Mitchell v. Transamerica Ins. Co.

Decision Date20 May 1977
Citation551 S.W.2d 586
PartiesTandy W. MITCHELL and Beulah V. Mitchell, Appellants, v. TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. James CARR, Appellant, v. Tandy W. MITCHELL and Beulah V. Mitchell, Appellees.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Richard M. Trautwein, Barnett & Alagia, Louisville, for Transamerica ins. co.

Victor W. Ewen, Ewen, Mackenzie & Peden, P. S. C., Louisville, for James M. Carr.

F. Thomas Conway, Robinson, Tackett, DeMoss & Conway, P. S. C., Louisville, for Tandy W. and Beulah Mitchell.

Before HOWARD, LESTER and WILHOIT, JJ.

HOWARD, Judge.

This is a case that involves claims by Tandy W. Mitchell and his wife, Beulah Mitchell, hereinafter called "Mitchells", made against their former attorney James Carr, hereinafter called "Carr". Also involved are Mitchells' claims against Carr's malpractice carrier Transamerica Insurance Company, hereinafter called "Transamerica".

The Mitchells were severely injured as a result of an accident occurring just north of Shepherdsville, Kentucky in Bullitt County. A tractor-trailer rig pulled out in front of the Mitchells while making a U-turn on Interstate 65. The Mitchells employed James Carr, an attorney, to represent them against the driver and owners of the rig. Carr let the one year Kentucky Statute of Limitations expire without filing suit but he kept this fact from his clients for several more months. In the meantime, he contacted Transamerica and advised its representatives of the potential loss. Carr attempted to settle this matter with Transamerica for $20,000.00 which was a figure that the Mitchells had once discussed with Carr. One of Transamerica's employees called the Mitchells and assured them that their claim was being processed but he did not reveal to them that he was calling on behalf of the Mitchells' liability carrier. Finally, Carr advised the Mitchells of his neglect and they promptly hired another attorney who thereupon brought an action in the Federal District Court of Southern Indiana. Indiana has a two year statute and the defendants in that case were subject to process there.

Prior to trial, a lump sum settlement was reached for the Mitchells in the amount of $60,000.00. In the meantime, suit was brought in Jefferson County, Kentucky by the Mitchells against Carr and Transamerica among others. The case was tried on the following issues:

1. A claim against Carr for negligence in permitting the statute to run in Kentucky. Coupled with this was a claim for unethical and fraudulent conduct, all of which allegedly damaged the Mitchells as to their claims.

2. A claim against Carr and Transamerica that Carr wrongfully divulged the contents of the Mitchell file to Transamerica with intent to defraud the Mitchells, all of which represented an invasion of the economic rights of the plaintiffs and a disturbance of the attorney-client relationship.

On the other hand, the defense contended that 1) No pecuniary damage resulted to the Mitchells, 2) Mitchells' remedy was not lost by any act or failure to act on the part of Carr as the Mitchells successfully maintained their case in Indiana, 3) The Mitchells incurred no pecuniary loss by reason of Carr having furnished his file to Transamerica, and 4) Carr's violation, if any, of ethical duties to the Mitchells, while a possible basis for disciplinary proceedings against him, was not a basis for a cause of action to be submitted to a jury for compensatory and punitive damages.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Osborne v. Keeney
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 20, 2013
    ...(citation and internal quotations omitted). 13.Marrs v. Kelly, 95 S.W.3d 856, 860 (Ky.2003). 14.Id. See also Mitchell v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 551 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Ky.App.1977) (“[E]very malpractice action does not carry with it a right to monetary judgment. It is the law that a malpractic......
  • Titsworth v. Mondo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1978
    ...to predict what a jury might do at any given time or place is hazardous and is one of the vagaries of life." (Mitchell v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 551 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Ky.)). Another argument for requiring a client to try his underlying claim for damages to judgment first, is that otherwise a......
  • Levin v. Berley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 24, 1984
    ...Bowman v. Abramson, 545 F.Supp. 227, 231 (E.D.Pa.1982); Simmons v. Ocean, 544 F.Supp. 841, 844 (D.V.I.1982); Mitchell v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 551 S.W.2d 586 (Ky.App.1977); Price v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100, 422 P.2d 976 (1967). The Supreme Court of California has said, The mere breach of......
  • Butler v. Thomsen ex rel. Marital Cmty. Comprised of Randall Thomsen
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 2018
    ...the attorney should have sought a different venue is to allow claims that are entirely speculative. See e.g., Mitchell v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 551 S.W.2d 586, 588 (1977) ("Trying to predict what a jury might do at any given time or place is hazardous and is one of the vagaries of life.").......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT