The California Court of Appeal recently addressed an important issue in the legal malpractice area. The Court held that the malpractice plaintiff cannot prevail based on allegations that the malpractice caused plaintiff to lose the right to collect on a recovery in a lawsuit without competent evidence that the judgment would have been collectible, as speculative expert testimony about collectability will not suffice when the evidence presented demonstrated that the judgment would not have been collectible.

The Nevada Supreme Court added to its slowly-growing body of legal malpractice statute of limitations jurisprudence in Moon v. McDonald, Carano & Wilson, 306 P.3d 406, 129 Nev. Adv. Rep. 56 (2013).

(Insurer Which Received Assignment of Malpractice Claim As Part of Purchase of Another Insurer’s Assets Was Entitled To Maintain Such Claim Against Law Firm)

(Farmers Automobile Policy Did Not Afford Underinsured Motorist Coverage To Deceased Pedestrian)

(Auto Exclusion In Homeowners Policy Applied To Bar Coverage Of Wrongful Death Action)

(Broker Was Not Liable For Failing To Procure Insurance Beyond That Requested By Insured)

(Because Initial Complaint And Amended Complaint Only Requested Injunctive Relief, Rather Than Compensatory Damages In Connection With Underlying Action For Enforcement Of CC&Rs Against Condominium HOA, Insurer Was Not Liable For Bad Faith Denial Of The Tender Of Defense Of Such Complaints)

(Insurer Obligated to Pay One Million Dollar Cost Bill Awarded in Underlying Personal Injury Lawsuit After Rejecting Settlement Demand in Excess of Policy Limits)

(Plaintiff Could Not Maintain Bad Faith Lawsuit Absent an Indication of Willingness to Settle Lawsuit Within Policy Limits)