Collectibility In Legal Malpractice Suits - A Required Element In Proving Damages: Schmidt v. Coogan

In Schmidt v. Coogan, No. 41279-9-II, 2012 WL 5331567 (October 30, 2012), the Washington Court of Appeals held that (1) collectibility is a required component in determining legal malpractice damages and (2) the failure to prove collectability is fatal to a plaintiff trying to establish damages in a legal malpractice action.

The Underlying Facts

In Schmidt, plaintiff Teresa Schmidt retained attorney Timothy Coogan to represent her in a slip and fall action against a Tacoma grocery store. Coogan failed to file Schmidt's lawsuit before the statute of limitations expired and Schmidt sued Coogan for legal malpractice. Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict against Coogan for $32,000 in past economic damages and $180,500 in non-economic damages. Coogan moved for a new trial on the issue of damages and the trial court granted the new trial.

The Damages Only Trial

Following the close of Schmidt's case at the damages trial, Coogan moved for a judgment as a matter of law asserting, among other things, that Schmidt failed to present any evidence that, had Coogan originally filed this case within the statute of limitations and won a jury verdict, the verdict would have been collectible. In response, Schmidt argued the issue of collectibility should have been raised in the first trial and could not be raised in the second trial.

The trial court denied Coogan's motion, finding that Coogan should have raised the issue of collectibility at the first trial, not at the damages-only trial. The jury awarded Schmidt $3,733.16 in past economic damages and $80,000 in non-economic damages. Coogan filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or a new trial on the basis that Schmidt failed to establish collectibility. The trial court denied the motion and Coogan appealed.

Collectibility: An Essential Element of Damages

On review, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Coogan's motion because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Schmidt never proved collectibility, an essential component of damages in a legal malpractice claim. At best, Schmidt asserted that two pieces of evidence established collectibility. First, she...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT