Opinion ID: 2351539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Plaintiff's Written Statement to Prudential

Text: The defendants next suggest that because plaintiff gave a written statement to Prudential in which he indicated that the carrier was not notified of his claim until February 14, 1991, he had obtained adequate knowledge of the facts underlying his lawyer's potential malpractice by the date on which he gave the statement. It is our opinion that defendants' argument does not pass muster. The five-page handwritten statement focuses primarily on the causes, circumstances, and injuries sustained by plaintiff in the motor vehicle accident with Talabach. It also briefly summarizes the travel of the case up to that time. Of significant importance, however, the statement does not refer to the circumstances surrounding the late filing, nor does it offer any explanation, defense, or other information relative to the late filing. The only reference made to the topic is Canavan's statement that [a]ccording to my attorney,    we first placed Prudential on notice for this claim on February 14, 1991, when we were notified by Hanover [Insurance Company] and Liberty Mutual Insurance [Company] that they only had minimal coverage in effect. This lone reference to the filing of the claim is insufficient to indicate that Canavan had any knowledge at that time from which to suspect that his attorneys' conduct may have been negligent. Thus, read in the light most favorable to Canavan, the statement does not demonstrate that plaintiff had an awareness of any facts on which to launch an investigation of potential malpractice by his attorneys.