Court Opinion

ID: 9627417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:43:19.865153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:47.560197
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
dissenting in part.
Ruddy contractually obligated himself to the Kaatz estate to assist in the prosecution of the estate’s case. In contesting the appellees’ motion for summary judgment, Ruddy did not assert as a matter of fact that he had performed additional services as counsel for the carrier in the prosecution of this case. Indeed, there is no suggestion in appellant’s brief that any such additional services were performed. Therefore, I do not agree that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether such services were performed and disagree with part III of today’s opinion which requires a re*1232mand in order to explore this question.1 In all other respects I agree with the opinion.

. Since Ruddy’s obligation was to use his best efforts on behalf of his first client, the Kaatz estate, it is difficult to imagine how any of his efforts in the prosecution of the case can be regarded as additional to this duty.