Jordan v. Pollet, Richardson & Patel
Appellants' complaint alleged that they hired Pollet in March 2002 and relied on Pollet to determine whether their insurance policies covered the Holland action and to tender claims to any insurer, but that Pollet failed in those duties. Further, Pollet falsely represented that it was panel counsel to the insurer, so that the insurer would be responsible for all fees. Appellants alleged that they first learned of the malpractice in January 2006, when, in a telephone conversation with the insurer (Carolina Casualty Insurance), they learned that Pollet was not panel counsel and had not submitted its bills to Carolina, and that Carolina would not pay any of Pollet's bills. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Jordan v. Pollet, Richardson & Patel