Passanante v. Yormark
350 A.2d 497, 138 N.J. Super. 233 (1975)
Rule of Law:
An attorney's professional liability insurance policy covers negligence if the acts or omissions constituting the negligence occurred during the policy period, even if the full extent of the damage (e.g., the running of a statute of limitations) occurred after the policy expired. Subsequent efforts by the attorney to conceal the negligence do not convert the claim from professional negligence to an uninsured fraudulent act.
Facts:
- Salvatore and Angelina Passanante consulted attorney Borrus in late 1967 or early 1968 regarding a medical malpractice claim for an operation performed on Salvatore Passanante on July 15, 1967, which allegedly resulted in paralysis.
- Borrus referred the Passanantes to defendant Milton Yormark, who assured them he would handle the case sometime prior to April 30, 1968.
- Milton Yormark had until July 15, 1969, to file an action on behalf of the Passanantes before the two-year statute of limitations for their medical malpractice claim expired.
- Milton Yormark failed to file a medical malpractice action for the Passanantes.
- Angelina Passanante spoke to Milton Yormark three or four times after the initial interview, and he telephoned her in early 1972, stating the case was 'coming up,' but he never appeared as promised.
- Attorney Borrus averred that Yormark indicated to him in early 1969 and again in 1970 that suit had been filed or would be filed.
- Milton Yormark was disbarred on February 7, 1972, and subsequently vanished.
- Milton Yormark's professional liability insurance policy with St. Paul Insurance Company provided coverage that ceased on June 30, 1969.
Procedural Posture:
- Salvatore and Angelina Passanante brought an action against Milton Yormark to recover for his negligence in handling a medical malpractice case.
- Substituted service was made on St. Paul Insurance Company, Yormark's malpractice insurance carrier.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint joining St. Paul Insurance Company as a party defendant, seeking a declaratory judgment that St. Paul was liable under its professional insurance policy issued to Yormark.
- The trial judge, sitting without a jury, conducted a separate trial on the issue of insurance coverage.
- The trial judge ruled that coverage was afforded to the Passanantes under Yormark's policy and that St. Paul Insurance Company was obligated to defend the action on his behalf, entering a final judgment.
- St. Paul Insurance Company appealed this final judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, where St. Paul Insurance Company is the appellant and the Passanantes are the respondents.
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's professional liability insurance policy provide coverage for a claim of legal malpractice where the attorney's negligent failure to act (e.g., failing to file suit) occurred during the policy period, but the statute of limitations expired and the full extent of the damage became ascertainable after the policy period ceased, and where the attorney later attempted to conceal his inaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Carton, P.J.A.D.
Yes, an attorney's professional liability insurance policy provides coverage for a claim of legal malpractice where the attorney's negligent failure to act occurred during the policy period, even if the full extent of the damage became ascertainable after the policy ceased, and where the attorney later attempted to conceal his inaction. The court reasoned that professional insurance contracts should be construed in accordance with the "objectively reasonable expectations of applicants and intended beneficiaries." The insurance policy covered damages "arising out of the performance of professional services" as a lawyer. An attorney's duty requires exercising the knowledge, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed by the profession, including the obligation to inform clients promptly of important information, investigate facts, formulate strategy, and file suit within a reasonable time, not delaying until the "eleventh hour." Yormark's continuous dilatory conduct and failure to inform his clients of his inaction, which occurred during the policy period, constituted actionable negligence. The fact that the full measure of damage was not ascertainable until the statute of limitations ran after the policy expired does not relieve the carrier of responsibility for negligence occurring during the policy period. The court rejected the insurance company's argument that Yormark's actions were fraudulent and thus excluded. It found that any deceit by Yormark occurred after the negligence had already given rise to the claim and was a "cover-up" for his initial negligence, not an essential ingredient of the acts. Therefore, the essential claim remained one of negligence, which the policy intended to cover.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the trigger for coverage under a 'claims-made' or 'occurrence' based professional liability policy for attorneys, emphasizing that the negligent act or omission itself, rather than the final manifestation of damage (e.g., the running of a statute of limitations), determines coverage. It reinforces the broad scope of an attorney's duty, extending beyond mere deadlines to include continuous care, reasonable diligence, and transparent communication. This ruling protects clients by ensuring that insurers cannot easily avoid liability for an attorney's in-period negligence if the full harm ripens post-policy, and it limits insurers' ability to recharacterize underlying negligence as uninsured fraud based on subsequent cover-up attempts.
