Court Opinion

ID: 9529809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:54:27.875973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:55.610629
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring.
While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I want to make clear that my concurrence is based upon the unique facts of this case, namely that the third party Directors were in fact substantial owners of the Bank, who was the client of the accountant. Although I am not in favor of permitting the assignability of malpractice claims to third parties, see Picadilly, Inc. v. Raikos, 582 N.E.2d 338, 339 (Ind.1991), in light of these specific facts, I agree with the majority's ultimate conclusion that the assignment of the accountant malpractice claim should not be prohibited here as it was reasonably foreseeable that the third party Directors would rely on the accountant's opinion. Therefore, I concur in result.