Phillips Fur & Wool Co. v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 22 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 10429,10429 |
| Citation | 340 N.W.2d 448 |
| Parties | PHILLIPS FUR AND WOOL COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Colin A. BAILEY and Bailey & Lies, P.C., Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Dosland, Dosland & Nordhougen, Moorhead, Minn., for plaintiff and appellant; argued by Duane A. Lillehaug, Moorhead, Minn.
Vogel, Brantner, Kelly, Knutson, Weir & Bye, Fargo, for defendants and appellees; argued by Mart R. Vogel, Fargo.
This appeal is from a summary judgment dismissing Phillips Fur and Wool Company's suit against Colin A. Bailey and Bailey and Lies, P.C. for legal malpractice on the ground that the suit is barred by the applicable statute of limitations (Sec. 28-01-18(3), NDCC). We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to when the cause of action accrued and, consequently, also as to when the period of limitation had run--making summary judgment, under the circumstances, inappropriate. We reverse and remand for trial.
Phillips commenced the suit on or after March 17, 1981, alleging damages to Phillips' scrap iron business attributable to Bailey's acts of malfeasance and nonfeasance while acting as Phillips' attorney. The malfeasance allegedly occurred "during the week of August 6, 1978" and consisted of Bailey wrongfully agreeing to the removal of a railroad spur line serving the scrap iron business. The nonfeasance allegedly consisted of Bailey wrongfully failing to inform Phillips of the railroad's plan to remove the spur line tracks until it was too late to do anything about it.
For the purposes of the case in its present posture, we are not permitted to weigh the merits of Phillips' allegations but must assume that "malpractice" has been properly pleaded. Reading the complaint "liberally," as we are obligated to do under Rule 8, NDRCivP, it alleges "discovery" of the malfeasance and nonfeasance on March 25, 1979, less than two years before commencement of the suit.
The running of the statute of limitations was raised as an affirmative defense in Bailey's answer to the complaint. Subsequently, supported by affidavits and depositions, Bailey moved for summary judgment of dismissal pursuant to the provisions of Rule 56, NDRCivP. The trial court, citing Johnson v. Haugland, 303 N.W.2d 533 (N.D.1981), held that Bailey had not "conclusively established" a right to summary judgment of dismissal, and denied the motion because there was a dispute of material facts as to the time of "discovery."
Bailey obtained additional affidavits and depositions and again moved for summary judgment on the basis that the statute of limitations had run. In granting the motion, the trial court itemized relevant facts "... as to which there is no genuine issue," which included the following critical items:
(a) Phillips learned of the removal of the spur line and attributed it to Bailey's "agreement" with the railroad officials on or before March 12, 1979.
(b) The alleged acts of malpractice were, or by reasonable diligence could have been, discovered on or before March 13, 1979.
The statute of limitations applicable to legal malpractice specifies that suit is barred unless it is commenced within two years after the cause of action has accrued (Sec. 28-01-18(3), NDCC). The comprehensive and unanimous opinion authored by Justice Erickstad, Iverson v. Lancaster, 158 N.W.2d 507 (N.D.1968), first applied the "discovery rule" to malpractice cases when the statute of limitations is raised as a defense. In syllabus 1 of that case this court held:
"The limitation period commences to run against a malpractice action from the time the act of malpractice with resulting injury is, or by reasonable diligence could be, discovered."
The Legislature subsequently further limited the effect of nondiscovery in medical malpractice cases to six years (Ch. 284, S.L.1975). This has no application to legal malpractice. See discussion in Johnson v. Haugland, supra.
In a recent medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bussineau v. President & Dir. of Georgetown
...claims should be strongly discouraged." Id. The Anderson rationale was later reiterated by the court in Phillips Fur and Wool Co. v. Bailey, 340 N.W.2d 448 (N.D. 1983), where the court concluded that, in all malpractice claims, the "time starts running when plaintiff knows, or with reasonab......
-
Larson v. Norkot Mfg., Inc.
...reasonable diligence should know, (1) of the injury, (2) its cause, and (3) defendant's possible negligence." Phillips Fur and Wool Co. v. Bailey, 340 N.W.2d 448, 449 (N.D.1983). ... A cause of action for legal malpractice does not accrue, and the statute of limitations does not commence to......
-
Hebron Public School Dist. No. 13 of Morton County v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
...N.W.2d 758 (N.D.1986); Binstock v. Tschider, 374 N.W.2d 81 (N.D.1985); Wall v. Lewis, 366 N.W.2d 471 (N.D.1985); Phillips Fur and Wool Co. v. Bailey, 340 N.W.2d 448 (N.D.1983); Johnson v. Haugland, 303 N.W.2d 533 (N.D.1981) ], assault and battery action based on sexual abuse when the plaint......
-
Wall v. Lewis
...injury, (2) its cause, and (3) the defendant's possible negligence. Wall v. Lewis, supra, 366 N.W.2d at 473; Phillips Fur & Wool Co. v. Bailey, 340 N.W.2d 448, 449 (N.D.1983). In the first appeal, we were presented with a question of when the Doctors had incurred damage. We held that the Do......