Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky, P.C. v. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-law firm seeking declaration that policy issued by defendant-insurance policy covered legal malpractice claim filed by plaintiff’s client when seller of property rescinded client’s contract to purchase said property due to plaintiff’s failure to timely forward executed copy of contract to seller, where defendant claimed that plaintiff had failed to timely notify it of mistake that eventually resulted in malpractice claim. Terms of policy provided coverage for acts or omissions predating policy period only where plaintiff had no basis to believe that it had committed such acts or omissions, and record indicated that plaintiff had basis to believe that it had committed act or omission where: (1) associate in plaintiff’s law firm admitted to client two months prior to effective date of instant policy that he had misfiled executed contract; and (2) seller in underlying property contract had filed state court proceeding prior to effective date of policy seeking declaration that no contract had existed due to failure of plaintiff to timely deliver executed contract. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that policy did not require that it notify defendant about misfiled contract until plaintiff had received malpractice claim filed by client.