Watkins v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

The majority opinion poses the issue thusly: "[W]hether there is a scintilla of evidence that Mrs. Watkins' loss arose out of the performance of professional services by Marcus in his capacity as a lawyer." Except for its emphasis on the scintilla rule, the issue presented is correctly stated. (The application of the scintilla rule is misplaced here because the undisputed facts do not lend themselves to alternative inferences from which more than one factual conclusion could be drawn.1 The "genuine issue of material fact" element is missing.) By clear, unambiguous language, the terms of the…