Case Name: REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. Sherman LEVEY, d/b/a Pokorny's Shoe Store, et al.; HANNAH DANSKY ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a The Shoe Box v. Sadie J. DANNENBAUM, Widow of Ralph P. Levey, Sr., Douglas P. Levey, Mrs. Nan Levey, Ralph P. Levey III, Robert Levey and Travelers Insurance Company
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1992-03-17
Citations: 595 So. 2d 1255
Docket Number: Nos. 91-CA-0529, 91-CA-0530
Parties: REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. Sherman LEVEY, d/b/a Pokorny’s Shoe Store, et al. HANNAH DANSKY ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a The Shoe Box v. Sadie J. DANNENBAUM, Widow of Ralph P. Levey, Sr., Douglas P. Levey, Mrs. Nan Levey, Ralph P. Levey III, Robert Levey and Travelers Insurance Company.
Judges: Before BARRY and CIACCIO, JJ., and GULOTTA, J., pro tern.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 595
Pages: 1255–1259

Head Matter:
REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. Sherman LEVEY, d/b/a Pokorny’s Shoe Store, et al. HANNAH DANSKY ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a The Shoe Box v. Sadie J. DANNENBAUM, Widow of Ralph P. Levey, Sr., Douglas P. Levey, Mrs. Nan Levey, Ralph P. Levey III, Robert Levey and Travelers Insurance Company.
Nos. 91-CA-0529, 91-CA-0530.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 17, 1992.
Rehearing Denied April 22, 1992.
Barry, J., dissented with reasons, and voted to grant rehearing.
Harry D. Hoskins, III, Michael Wanek, Hulse, Nelson & Wanek, New Orleans, for appellant.
W.K. Christovich, Christovich & Kear-ney, New Orleans, for appellee.
Before BARRY and CIACCIO, JJ., and GULOTTA, J., pro tern.

Opinion:
CIACCIO, Judge.
Hannah Dansky Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a "The Shoe Box", plaintiff-appellant, appeals the dismissal of its legal malpractice suit on an exception of prescription.
FACTS
On December 6, 1984 a fire destroyed Pokorny's Shoe Store, 124 St. Charles Avenue, and damaged adjacent businesses. Plaintiff operated a women's shoe store adjacent to the Pokorny building at 126 St. Charles Avenue. Meyer The Hatter was located on the other side of the Porkorny building and Hotel Le Meridien is behind the Pokorny building.
The Pokorny building was owned by Sadie J. Dannenbaum, widow of Ralph P. Levey, Sr., Douglas P. Levey, Mrs. Nan Levey, wife of Malcolm A. Coco, Nancy Levey, Ralph P. Levey III, and Robert Le-vey (Owners). The building was leased to M. Pokorny & Sons, Ltd. (Pokorny's) who operated a shoe store on the lower two floors. Douglas Levey, a co-owner of Po-korny's, was Chairman of the Board, agent for service of process, an employee and stockholder of Pokorny's. Pokorny's and the building owners are insured under one liability policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company.
Seven lawsuits were filed as a result of the fire. The first suit was filed on November 27, 1985 by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) against "Sherman Levey d/b/a Pokorny's Shoe Store" and Travelers. On December 3, 1985 the Milling, Benson law firm, defendant herein, filed suit on behalf of Samuel H. and William A. Meyer, owners of the Meyer Building, and Meyer The Hatter, Ltd. naming the individual owners of the Pokorny building and Travelers as defendants. On December 4, 1985 Milling, Benson filed a similar suit against the same defendants on behalf of Hotel Le Meridien's insurer. On December 4, 1985 Milling, Benson filed suit on behalf of plaintiff against the Pokorny building owners and Travelers. According to a notation on plaintiff's check dated December 4, 1986 and made payable to Milling, Benson, the law firm was employed to "instigate . [a] law suit [sic] by 12/6/85 against Pokorny's." The three suits filed by Milling, Benson did not name Pokorny's as a defendant.
On December 23,1985 the seven lawsuits were consolidated.
On January 28, 1986 Milling, Benson wrote a letter to plaintiff advising that the firm was withdrawing as counsel and recommended Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O'Bannon who represented several parties in the pending litigation. Bienvenu, Foster was unable to represent plaintiff so plaintiff retained Herman, Herman, Katz & Cot-lar who enrolled as counsel on September 11, 1986. On September 14, 1987 Harry Hoskins became counsel and he associated Michael Wanek of Hulse, Nelson & Wanek.
On April 8, 1988 Mr. Hoskins filed an amended petition which added "Pokorny and Sons, Ltd." and Travelers as defendants. The amended petition alleged that Pokorny's, as lessee, was solidarily liable with the owners of the Pokorny building; alternatively, plaintiff claimed that Pokor-ny's was solely liable. On April 26, 1988 Pokorny's answered and averred that the claim against Pokorny's had prescribed.
