Lexplug logoLexplug

Kituskie v. Corbman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
714 A. 2d 1027, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 1649, 552 Pa. 275 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a legal malpractice action, the collectibility of damages from the defendant in the underlying case is a relevant factor in determining the plaintiff's actual loss. The burden of pleading and proving that the underlying judgment was uncollectible is an affirmative defense that falls upon the defendant-attorney.


Facts:

  • On September 3, 1989, Leo J. Kituskie was injured in a two-car automobile accident in California caused by Evan Mark Trapp, who was reportedly driving while intoxicated and at a high speed.
  • As a result of the accident, Kituskie suffered a degenerative and arthritic back condition that made it difficult for him to work full-time as a periodontist.
  • On September 9, 1989, Kituskie retained attorney Scott K. Corbman to pursue a personal injury claim against Trapp.
  • Corbman learned that Trapp's automobile insurance policy with California State Automobile Association (CSAA) had a liability limit of $25,000.
  • On September 17, 1990, more than a year after the accident, Corbman discovered that California's statute of limitations for the personal injury claim was one year, not two years as in Pennsylvania.
  • Because Corbman had failed to file a lawsuit within the one-year period, CSAA informed him it would not make a settlement offer.
  • Corbman then informed Kituskie that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations and advised him to seek new counsel to file a legal malpractice claim against him.

Procedural Posture:

  • Leo J. Kituskie filed a legal malpractice claim against Scott K. Corbman and the Garfinkle law firm in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
  • Prior to trial, the court granted motions in limine, ruling that the collectibility of damages in the underlying case was not relevant to a legal malpractice claim in Pennsylvania.
  • Following a trial, a jury found Corbman and his firm liable for legal malpractice and awarded Kituskie $2,300,000 in damages.
  • Corbman and his firm, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
  • The Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that collectibility is relevant and that the defendant-attorney bears the burden of proving non-collectibility as a defense.
  • The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allocatur (agreed to hear the appeal) to review the Superior Court's decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a legal malpractice action, is the collectibility of a potential judgment in the underlying action relevant to damages, and if so, which party bears the burden of proof on that issue?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Castille

Yes, collectibility is a relevant factor, and the defendant-attorney bears the burden of proving non-collectibility. A plaintiff in a legal malpractice action is only entitled to recover for actual losses, which are measured by the judgment the plaintiff lost in the underlying action. Allowing a plaintiff to recover a judgment against an attorney that is greater than what could have been collected from the original defendant would constitute an inequitable windfall. Therefore, the collectibility of the underlying judgment must be considered. The burden of proving non-collectibility is placed on the defendant-attorney as an affirmative defense. This 'minority view' is more logical and fair, as the attorney's negligence is what caused the delay and potential difficulty in proving collectibility years after the event. Requiring the plaintiff to prove collectibility would place an unfair burden on the innocent client.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a new rule of law for legal malpractice actions in Pennsylvania by making the collectibility of the underlying judgment a required component of the damages analysis. By adopting the 'minority view' on the burden of proof, the court balances the interests of the parties. It prevents plaintiffs from receiving a windfall for a judgment they never could have collected, while also placing the evidentiary burden on the negligent attorney whose actions created the problem. This holding requires defendants in future malpractice cases to plead and prove non-collectibility as an affirmative defense if they wish to mitigate damages.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Kituskie v. Corbman (1998) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Kituskie v. Corbman