4-10 Consent

• Jurisdiction: United States

4-10 Consent

In George v. Cigna Ins. Co.,²⁸³ a law firm that was sued for malpractice by its former client, who was a lawyer, escaped liability due to the former client's consent to the settlement of the underlying legal malpractice case.

Ennia General Insurance Company had alleged that George had committed 135 acts of legal malpractice. The case was settled on terms highly favorable to George and his malpractice carrier (Cigna). In agreeing to the settlement, George thought his right to sue Ennia for malicious prosecution was being preserved.

When George later filed his malicious prosecution action, however, it was dismissed because of a settlement term that involved Cigna waiving its right to claim costs against Ennia. George therefore sued the law firm that Cigna had appointed to represent him, insisting that he had not agreed to any settlement that would preclude him from going forward with his malicious prosecution suit. The trial court entered summary judgment on numerous grounds, none of which are delineated in the appellate court's opinion.

The summary judgment was upheld by the appellate court.²⁸⁴ It found that George had consented to the settlement and it was "too late . . . to change his position."²⁸⁵George's failure to repudiate the settlement in the malicious prosecution case provided an additional basis for the court's ruling.²⁸⁶

--------

Notes:

^[283] George v. Cigna Ins. Co., 691 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App.), review denied, 699 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1997).

^[284] George v. Cigna Ins. Co., 691 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App.), review denied, 699 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1997).

^[285] George v. Cigna Ins. Co., 691 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App.), review denied, 699 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1997).

^[286] George v. Cigna Ins. Co., 691 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App.), review denied, 699 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1997).