Court Opinion

ID: 9644608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:00:44.52286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:15.886188
License: Public Domain

STEIN, J.,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion and write separately only to emphasize that in my view the Court’s decision effects no material change in the liability of lawyers or other professionals to third parties. Accordingly, the calamitous consequences forecast by our dissenting colleague vastly overstate the effect of our holding and ignore its exceptional factual predicate.
The context in which the case arose emphasizes the limited contours of the Court’s holding. Defendant Herrigel, while representing a former owner of the property in question, prepared a composite of various percolation tests and transmitted the compos*490ite report to William G. Bachenberg, Jr. (Bachenberg) who later acquired the property. Concededly, the composite report did not accurately reflect the results of all of the percolation tests that had been done on the property.
Subsequently, when Bachenberg began negotiating the contract to sell the property to plaintiff, Lisa Petrillo, Herrigel was engaged to represent Bachenberg. Among the materials that Bachenberg furnished Petrillo was the composite percolation report. As the majority points out, “[Njothing in the record indicates that Herrigel informed Petrillo’s attorney of the test results that had been omitted from the composite report.” Ante at 476, 655 A.2d at 1356.
Under those specific circumstances, the Court concludes that “by providing the composite report to Bachenberg and subsequently representing him in the sale, Herrigel assumed a duty to Petrillo to provide reliable information regarding the percolation test.” Ante at 487, 655 A.2d at 1361. It will come as no surprise to the bar that the Court has decided that a properly instructed jury could conclude that Herrigel should have foreseen that the composite report would have been delivered to Petrillo and that she would have relied on it to her detriment. Because of the rather uncommon factual basis on which the Court’s decision rests, the likelihood that it will have a significant impact on the professional liability of lawyers to third parties is minimal indeed.