Opinion
File No. 220969
The plaintiff, a client of the defendant attorney in an action against a third party, failed to counter the defendant's contention that the legal malpractice action brought against him here by the plaintiff was not sustainable for the reason that any judgment the plaintiff might have obtained in his action against the third party was not collectible. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.
Memorandum filed September 5, 1984.
Memorandum of decision on the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Motion granted.
Moynahan Ruskin, for the plaintiff.
Wiggin Dana, for the defendant.
The complaint in the present action alleges a claim of legal malpractice on the part of the defendant attorney, who has moved for a summary judgment.
The thrust of the defendant's motion is that in a legal malpractice action the plaintiff must prove not only that had it not been for the attorney's delict a judgment would have been obtained but also that such a judgment was collectible.
In support of his motion the defendant offers the fact that in response to interrogatories and a request for production directed to the plaintiff's ability to collect any judgment obtained against the third party (Luigi Orsini) the plaintiff listed certain insurance policies, which the defendant points out do not provide coverage for the third party.
The plaintiff has not filed a counteraffidavit or furnished other documentary evidence suggesting the existence of a disputed factual issue. Further, the plaintiff has not filed any writing placing in issue the factual content or interpretation of policies of insurance which he has offered in satisfaction of the requirement in this type of case relating to collectibility of any judgment which may have been obtained. See Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking Co., 190 Conn. 8, 11-12, 459 A.2d 115 (1983).