BROADCASTS.com

b'

Failure to Report, Acknowledge and Make Claim to Your Client\'s Insurer \\nis Legal Malpractice\\n\\nDavid Quaknine and several of his companies sued their former attorney \\nand his law firm for alleged malpractice connected to a 2014 suit. The \\ndistrict court granted the defendants\' motion to dismiss. It ruled that \\nthe two-year limitations period, which at the latest began to run in \\nSeptember 2019, expired before the plaintiffs sued in December 2021. In \\nConcepts Design Furniture, Inc., et al. v. Fisherbroyles, LLP and \\nAlastair J. Warr, No. 22-2303, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh \\nCircuit (March 31, 2023) the Seventh Circuit resolved the dispute.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nThe parties called Comptoir, which did business from Quebec, Canada, \\nwere sued for intellectual-property infringement in 2014. Over a year \\nlater, Comptoir hired Alastair Warr and his law firm to negotiate a \\nsettlement or, failing that, represent Comptoir in court. Comptoir told \\nWarr that it had a policy with Intact Insurance Company that potentially\\n could cover defense costs and indemnify it for claims. Warr did not \\nadvise Comptoir to submit a claim to Intact nor did it do so on its own.\\n\\nThe lawsuit did not go well and the disclosures in the suit stated that \\nComptoir had "no insurance agreement." A jury eventually found against \\nComptoir with a judgment over three million dollars in damages. In \\nFebruary 2018, Comptoir-through other counsel-told Intact about the \\nattorney\'s fees. The notice, four years after the suit, was the first \\ntime Intact learned of the intellectual-property suit.\\n\\nComptoir reorganized after the adverse judgment. The bankruptcy court \\ndeclared Comptoir bankrupt and discharged the judgment debt from the \\n2014 litigation.\\n\\nIntact denied coverage on September 10, 2019. When it demanded coverage,\\n Comptoir sent to Intact (apparently for the first time) a copy of the \\ncomplaint in the 2014 suit. In denying Comptoir\'s demand in September \\n2019, Intact gave three reasons:\\n\\nthe suit against Comptoir was not covered under the policy.\\nbecause Comptoir "failed to promptly notify Intact of the [2014] \\nComplaint and to immediately upon receipt thereof, deliver to Intact a \\ncopy of the Complaint," it violated the policy and forfeited its right \\nto and was "time barred" from reimbursement.\\nComptoir listed its defense fees "as amounts due to creditors," which \\nimplied that only the bankruptcy trustee could collect them.\\n\\nIntact sued seeking a declaration in Cook County Circuit Court that it \\nwas not obligated to pay defense fees or indemnify Comptoir. Comptoir \\nmade its defense-fees claim outside the three-year statute of \\nlimitations applicable under Quebec law. Thus, Comptoir\'s complaint and \\nsubsequent demand for reimbursement of fees was time barred.\\n\\nOn December 17, 2021, refusing to admit is errors and failure to \\npromptly act, Comptoir sued Warr and FisherBroyles for legal \\nmalpractice. The district court granted Warr and FisherBroyles\'s motion \\nto dismiss the suit as untimely under Illinois law.\\n\\nOnce a malpractice plaintiff is aware of injury the plaintiff is not \\nrequired to wait for a court\'s judgment certifying that the plaintiff\'s \\nattorneys erred. Thus, the limitations clock for Comptoir started when \\nit reasonably should have known of the alleged malpractice and that \\noccurred, at the latest, when Intact sent its letter in September 2019 \\ndenying coverage to Comptoir.