Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Great American E & S Insurance Co. v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
Mississippi Supreme Court
Decided October 18, 2012No. 2009-CT-01063-SCTPublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChandler, Justice
¶ 46. I concur with the plurality’s holding that, because Great American and Quintairos have no attorney-client relationship, Great American may not bring a direct action for legal malpractice against Quintairos. With respect, I dissent from the plurality’s holding that Great American may bring a legal-malpractice claim against Quintairos under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Counsel hired by a primary insurer to defend the insured already has a duty of care toward the insured and the primary insurer. Moeller v. Am. Guar, and Liab. Ins. Co., 707 So.2d 1062, 1070 (Miss.1996). The…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Century 21 Deep South Prop., Ltd. v. CorsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- St. Paul Insurance Company of Bellaire, Texas v. Afia Worldwide Insurance Company, Insurance Company of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. FosterMississippi Supreme Court · 1988
- Moeller v. American Guar. and Liability Ins. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1996
- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C. v. SeayMississippi Supreme Court · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.