The lawsuit did not go well and the disclosures in the suit stated that Comptoir had “no insurance agreement.” A jury eventually found against Comptoir with a judgment over three million dollars in damages. In February 2018, Comptoir-through other counsel-told Intact about the attorney’s fees. The notice, four years after the suit, was the first time Intact learned of the intellectual-property suit.
Comptoir reorganized after the adverse judgment. The bankruptcy court declared Comptoir bankrupt and discharged the judgment debt from the 2014 litigation.
Intact denied coverage on September 10, 2019. When it demanded coverage, Comptoir sent to Intact (apparently for the first time) a copy of the complaint in the 2014 suit. In denying Comptoir’s demand in September 2019, Intact gave three reasons:
1. the suit against Comptoir was not covered under the policy.
2. because Comptoir “failed to promptly notify Intact of the [2014] Complaint and to immediately upon receipt thereof, deliver to Intact a copy of the Complaint,” it violated the policy and forfeited its right to and was “time barred” from reimbursement.
3. Comptoir listed its defense fees “as amounts due to creditors,” which implied that only the bankruptcy trustee could collect them.
Intact sued seeking a declaration in Cook County Circuit Court that it was not obligated to pay defense fees or indemnify Comptoir. Comptoir made its defense-fees claim outside the three-year statute of limitations applicable under Quebec law. Thus, Comptoir’s complaint and subsequent demand for reimbursement of fees was time barred.
On December 17, 2021, refusing to admit is errors and failure to promptly act, Comptoir sued Warr and FisherBroyles for legal malpractice. The district court granted Warr and FisherBroyles’s motion to dismiss the suit as untimely under Illinois law.
Both parties accept that Illinois’s two-year statute of limitations for malpractice suits applies to this case. They also do not dispute that the Illinois statute of limitations incorporates the so-called “discovery” rule, which delays the commencement of the relevant statute of limitations until the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he has been injured and that his injury was wrongfully caused.
Comptoir’s claim is not based on the mishandling of litigation. Rather, its claim arises out of the defendants’ alleged failure to advise Comptoir to file a timely claim with its insurer. These damages existed before-and regardless of- the outcome of the declaratory-judgment suit. It is undisputed that one explicit reason for Intact’s denial was that Comptoir failed to promptly notify Intact of the Complaint and to immediately upon receipt thereof, deliver to Intact a copy of the complaint, and that the policy stated that failure to notify meant a forfeiture of rights to compensation.
Once a malpractice plaintiff is aware of injury the plaintiff is not required to wait for a court’s judgment certifying that the plaintiff’s attorneys erred. Thus, the limitations clock for Comptoir started when it reasonably should have known of the alleged malpractice and that occurred, at the latest, when Intact sent its letter in September 2019 denying coverage to Comptoir.
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and Comptoir was not required to anticipate the defense in its complaint. Comptoir accepts that Intact denied coverage in September 2019, starting the two-year clock that expired before it sued in December 2021.
ZALMA OPINION
Lawyers, like people not trained in the law, like their clients, all have an uncanny ability to avoid reading an insurance policy. The defense lawyer, with knowledge of the existence of a policy that could provide a defense to Comptoir, ignored the fact, answered discovery reporting no insurance, and defended the suit on its merits, only to impose a multi-million dollar verdict on Comptoir. After the judgment and a bankruptcy action Comptoir made claim for its attorneys fees only to lose because the claim was time barred. Waiting even longer it sued its lawyers for failing to advise it to report its claim to its insurer, only to lose again because it was time barred.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Convicted Criminal Seeks to Compel Receiver to Protect his Assets
Post number 5291
See the video at and at and at https://www.zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
The Work of a Court Appointed Receiver is Constitutionally Protected
In Simon Semaan et al. v. Robert P. Mosier et al., G064385, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division (February 6, 2026) the Court of Appeals applied the California anti-SLAPP statute which protects defendants from meritless lawsuits arising from constitutionally protected activities, including those performed in official capacities. The court also considered the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which shields court-appointed receivers from liability for discretionary acts performed within their official duties.
Facts
In September 2021, the State of California filed felony charges against Simon Semaan, alleging violations of Insurance Code section 11760(a) for making...
When There are Two Different Other Insurance Clauses They Eliminate Each Other and Both Insurers Owe Indemnity Equally
Post number 5289
In Great West Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co., and Conserv FS, Inc., and Timothy A. Brennan, as Administrator of the Estate of Pat- rick J. Brennan, deceased, Nos. 24-1258, 24-1259, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (February 11, 2026) the USCA was required to resolve a dispute that arose when a tractor-trailer operated by Robert D. Fisher (agent of Deerpass Farms Trucking, LLC-II) was involved in a side-impact collision with an SUV driven by Patrick J. Brennan, resulting in Brennan’s death.
Facts
Deerpass Trucking, an interstate motor carrier, leased the tractor from Deerpass Farms Services, LLC, and hauled cargo for Conserv FS, Inc. under a trailer interchange agreement. The tractor was insured by Great West Casualty Company with a $1 million policy limit, while the trailer was insured by Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company with a $2 million ...
Opiod Producer Seeks Indemnity from CGL Insurers
Post number 5288
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guNhStN2, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gYqkk-n3 and at https://lnkd.in/g8U3ehuc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurers Exclude Damages Due to Insured’s Products
In Matthew Dundon, As The Trustee Of The Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 24-4221, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (February 10, 2026) Matthew Dundon, trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust, sued multiple commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for coverage of opioid-related litigation involving Endo International PLC a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
KEY FACTS
Beginning as early as 2014, thousands of opioid suits were filed by governments, third parties, and individuals alleging harms tied to opioid manufacturing and marketing.
Bankruptcy & Settlements
Endo filed Chapter 11 in August 2022; before bankruptcy it ...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lost the ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah. Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and wonder how did all these wonderful things come into being. Jews believe the force we call G_d created the entire universe and everything in it. Jews feel G_d is all seeing and knowing and although we can’t see Him, He is everywhere and in everyone.We understand...
Passover for Americans
Posted on February 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/passover-americans-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-5vgkc.
“The Passover Seder For Americans”
For more than 3,000 years Jewish fathers have told the story of the Exodus of the enslaved Jews from Egypt. Telling the story has been required of all Jewish fathers. Americans, who have lived in North America for more than 300 years have become Americans and many have lostthe ability to read, write and understand the Hebrew language in which the story of Passover was first told in the Torah.
Passover is one of the many holidays Jewish People celebrate to help them remember the importance of G_d in their lives. We see the animals, the oceans, the rivers, the mountains, the rain, sun, the planets, the stars, and the people and ...
You Get What You Pay For – Less Coverage Means Lower Premium
Post number 5275
Posted on January 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
When Experts for Both Sides Agree That Two Causes Concur to Cause a Wall to Collapse Exclusion Applies
In Lido Hospitality, Inc. v. AIX Specialty Insurance Company, No. 1-24-1465, 2026 IL App (1st) 241465-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois (January 27, 2026) resolved the effect of an anti-concurrent cause exclusion to a loss with more than one cause.
Facts and Background
Lido Hospitality, Inc. operates the Lido Motel in Franklin Park, Illinois. In November 2020, a windstorm caused one of the motel’s brick veneer walls to collapse. At the time, Lido was insured under a policy issued by AIX Specialty Insurance Company which provided coverage for windstorm damage. However, the policy contained an exclusion for any loss or damage directly or indirectly resulting from ...
