To access case, press here
Municipal Tax Liens, Inc. (“MTL”) appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Michael Alexander regarding MTL’s attorney malpractice complaint against Alexander. MTL raised one issue, which we restated as whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Alexander. We reviewed this issue in Municipal Tax Liens, Inc. v. Alexander (2008), and held that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether MTL was a direct continuation of Realty Asset Properties, Ltd. (“RAP”) and whether RAP assigned the legal malpractice claim to MTL. We reaffirm our opinion but grant rehearing to address Alexander’s argument that Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 885 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. 2008), affects the outcome of this case.
Conclusion (slip op. at 4): We conclude that Querrey is not instructive because, as Alexander concedes, Querrey did not involve a successor in interest situation. While Alexander’s petition for rehearing is granted, our original opinion stands in all respects.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 2-3): In Querrey, this court held that an excess insurer may not bring an action for legal malpractice against the insured’s attorneys . . . Alexander argues that if the Court bars an action by a subrogated insurer standing in the shoes of its insured, there is even more reason to bar an action by an entity that acquired its interest in an adversary proceeding. However, this court’s opinion did not focus on whether MTL received its interest through the settlement with CARP. Rather, this court focused on whether MTL was a successor in interest to RAP.