In a letter to Judge Garvey dated November 18, 1988 Mr. Hoskins concluded that "there was no basis for a claim against the owners and, as a result, the solidary liability exception for interruption or prescription on the claim against Pokor-ny was no longer valid." That is, according to Mr. Hoskins, the suit against Pokor-ny's had prescribed. Mr. Hoskins' opinion was based on a deposition given by Douglas Levey in an unrelated case which was brought to Mr. Hoskins' attention on June 17, 1988.
Plaintiff alleges that in July of 1988 its claims against Pokorny's, the building owners and Travelers were settled for less than the amount of its damages because Milling, Benson failed to timely file suit against Pokorny's.
On August 24, 1988 plaintiff filed a second amended petition which named Milling, Benson and its insurer, ALAS, as defendants. Plaintiff claims that Milling, Benson committed malpractice by failing to timely sue Pokorny's, the lessee.
Milling, Benson and ALAS filed exceptions of prescription which were maintained by the trial court, thereby dismissing plaintiff's suit. In its reasons for judgment the court stated:
Applying the doctrine of contra non va-lentem, the one year statute of limitations of C.C. art. 3492 began to run on any malpractice action against the Milling law firm ("Milling") on the date (11 September 1986) Nahum Laventhal and the Herman, Herman & Cotlar law firm became counsel of record for the plaintiff, Hannah Dansky Enterprises, Inc. Milling withdrew representation in February 1986. Laventhal and the Herman law firm became the plaintiff's agent when they enrolled. An attorney-at-law is the agent for his client. Thus the Herman law firm's failure to join Pokor-ny's, Inc. (although Pokorny's insurer, Travelers was named) formally insulates Milling. That is to say, their knowledge of the facts and their action or inaction is imputed to the plaintiff. Milling was not joined as a party-defendant until 24 August 1988. Such is more than one year after the date Milling withdrew as counsel and more than one year after the date Hannah Dansky Enterprises, Inc.'s new attorney enrolled. Plaintiff's claim is prescribed.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that no damage was sustained for the failure of the Milling firm to sue the lessee until plaintiff settled its claims in June of 1988. Plaintiff argues therefore that its action against the Milling firm in August of 1988 was brought within the one year prescriptive period. Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred by applying the one year prescriptive period, rather, the ten year prescriptive period applies because Milling, Benson expressly warranted a specific result.
DISCUSSION
It is well established that an action for legal malpractice normally states a cause of action in tort and is subject to a one year prescriptive period. La.C.C. art. 3492. It is only when an attorney expressly warrants a specific result, or agrees to perform certain work and does nothing, that the cause of action is in contract and subject to the ten year prescriptive period as provided by La.C.C. art. 3499. Gifford v. New England Reinsurance Corporation, 488 So.2d 736 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986).
In the present case, plaintiff submitted an affidavit which stated she was assured by an attorney for Milling, Benson at the time the firm was retained that prescription would be interrupted by the filing of a suit on her behalf. We do not construe this allegation as an express warranty or contract made by Milling, Benson which would give rise to the application of the longer prescriptive period. We conclude that any claims plaintiffs may have against Milling, Benson are governed by a one year prescriptive period.
We next turn to the issue of when prescription began to run. Prescription commences to run from the day injury or damage is sustained. La.C.C. art. 3492 (1983); Brand v. New England Insurance Company, 576 So.2d 466 (La.1991).
The alleged wrongful conduct in this case occurred when the attorney for the Milling firm failed to join the lessee as a party defendant. It is well settled that under the doctrine of contra non valen-tem, prescription is suspended during an attorney's continuous representation of the client. Malone v. Wright, 525 So.2d 13 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988). Brand, supra. Plaintiff therefore could not have brought its malpractice suit against the Milling firm until the attorney-client relationship was severed. However, once the Milling firm was dismissed as attorney of record in February of 1986 and the Herman firm enrolled as counsel in September of 1986, plaintiff was free to bring a malpractice claim against Milling.
There is no evidence to indicate plaintiffs previous counsel concealed facts or engaged in fraudulent practices which prejudiced plaintiffs rights to bring a malpractice claim. At this point, plaintiffs new attorneys knew or should have known from the pleadings and the record that M. Pokorny and Sons, Ltd. had not been made a party defendant. This knowledge of the attorney, actual or otherwise, is imputed to the plaintiff. Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc., v. XYZ Insurance Co., Nathan Greenberg, et al, 520 So.2d 1292 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988).
Therefore, we conclude that the one year prescriptive period began to run on September 11, 1986, the date the Herman firm formally enrolled as counsel of record for Hannah Dansky. Plaintiff had until September of 1987 to file a claim against the Milling firm, and plaintiffs legal malpractice action filed on August 24, 1988 has therefore prescribed.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiffs claim against the Milling firm and ALAS is affirmed.
AFFIRMED