$64M Malpractice Verdict Against Ex-Dickstein Partner Still Ensnares Firm, Insurers
Dickstein may be long gone, and a partner accused of malpractice there died in 2013, but that didn't stop new litigation from erupting this month over who should foot the bill.
April 10, 2018 at 06:32 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Dickstein Shapiro collapsed more than two years ago, and a former California partner at the firm, Clyde Hettrick, has been dead nearly five years. But Hettrick's time at Dickstein is still generating fresh litigation, with an excess insurer for the firm filing a federal lawsuit April 6 aimed at shedding potential responsibility for a chunk of a $64 million malpractice verdict.
Facing a possible $4.35 million obligation, Scottsdale Insurance Co. said in a complaint filed in California's Central District that Dickstein's primary policy holders invited the 2014 verdict by their refusal to defend the firm in a malpractice suit against Hettrick brought by onetime client Manhattan Beachwear LLC.
Hettrick left the firm in 2008. He died in 2013, at the age of 52.
Hettrick joined Dickstein in 2005, when the firm—then in an expansionary mode—established a beachhead on the West Coast by absorbing Los Angeles-based Pasich & Kornfeld. Three years later, he departed to form Hettrick Law PC.
Five months before his exit, however, Hettrick was retained by Manhattan Beachwear to represent the company in claims against certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London over losses sustained as a result of a fire and theft. He continued to represent the company at the new firm, where he ultimately sued the insurers in January 2009.
That representation eventually prompted Manhattan Beachwear to file a California state court malpractice suit in late 2012, alleging that Hettrick mishandled the case and cost the company $11 million.
According to the April 6 complaint, Hettrick and his attorney then put Dickstein on notice that they believed that suit pinpointed malpractice that occurred while he was at the firm. But Dickstein's primary insurers, including Lexington Insurance Co. and Swiss Re, then declined to provide coverage in the case.
After Hettrick's death, his firm and estate reached a settlement with Manhattan Beachwear in which the estate agreed not to contest the claims against it at trial, while the company agreed not to collect on any judgment against the estate.
The estate then went undefended at a bench trial, held over two days in June 2015, which prompted a whopping $63.89 million judgment against Hettrick. That included almost $10 million in direct losses and nearly $49 million in consequential damages over a delayed business acquisition.
Manhattan Beachwear then assigned its rights to an entity named SFA Group LLC, which sued Dickstein's insurers in California state court in 2016, alleging that they were unjustified in refusing to both defend and indemnify Hettrick.
That move put Scottsdale on the hook, as one of the excess insurers responsible for the first $15 million beyond the firm's primary $15 million in insurance coverage. Scottsdale is specifically responsible for 29 percent of that second layer of coverage, or $4.35 million.
“Defendant insurers did not consult with Scottsdale Insurance Company about their decision to disclaim coverage (which included the refusal to defend Hettrick), and did not consult with Scottsdale Insurance Company about the terms, conditions, and exclusions upon which they were relying in support of their coverage disclaimer,” the insurer said in the suit.
The April 6 suit also names Dickstein as a defendant, and it seeks a declaration that it's not liable to the firm or the primary insurers for any coverage under the excess policy.
Dorsey & Whitney partner Faisal Zubairi, who represents Scottsdale, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did representatives for the insurers.
Counsel information for the defendants was not available Tuesday, but Dickstein has been represented in other post-dissolution proceedings by bankruptcy attorneys at Klestadt Winters Jureller Southard & Stevens.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Jefferson Doctor Hit With $6.8M Verdict Over Death of 64-Year-Old Cancer Patient
- 2Seven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
- 3What Went Wrong With Adeel Mangi's Long, Strange Trip Through the Judicial Nomination Process?
- 4Defense Counsel Turns $2.2 Million Broward Jury Verdict to $500K
- 5United Soccer League Scores General Counsel
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250