Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Sikes
| Decision Date | 17 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2161,90-2161 |
| Citation | 590 So.2d 1051 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D18 PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Michael D. SIKES, Esq., and Merritt, Sikes & Craig, P.A., Appellees. |
Arthur J. Morburger, Stephen M. Zukoff, Miami, for appellant.
Stephens Lynn Klein & McNicholas and Philip D. Parrish and Robert M. Klein, Miami, for appellees.
Before FERGUSON, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.
The issue in this case is whether an insurer may maintain a cause of action for legal malpractice against its attorney for an allegedly negligent pleading in an automobile accident case, which was curable except for a judicial error, where the judgment against the insurer is settled while an appeal is pending. We hold that it may not, and affirm the summary judgment for the attorney.
The underlying case involved a wrongful death action where the insurance company hired Michael Sikes to defend its insureds who owned a truck which had been rear-ended by the deceased. The deceased's estate alleged that the driver of the truck had negligently operated the vehicle and had caused the fatal collision. The defendant's answer, drafted by Sikes, failed to deny the allegations of negligence. Sikes did, however, deny negligence in its affirmative defense of comparative negligence. Discovery proceeded on the issues of both liability and damages. On the day of trial, the plaintiffs moved to proceed solely on the issue of damages contending that the defendant's answer was insufficient to deny liability. Sikes argued that liability had always been contested, had been the subject of extensive discovery, and that the answer was sufficient to support the defense of comparative negligence. After the court rejected Sikes's argument, Sikes moved to amend his answer. His motion was denied and the trial proceeded on the issue of damages only.
The jury returned a $253,000 verdict in favor of the estate. Sikes recommended that the judgment be appealed. Contrary to Sikes's recommendation, Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association (PIGA) settled the case for twenty cents on the dollar before the appeal was perfected. PIGA then filed a legal malpractice claim against Sikes.
In support of a motion for summary judgment, Sikes asserted that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for leave to amend the answer in that no prejudice would have been suffered by the plaintiff. The court agreed with Sikes that the answer he had drafted was adequate to place plaintiff's contributory negligence in issue at the trial. Further, it ruled that Sikes should have been granted leave to amend and that the insurer would have been successful in reversing the judgment on appeal. On that basis, summary judgment was entered for Sikes from which this appeal is brought.
PIGA argues that whether Sikes's actions constituted malpractice and whether that malpractice was the proximate cause of its loss are issues for the trier of fact to determine. We need not reach that issue.
An appeal is not a new action; it is a continuation of the original proceeding. Wilson v. Clark, 414 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Coleman v. State, 215 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Law Firm of Hill and Ponton
...Lane, 565 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Fla.1990); Conley v. Shutts & Bowen, P.A., 616 So.2d 523, 524 (Fla.App.1993); Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Sikes, 590 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla.App.1991). Recently, the Supreme Court of Florida stated that in a litigation context, "a malpractice case is hypotheti......
-
Crestwood Cove Apartments v. Turner
...of the client's loss."7 ¶ 14 The Florida Court of Appeals articulated the abandonment doctrine in the seminal case of Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Sikes.8 Sikes arose from an attorney's failure to deny certain allegations in an underlying civil case. Although the attorney had la......
-
Leslie v. Estate of Tavares, 21693.
...397 A.2d 636, 638 (1979). An appeal is a continuation of an original proceeding and not a new action. Pennsylvania Ins. Guaranty Ass'n v. Sikes, 590 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991); People ex rel. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Commerce Comm'n, 40 Ill.2d 58, 237 N.E.2d 514, 516 (1968)......
-
Stanfield v. Neubaum
...N.W.2d 842, 847 (1995) (refusing to require an attorney “to predict infallibly how a court will rule”); Penn. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Sikes, 590 So.2d 1051, 1053 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (holding “the settlement of the underlying personal injury case, while the appeal was pending, constituted an ......
-
Negligence cases
...CASES §2:20 Florida Causes of Action 2-14 18655 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 2, 2012); Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association v. Sikes , 590 So.2d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). 2. Appeal Most Probably Would Have Been Unsuccessful: “In order to recover damages for legal malpractice, a party who h......
-
Office management and case preparation
...of marriage action, but it may also protect the lawyer against a potential malpractice claim. [ Penn. Ins. Guaranty Assoc. v. Sikes , 590 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (settlement of underlying personal injury case, while appeal was pending, constituted abandonment of any claim that plaint......
-
4-6 Abandonment
...Lenahan v. Russell L. Forkey, P.A., 702 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1997).[220] Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Sikes, 590 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1991).[221] Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Sikes, 590 So. 2d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1991). Accord Bradle......