Lexplug logoLexplug

Paradigm Ins. Co. v. Langerman Law Offices

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc
24 P.3d 593 (2001)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney hired by an insurer to represent an insured has a duty to the insurer and may be liable for malpractice that harms only the insurer. This duty arises even if the insurer is a nonclient, based on the understanding that the attorney’s services are intended to benefit both parties when their interests coincide.


Facts:

  • Paradigm Insurance Co. (Paradigm) issued a medical malpractice insurance policy to Dr. Benjamin A. Vanderwerf.
  • A patient, Renee Taylor, sued Dr. Vanderwerf and his employer, Samaritan Health Service (Samaritan), for malpractice.
  • Paradigm assigned The Langerman Law Offices (Langerman) to defend Dr. Vanderwerf in the lawsuit.
  • Langerman failed to investigate whether Samaritan's own liability insurance, through Samaritan Insurance Funding (SIF), provided primary coverage for the claim against Dr. Vanderwerf.
  • Paradigm later terminated Langerman’s representation due to an unrelated disagreement.
  • Dr. Vanderwerf's new counsel discovered the SIF policy and tendered the defense to SIF, but SIF rejected the tender as untimely.
  • The Taylor lawsuit was settled within Paradigm's policy limits, causing no direct financial harm to Dr. Vanderwerf.
  • Paradigm was forced to use its own funds to settle the claim without contribution from SIF, thereby incurring financial damages.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Langerman Law Offices sued Paradigm Insurance Co. in a state trial court for unpaid legal fees.
  • Paradigm filed a counterclaim against Langerman for legal malpractice.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment for Langerman on the counterclaim, ruling that Langerman owed no duty to Paradigm without an attorney-client relationship.
  • Paradigm, as appellant, appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an attorney-client relationship existed with both the insurer and insured, creating a duty.
  • Langerman, as petitioner, sought review from the Arizona Supreme Court, the state's highest court.

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:

Does an attorney, hired by an insurer to represent an insured, owe a duty of care to the insurer such that the insurer can maintain a malpractice action against the attorney for negligence that harms only the insurer?


Opinions:

Majority - Feldman, Justice.

Yes. An attorney hired by an insurer to defend an insured owes a duty of care to the insurer, even if the insurer is considered a nonclient. The court rejects the need for an express agreement to form an attorney-client relationship and also declines to adopt a rule that the attorney automatically represents both insurer and insured. Instead, it holds that a duty to a nonclient can arise where the attorney knows the representation is intended to benefit the nonclient insurer, a duty would not impair obligations to the insured client, and the absence of such a duty would lead to unjust results. Drawing on Arizona precedent extending professional liability to foreseeable third parties, the court finds a special relationship exists where the insurer depends on the attorney to protect its financial interests. Therefore, an attorney can be held liable for negligence that foreseeably harms the insurer, regardless of whether a formal attorney-client relationship exists with the insurer.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the duties of insurance defense counsel in Arizona, moving away from a strict privity requirement for legal malpractice. By adopting the modern view from the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, the court allows insurers to sue negligent attorneys even when the insured suffers no harm. This prevents a situation where an attorney's negligence, causing direct financial loss to the insurer, would go without a remedy. The case establishes that the duty is based on foreseeability and the intended beneficiary status of the insurer, setting a precedent that will hold defense attorneys accountable to the entity paying for the legal services, provided there is no conflict with the primary duty owed to the insured.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Paradigm Ins. Co. v. Langerman Law Offices (2001) 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 Paradigm Ins. Co. v. Langerman Law Offices