If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries

Professional Malpractice & Ethics
February 26, 2021

Table of Contents

ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Keller

Insurance Law, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

Montana Supreme Court

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Death Penalty Opponents Should Rethink Their Support for Life Without Parole Sentences

AUSTIN SARAT

verdict post

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—argues that life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP) are as problematic and damaging as the death penalty. For this reason, Professor Sarat calls upon death penalty opponents to reconsider their support for LWOP sentences.

Read More

Professional Malpractice & Ethics Opinions

ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Keller

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2021 MT 46

Opinion Date: February 23, 2021

Judge: Laurie McKinnon

Areas of Law: Insurance Law, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Company and declaring that ALPS owed no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants in a malpractice suit, holding that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to ALPS. ALPS brought this action seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defendant or indemnify Keller, Reynolds, Drake, Johnson & Gillespie, P.C. (the firm) or any of its members for claims Bryan Sandrock, GG&ME, LLC and DRAES, Inc. (collectively, Sandrock) asserted in a malpractice suit against the firm and three of its attorneys. In granting summary judgment for ALPS, the district court held that the firm's ALPS policy did not provide coverage for Sandrock's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that there was no coverage under the policy because a member of the firm knew the basis of the legal malpractice claim before the effective date of the policy.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 63 different newsletters, each covering a different practice area.

Justia also provides 68 daily jurisdictional newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043