02-2-4846 New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. , App. Div. (Fuentes, J.A.D.) (17 pp.) Consistent with the Court’s holding in Sears Mortgage Corp. v. Rose , 134 N.J. 326 (1993), we hold a title insurance company liable to its insureds for the defalcation of the closing attorney, because the carrier’s written notice disclaiming any agency relationship between the attorney and the carrier was sent only to the wayward attorney, and not to the insureds. We further hold the carrier vicariously liable for the attorney’s defalcation, even though the theft of clients’ funds occurred before the creation of an agency relationship. The harm caused by the attorney to his clients cannot be isolated to any discrete act. Here, the chain of defalcation continued long after the agency relationship was created. [Decided Aug. 4, 2009.]
ATTORNEY/CLIENT — AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT — LEGAL MALPRACTICE
04-2-4847 Stoecker v. Echevarria , App. Div. (Yannotti, J.A.D.) (34 pp.) The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim with prejudice because plaintiff failed to serve an affidavit of merit within the time required by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. Plaintiff did not establish that her failure to comply with the statute was due to exceptional circumstances, she substantially complied with the statute or defendant should be estopped from seeking dismissal of the claim. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the affidavit of merit statute did not, however, bar plaintiff from asserting a claim against her attorney for fraud because that claim did not require proof that the attorney deviated from the standard of care applicable to the legal profession. [Decided Aug. 4, 2009.] [Digested at page 37.]
