Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Williams v. Beckham & McAliley, P.A.
Citations: 582 So. 2d 1206; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5723; 1991 WL 110455Docket: No. 90-00472
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 19, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court
The Williamses appealed the trial court's summary judgment favoring the law firm Beckham McAliley in a legal malpractice case. They argued that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly alleging the firm did not adequately investigate potential remedies following the wrongful death of their daughter, Tammy Sue Williams, who was killed in a 1979 automobile accident. Beckham McAliley filed the wrongful death suit, but it was dismissed in 1983 for failure to prosecute. In their renewed summary judgment motion, Beckham McAliley presented testimony from attorney Homer M. Marlow, which affirmed that the firm conducted a thorough investigation into the accident. The investigation revealed that the driver responsible, Mr. Chancey, was at fault but lacked insurance or an estate, making recovery impossible. The firm also looked into uninsured motorist coverage, which the Williamses had rejected, and assessed other potential liability avenues, including the Florida Department of Transportation and tavern owner liability, all of which were found unviable. The court determined Beckham McAliley met its burden of proving no genuine issue of material fact existed, while the Williamses failed to substantiate their claims. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Beckham McAliley was affirmed. Mr. Sansone testified about the longstanding relationship between Beckham McAliley and the Williamses, emphasizing the firm's sympathy towards their situation. Recognizing that monetary damages were unlikely to be collected, Sansone filed a lawsuit before the statute of limitations expired to preserve the claim, despite the firm having no intention to actively pursue it, a fact communicated to the Williamses. Mr. Williams corroborated this testimony. Although the Williamses claimed the firm failed to investigate their case, they did not dispute Beckham McAliley's assertions. The Williamses suggested that Beckham McAliley should have pursued a claim against Lynch to access his father's $10,000 insurance policy, citing an affidavit from a forensic physicist and a claims adjuster from U.S.F.G., Lynch's insurer, which implied potential fault on Lynch’s part. However, the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that Lynch was not contributorily negligent. The claims adjuster's statements were inconsistent with an earlier investigation report that found no liability for Lynch. Mr. Marlow's testimony supported that Beckham McAliley conducted a thorough investigation regarding the accident's responsibility. The investigation concluded that due to the high speed of another party, Chancey, there was no actionable fault on Lynch’s part. Pursuing a claim against Lynch merely for insurance coverage would violate professional ethics, as outlined in the Florida Bar's oath and the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. The firm had no obligation to pursue a claim against Lynch after determining his lack of liability. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Beckham McAliley.