Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller, CA-CIV

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
• Writing for the Court: MEYERSON; HAIRE, P.J., and EUBANK
• Citation: 138 Ariz. 155,673 P.2d 795
• Decision Date: 12 May 1983
• Docket Number: CA-CIV
• Parties: AMFAC DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, a California corporation, d/b/a Amfac Electric Supply Co., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie L. MILLER and Mrs. Leslie L. Miller, his wife, Defendants-Appellees. 15880.

Page 795

673 P.2d 795 138 Ariz. 155 AMFAC DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, a California corporation, d/b/a Amfac Electric Supply Co., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Leslie L. MILLER and Mrs. Leslie L. Miller, his wife, Defendants-Appellees. 1 CA-CIV 5880. Court of Appeals of Arizona,
Division 1, Department D. May 12, 1983.
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1983.
Review Granted July 6, 1983.

Allen, McClennen & Fels, P.C., by Robert H. Allen, Phoenix, for plaintiff-appellant.

Monbleau, Vermeire & Turley, P.C., by Kent E. Turley, Phoenix, for defendants-appellees.

OPINION

MEYERSON, Judge.

I. FACTS

In this appeal, we are called upon to decide when a cause of action accrues for legal malpractice occurring in the course of litigation. The facts are as follows.

Attorney Leslie L. Miller previously represented Amfac Electric Supply Company (Amfac) in an action for materials furnished to a subcontractor but for which full payment had not been made. One day before trial, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit contending that Amfac was not qualified to do business in Arizona and was therefore prohibited from bringing an action in the state pursuant to A.R.S. § 10-124.A. The trial court allowed the complaint to be amended subject to proof as to the identity and legal status of the true plaintiff. Although several witnesses testified, the actual plaintiff's status was not clarified; the defendants renewed their motion to dismiss, and it was granted on November 18, 1977. A formal written judgment was entered dismissing the complaint on January 18, 1978. Miller appealed on Amfac's behalf but the trial judge's ruling was ultimately affirmed on September 13, 1979, by the Arizona Supreme Court. Amfac Electric Supply Co. v. Rainer Construction Co., 123 Ariz. 413, 600 P.2d 26 (1979).

The present action was filed on May 6, 1980, alleging that Miller committed malpractice in his representation of Amfac in the earlier litigation by failing to name the proper party as plaintiff. Miller defended [138 Ariz. 156]

Page 796

on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Summary judgment in favor of Miller was entered on January 23, 1981. Amfac subsequently brought this appeal.

The dispute between the parties centers around the date that Amfac's malpractice claim accrued and thus when the two-year statute of limitations began to run. ¹ A.R.S. § 12-542. Amfac contends that the statute did not begin to run until the date of the final appellate court ruling on September 13, 1979. Miller contends that the malpractice claim accrued on January 18, 1978, when Amfac's suit was dismissed and when Amfac first "knew" of the malpractice. If Amfac is correct, the malpractice action was timely filed; if Miller is correct, the action was barred by the statute of limitations. ² For the reasons explained below, the complaint was timely filed. We hold that a cause of action for legal malpractice occurring in the course of litigation accrues when the plaintiff knew or should reasonably have known of the malpractice and when the plaintiff's damages are certain and not contingent upon the outcome of an appeal.

II. LAW

In cases of professional malpractice, "Arizona has long followed the rule that the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defendant's negligent conduct, or when the plaintiff is first able to sue." Sato v. Van Denburgh, 123 Ariz. 225, 227, 599 P.2d 181, 183 (1979) (citations omitted). Legal malpractice is subject to the same rule. Long v. Buckley, 129 Ariz. 141, 629 P.2d 557 (Ct.App.1981). When malpractice occurs in the course of litigation, however, this rule must be tempered by resort to traditional principles of law.

It is not possible to readily determine whether a lawyer's negligence occurring during litigation will ultimately result in damage to his client. Apparent damage may vanish with successful prosecution of an appeal and ultimate vindication of the attorney's conduct by an appellate court. These possibilities require that careful consideration be given to a determination of the point in time when a cause of action accrues for legal malpractice committed in the context of litigation. We are speaking of one of the essential elements of a claim for negligence--injury to the plaintiff. Wisener v. State, 123 Ariz. 148, 149, 598 P.2d 511, 512 (1979).

Where there has been no final adjudication of the client's case in which the malpractice allegedly occurred, the element of injury or damage remains speculative and remote, thereby making premature the cause of action for professional negligence. "Damages that are speculative, remote or uncertain may not form the basis of a judgment." Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. v. Ellsworth, 103 Ariz. 515, 521, 446 P.2d 458, 464 (1968). One court has stated it this way:

[N]o cause of action accrued until after the plaintiffs discovered or could reasonably have discovered the malpractice and until after the judgment ... had become final. The judgment did not become final until the Court of Appeals decided the appeal and the time to appeal to the [state] Supreme Court ... had expired.

Woodruff v. Tomlin, 511 F.2d 1019, 1021 (6th Cir.1975) (emphasis added); see Simmons v. Ocean, 544 F.Supp. 841 (D.V.I.1982) (cause of action accrues when negligence becomes "irreversible" leaving plaintiff with "no remaining recourse"); Webb v. Pomeroy, 8 Kan.App.2d 246, 655 P.2d 465

Page 797

[138 Ariz. 157] (1982) (no cause of action until underlying lawsuit resolved); Biberstine v. Woodworth, 406 Mich. 275, 278 N.W.2d 41 (1979) (malpractice action against attorney for failing to schedule debt in bankruptcy runs from date of plaintiff's discharge in bankruptcy); contra Woodburn v....