Court Opinion

ID: 9715542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:08:19.681754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:35.585864
License: Public Domain

WILNER, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reach by the Court. I would reach that result, however, by using the approach set forth in § 552 of the Restatement (Second) op Torts, rather than by tying ourselves to one 1985 case from New York.
As Chief Judge Bell points out, the Restatement approach has been adopted in 28 States and clearly represents the majority sentiment throughout the country. Accounting firms, increasingly, are national, or at least regional, in their *695operations, and it seems to me wiser to choose consistency with that majority view. We gain little by tying ourselves to the separate view of one State. The fact patterns that arise in this area obviously vary, and all concerned — the accounting profession, those who insure accountants against malpractice claims, those who deal with accountants, and the legal community that either advises accountants or becomes involved in malpractice claims — would be better served by having that larger body of case law, that is followed in most of the rest of the country, as guidance. The Restatement view, moreover, is a reasonable one. It limits the accountant’s liability for professional negligence to the accountant’s client and to those third parties to whom the accountant either intends to supply the information or actually knows the client intends to supply it. That limited extension of liability is entirely appropriate.