Finlayson

Finlayson v. Sanbrook

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 4th 1436·13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1318·92 Daily Journal DAR 15275·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9206
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 12, 1992H009221California3,735 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cottle, J.

a legal malpractice action (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6) the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff suffers “actual injury.” (§ 340.6, subd. (a)(1).) “Actual injury,” the Supreme Court recently explained, occurs when a plaintiff suffers an adverse judgment or order of dismissal in the underlying action on which the malpractice action is based. (Laird v. Blacker (1992) 2 Cal.4th 606 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 550 , 828 P.2d 691 ].)

Relying on Laird , plaintiff argues the trial court erred in entering judgment for defendant on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiff’s suit was filed less than a year after he obtained an adverse judgment in his underlying personal injury suit.

Defendant also claims to rely on Laird . (More accurately, defendant relies on an Indiana case cited with approval by the Laird court.) The Indiana case holds that where the attorney malpractice consists of not filing an underlying action within the applicable statute of limitations, the statute on attorney malpractice begins to run when the underlying statute of limitations is missed. Although the Indiana statute is distinguishable, we believe the rule stated therein is sound and is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.