Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantdiscoverynegligencestatuteprecedentappealtrialverdictsummary judgmentfiduciarymalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpracticeoverruledfiduciary dutybreach of fiduciary duty

lawsuitdiscoverynegligencestatuteappealtrialverdictsummary judgmentfiduciarymalpracticestatute of limitationslegal malpracticefiduciary dutybreach of fiduciary duty

Related Cases

Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. Robinson, 416 S.C. 517, 787 S.E.2d 485

Facts

Stokes-Craven was represented by Scott L. Robinson during a trial where they faced a lawsuit from Donald C. Austin regarding issues with a used truck sold by Stokes-Craven. After an adverse jury verdict, Stokes-Craven filed a legal malpractice action against Robinson and his firm, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Stokes-Craven's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, asserting that the client should have known of the malpractice claim on the date of the jury's verdict.

Stokes–Craven was represented by Scott L. Robinson during a trial where they faced a lawsuit from Donald C. Austin regarding issues with a used truck sold by Stokes–Craven. After an adverse jury verdict, Stokes–Craven filed a legal malpractice action against Robinson and his firm, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

Issue

Did the statute of limitations for Stokes-Craven's legal malpractice claim begin to run on the date of the adverse jury verdict, or did it commence upon the resolution of the appeal?

Did the statute of limitations for Stokes–Craven's legal malpractice claim begin to run on the date of the adverse jury verdict, or did it commence upon the resolution of the appeal?

Rule

The statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action is three years, and under the discovery rule, it begins to run when the claimant knows or should have known of the cause of action.

Analysis

The court determined that the legal malpractice claim did not accrue until the appeal was resolved against Stokes-Craven, as the outcome of the appeal directly affected the viability of the malpractice claim. The court overruled the precedent set in Epstein v. Brown, which had previously held that the statute of limitations began to run at the time of the adverse verdict. The court emphasized that a client cannot have a legally cognizable cause of action for malpractice until the appeal is concluded.

The court determined that the legal malpractice claim did not accrue until the appeal was resolved against Stokes–Craven, as the outcome of the appeal directly affected the viability of the malpractice claim.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, establishing that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims begins upon the resolution of the appeal.

Who won?

Stokes-Craven prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, allowing their legal malpractice claim to proceed.

Stokes–Craven prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, allowing their legal malpractice claim to proceed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Citizens State Bank v. Timm, Schmidt & Co., S.C., 113 Wis.2d 376, 335 N.W.2d 361

Tait v. Wahl, 97 Wash.App. 765, 987 P.2d 127

Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass’n, 276 Md. 187, 349 A.2d 245, 99 A.L.R.3d 1119

McComas v. Bocci, 166 Or.App. 150, 996 P.2d 506

Kolar v. Bergo, 280 Mont. 262, 929 P.2d 867