The New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, in Bergen County, granted a motion for summary judgment in a legal malpractice case against a New Jersey attorney defended by Goldberg Segalla.

Goldberg Segalla’s client was the second lawyer of three representing homeowners in an action against their insurance company for breach of contract and consumer fraud claims related to a water loss in their home. The underlying action was removed from the trial calendar so the parties could pursue private mediation. When mediation was unsuccessful, the parties requested the case be returned to the active trial list. Shortly thereafter, Goldberg Segalla’s client successfully filed a motion to be relieved as counsel.

As the result of court error, the case was never returned to the active trial list. When the homeowners moved to have the case restored to the trial list, more than two years after Goldberg Segalla’s client terminated his representation of the homeowners, the court denied the motion relying on arguments raised by the homeowners’ insurer who was citing the wrong court rule and the wrong applicable standard for the motion. This resulted in the dismissal of the underlying first-party action.

The homeowners filed suit against their former attorney, whose defense was led by Goldberg Segalla’s Daniel S. Strick, a Philadelphia-based partner in the Management and Professional Liability practice group. During motion practice, Dan argued the underlying case was not dismissed because of any fault of his client, but rather as the result of several court errors leading to the failure to restore the underlying action to the trial list and the denial of the motion to reinstate the matter because the court relied upon the wrong New Jersey Rule of Court.

Ultimately — as the result of the compilation of a detailed timeline with supporting documents of the pleadings, court orders, and correspondence between subsequent counsel for the homeowners and the insurer — the judge restored the underlying case and returned it to the trial list, four years after it was dismissed.

Not done yet, as a result of the restoration of the underlying action, Dan filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Goldberg Segalla’s client, arguing there had been no legal malpractice committed, and the homeowners did not sustain any damages as a result of the restoration of the underlying case. The judge agreed that the homeowners, with the opportunity to have their day in court against their insurer, did not sustain any damages due to the alleged malpractice and also found that it did not need to determine whether any malpractice had occurred. However, the court acknowledged the legal malpractice action was filed only because of multiple court errors.

Dan’s efforts to have the underlying case restored to the active trial list and relentless arguments that there was no legal malpractice committed by his client, and that the underlying case was procedurally dismissed and not restored solely as the result of court error, proved to be instrumental in leading to the successful conclusion of the malpractice case for his client.