This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owned a building and a tenant brought an action to recover judgment against P for negligence. The tenant’s lease required the tenant to obtain property damage insurance for $100,000 coverage. The tenant was in breach of the lease as it never obtained the insurance. Tenant ran an art gallery and it sustained water damage from the alleged negligence of P. The tenant sued and P’s attorneys for some reason just didn’t counterclaim that the tenant was in breach of the lease. To add insult to injury P’s attorneys also obtained testimony that P was in fact insured for the tenant’s law; this was not true. The tenant got a verdict of $77,000. P then brought this action to recover damages against the attorneys alleging malpractice. The court reasoned that what the attorneys did was not malpractice because if the tenant had obtained insurance P would still have been liable for the property loss under subrogation by the insurance company. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.