Blondell v. Littlepage
Decision Date | 17 March 2010 |
Citation | 991 A.2d 80,413 Md. 96 |
Parties | William J. BLONDELL, Jr., et al. v. Diane M. LITTLEPAGE, et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Jonathan E.C. May, Nathaniel C. Fick (Fick & May, P.C., Towson, MD), on brief, for Petitioners.
R. Scott Krause (Eccleston and Wolf, P.C., Hanover, MD), on brief, for Respondents.
ARGUED BEFORE BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
We are asked to consider whether an attorney, William J. Blondell, Petitioner, may maintain various contract and tort claims involving various alleged breaches of duties of good faith, fair dealing, and disclosure against another lawyer, Diane M. Littlepage,1 Respondent, regarding representation of a husband and wife as plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action.
The three questions presented, which we have renumbered, are:
Blondell v. Littlepage, 409 Md. 46, 972 A.2d 861 (2009). We shall hold that Littlepage, on the well-pleaded facts, did not breach the express or implied terms of the contract in question; that the fee sharing agreement in issue, as a matter of law, did not give rise to actionable tort duties of consultation, communication, and disclosure between Littlepage and Blondell; and finally, that Littlepage, as a matter of law, could not tortiously interfere with a contractual or economic relationship to which she was a party.
We adopt the facts2 including the procedural history of the case and corresponding numbered notes, set forth in the reported opinion, Blondell v. Littlepage, 185 Md.App. 123, 129-33, 968 A.2d 678, 681-83 (2009), of the Court of Special Appeals:
2 Blondell had previously referred medical malpractice matters to Littlepage.
3 Blondell testified that he attempted to reach Littlepage a few days prior to the conference and on the day of the conference, without success.
4 Littlepage claimed that the settlement judge raised the possibility of a malpractice action against Blondell during the conference, but it is unclear from the record whether she informed Blondell of this fact in their conversation. Littlepage claimed that Blondell was nonetheless aware of a possible malpractice action against him. Blondell did not deny being aware of a potential malpractice claim, but contended that he was never informed of the comment by the settlement judge, nor did he believe the judge would have made such a comment. counsel regarding a possible malpractice action against Blondell, and provided them with the names of attorneys that regularly handled such claims. The Corbins eventually decided to settle the claim against Dr. Korangy for $225,000, which was significantly less than the $1 million initially demanded by Littlepage, and the $350,000 recommended by the settlement judge.5 Littlepage remitted one-half of the contingency fee to Blondell.
5 The $1 million and $350,000 figures were provided by Blondell. Littlepage neither confirmed nor denied these amounts.
6 In the fraud count, appellant requested $1,000,000 compensatory damages and $2,000,000 punitive damages. In the breach of contract count, appellant requested $117,898.67 compensatory damages, the difference between the amount of his fee as received and the amount it should have been, under his evaluation of the Corbins' claim. In each of the remaining counts, appellant requested $500,000 compensatory damages.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whye v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc.
... ... took action in justifiable reliance on the concealment; and (5) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the defendant's concealment." Blondell v. Littlepage, 413 Md. 96, 119, 991 A.2d 80, 94 (2010) (quoting Lloyd, 397 Md. at 138, 916 A.2d at 274) (emphasis omitted). The Maryland Court of ... ...
-
Kantsevoy v. Lumenr LLC
... ... Numerous Maryland cases are to the same effect. See , e.g. , Blondell v. Littlepage, 413 Md. 96, 119, 991 A.2d 80, 94 (2010) ; Griesi v. Atlantic Gen'l Hosp. Corp. , 360 Md. 1, 11, 756 A.2d 548 (2000) ; Valentine v ... ...
-
CR–RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC
... ... 53. See Blondell v. Littlepage, 413 Md. 96, 114, 991 A.2d 80, 9091 (2010) ([T]he covenant of good faith and fair dealing ... simply prohibits one party to a contract ... ...
-
Ubs Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Thompson
... ... at 213, 60 A.3d 1 (quoting Blondell v. Littlepage, 413 Md. 96, 120, 991 A.2d 80 (2010)). “ ‘Where the failure to exercise due care creates a risk of economic loss only, courts have ... ...