PA: Collectibility of Damages: Defendant's Burden
Kituskie v. Corbman, 452 Pa.Super. 467, 682 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)
PA Underlying Representation: Personal Injury Lawsuit
Student Contributor: John Anzalone
Facts: Plaintiff sued Defendant Attorney and his law firm for failing to file a personal injury action within the statute of limitations. Plaintiff prevailed below after the judge excluded evidence of the potential collectibility of the underlying judgment.
Issues: 1) May Attorneys raise collectibility as a defense in a legal malpractice case?
2) Whose burden is it to prove that the collectibility of the underlying judgment?
Ruling: In reversing the lower court's ruling, the Superior Court held that it's the Defendant's Burden to raise and prove the collectibility of the underlying judgment, based on the following considerations:
1) Attorneys may invoke "collectibility" as a defense in a legal malpractice case.
2) Here, the jury was not allowed to hear evidence that the underlying judgment would be uncollectible, so its decision must be vacated.
3) This limitation was permitted because the court held that legal malpractice Plaintiffs should only be able to recover against the Attorney for the actual damages they suffered from the Attorney's malpractice.
4) It was the defendant's burden to prove because the plaintiff should not have an additional burden added because the plaintiff was allegedly wronged by the attorney as well as the underlying defendant.
Lesson: In Pennsylvania, the defendant attorney has the burden of raising and proving the defense of the lack of "collectibility" of the underlying judgment.
Editor's Note: The case was affirmed by the PA Supreme Court, Kitsuskie v. Corbman, 552 Pa. 275 (1998).
In this particular case the underlying case within a case was not winable. Plaintiffs Ingrid and Kurtis Webb had never been able to prove actual damages - all of their evidence was based on a sellers disclosure that was not 100% accurate however at no time did the Webb's have any independent engineers or other experts to show/prove any actual damages. 100% of their case was based purely on hearsay. As a lawyer Mr. Stockford should have realized this. There were several other lawyers who had already passed on taking on the Webb's original case and Mr. Stockford should have done the same.