Smith v. Long

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (Fidelity) appeals a judgment denying it the right to reimbursement from the settlement proceeds of the legal malpractice action against attorney James Long. The court ruled that Dan and Susan Smith's legal malpractice action was based in contract and, therefore, Fidelity had no right to reimbursement under sec. 102.29, Stats.

Fidelity argues that the trial court erred by: (1) finding that the Smiths' cause of action against Long was based in contract, and (2) concluding that it was not entitled to reimbursement pursuant to sec. 102.29, Stats. While we…