Title: Flowers v. Ramunno

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH M. FLOWERS,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LAWRENCE A. RAMUNNO, 
ESQUIRE,  
 
                    Defendant Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 211, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 10C-02-019 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                       Submitted: June 29, 2011 
 
Decided:    August 16, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 16th day of August 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Kenneth M. Flowers, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s March 29, 2011 order granting the motion for 
summary judgment of the defendant-appellee, Lawrence A. Ramunno, 
Esquire.1  Ramunno has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court’s original December 9, 2010 order was vacated because it was sent 
to the wrong address.  The order was re-issued on March 29, 2011. 
 
2
the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal 
is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on February 7, 2007, Flowers fell while 
in the United States Post Office in Wilmington, Delaware.  It appears that 
Flowers walked into a pole used to facilitate pedestrian traffic flow, 
sustaining personal injuries when he fell.  Flowers retained Ramunno to 
represent him on a personal injury claim.  According to Ramunno, Flowers 
was told that, if the claim could not be settled out of court, his firm reserved 
the option to decline to file a lawsuit, since the liability aspect of the case 
was weak.  After obtaining Flowers’ available medical records, Ramunno 
sent them, and a $150,000 demand, to the Post Office.  Ramunno spoke to 
the adjustor for the Post Office in November 2007.  The Post Office denied 
liability on the ground that the pole was in plain sight, but was willing to 
settle the case for a nuisance value of $5,000.   
 
(3) 
In December 2007, the attorney-client relationship between 
Flowers and Ramunno ended when Flowers refused to accept the $5,000 
offer and Ramunno refused to file suit against the Post Office.  In a letter 
dated December 5, 2007, Ramunno informed Flowers that, due to 
irreconcilable differences regarding the value and merit of the case, he was 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
no longer able to represent Flowers.  He informed Flowers of the applicable 
statute of limitations and advised Flowers to obtain the services of another 
attorney if he wished to file a lawsuit.  Flowers engaged the services of 
another attorney, but that attorney withdrew prior to the running of the 
statute of limitations.  Flowers ultimately accepted the $5,000 settlement 
offer.     
 
(4) 
Flowers then brought a legal malpractice action against 
Ramunno.  His complaint alleged that Ramunno failed to interview the 
pertinent witnesses, prepared an improper settlement demand and failed to 
obtain all pertinent medical records.  Ramunno filed a motion to dismiss or, 
in the alternative, for summary judgment.  Because materials outside the 
pleadings were presented, the Superior Court deemed the motion to be a 
motion for summary judgment.3  Following a hearing on the motion on 
August 19, 2010, the Superior Court granted the motion for summary 
judgment.   
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Flowers claims that a) the Superior Court erred 
when it granted Ramunno’s motion for summary judgment; b) if the case 
had been tried, he would have recovered more than $5,000; and c) because 
                                                 
3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56. 
 
4
of improper actions by Ramunno, he was forced to accept the $5,000 
settlement. 
 
(6) 
In an appeal to this Court from the Superior Court’s grant of 
summary judgment, this Court utilizes a de novo standard of review.4  On a 
motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that 
there are no genuine issues of material fact and that, viewing the facts in the 
light most favorable to the non-moving party, he is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law.5  On a claim of legal malpractice, the plaintiff must establish 
the following elements:  a) the employment of the attorney; b) the attorney’s 
neglect of a professional obligation; and c) resulting loss.6  In connection 
with the final element, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the underlying 
action would have been successful but for the attorney’s negligence.7  
Moreover, it is well-settled that expert testimony is necessary to support a 
claim of legal malpractice, except in those cases where the attorney’s 
mistakes are so obvious that such testimony is not required.8      
 
(7) 
We have undertaken a careful, de novo review of the record 
below.  We find that there was no error or abuse of discretion on the part of 
                                                 
4 ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 21 A.3d 62, 68 (Del. 2011). 
5 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c). 
6 Weaver v. Lukoff, Del. Supr., No. 15, 1986, McNeilly, J. (July 1, 1986) (citing Seiler v. 
Levitz Furniture Co., 367 A.2d 999, 1008 (1976)). 
7 Id. 
8 Brett v. Berkowitz, 706 A.2d 509, 517-18 (Del. 1998). 
 
5
the Superior Court when it granted Ramunno’s motion for summary 
judgment.  The Superior Court correctly found that, viewing the facts in the 
light most favorable to Flowers, there was no factual or legal basis upon 
which a trier of fact could conclude that there was professional negligence or 
that Flowers’ claim would have been successful but for Ramunno’s conduct.  
As such, we conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed on the basis of the decision of the Superior Court below.   
 
(8) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice