Opinion ID: 2598807
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether State Farm would have denied a defense of the claim, even if prejudice did exist, is a disputed issue of material fact.

Text: Owens argues that State Farm's conduct is not relevant to Tush's legal malpractice case against Owens because this is not a coverage dispute between an insurer and an insured. However, because Owens is making a causation argument, in order to prevail on summary judgment he must show not only that State Farm was prejudiced but also that there is no genuine issue of material fact that State Farm would have denied the claim because of the prejudice. Owens has not met this burden. To bolster his position, Owens produced an expert opinion from William Marr, a team manager for State Farm. In Marr's opinion, had Owens tendered the claim to State Farm six to eight months before trial, when he first agreed to represent Tush, State Farm likely would have denied the claim as untimely and as prejudicial to its ability to properly investigate. Tush responded with the expert opinion of Roger Holmes, who opined that Marr's prediction of how State Farm would have reacted was wrong: I read what Mr. Marr said would have happened. And, in my opinion, that isn't what would have happened. They would have defended the case under a reservation of rights, or they would have defended it without a reservation of rights, if they decided that CHI counsel was too expensive. Expert witness Robert Wainscott also testified that State Farm would have most likely proceeded with a defense had Owens tendered the case, especially after the trial date was continued: And at the point in time where Tom Owens had an extension of time ... I would have, I would have proceeded with the coverage. I believe they would have accepted the tender, probably, under reservation of rights, I would guess. I'm just guessing. I'm guessing what I would have done if I was in their shoes. In sum, even if State Farm suffered prejudice by the delay in tender, there is a genuine question of material fact as to whether State Farm might have accepted the tender of the Perez claim. In these circumstances, summary judgment on Owens's motion was improper.