What a difference a sentence in the retainer agreement can make. In Matz v Aboulafia Law Firm, LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 32147(U) October 10, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 155506/2016 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed, these words led to dismissal against the attorneys: [the Aboulafia Firm] “is to do no further work on this claim other than starting a suit against [Marine]. If further work is required, a separate retainer agreement must be executed by [plaintiffs].” They were then sued for failing to bring in other insurance companies.
“Whether an attorney has an obligation to investigate insurance coverage depends, in large part, on the scope of the agreed representation by the attorney. See Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34 (2d Dept 2006). Here, since the retainer agreement executed between plaintiffs and the Aboulafia firm, which constitutes “documentary evidence” within the purview of that section (see generally Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d 78, 84-85 [2d Dept 2010]), clearly limits the firm’s representation only to commencing a property damage claim against Marine. Doc. 26. That agreement further provides that the Aboulafia Firm “is to do no further work on this claim other than starting a suit against [Marine]. If further work is required, a separate retainer agreement must be executed by [plaintiffs].” Id. Given the express limitation on the scope of the Aboulafia firm’s representation, plaintiffs’ claim that Aboulafia and/or the Aboulafia Firm should have taken further steps to investigate other possible insurance coverage is thus without merit. See Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) Rule I .2(c). “